[QUOTE=Madpoo;395955]I could share what those 4 are but then you'd see whose account it is I'm talking about. :smile:[/QUOTE]

As my GF often tells me, "Do it yourself; it's a small job".... :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;395957]As my GF often tells me, "Do it yourself; it's a small job".... :wink:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, TMI. :smile:

Well, I just found out something else too... I tried to use the manual assignment page to pick a couple of these and test them to see if they're okay or not.

Turns out it's hard to use that page to reserve a specific exponent for double-checking...

George might weigh in on this in case I'm totally wrong, but it looks like when you manually assign exponents, it creates a new computer in your account called "Manual testing". If you look at your account and the CPU's, you'll see it in there along with another special CPU "v4_computers" if you've ever used an older client.

That "machine" has certain fixed values that feed into the reliability assessments. Which makes sense because on that page, there's no way of knowing which actual machine will be doing the test. Some normally reliable *user* might put this work on a very unreliable *cpu*.

Speaking of, when looking into that I saw that there already is the concept of computer reliability that happens when a CPU is requesting more work. So as usual George is way ahead on that. You can look at the CPU page in your account and see that reliability index. Now watch... I'll suggest that if a previous result that seemed error free turns out to be bad, it should update that index, and then I'll find out it already does that. :)

(PS to George...the various thresholds for $MinExp probably need updating).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396025]George might weigh in on this in case I'm totally wrong, but it looks like when you manually assign exponents, it creates a new computer in your account called "Manual testing". If you look at your account and the CPU's, you'll see it in there along with another special CPU "v4_computers" if you've ever used an older client.

That "machine" has certain fixed values that feed into the reliability assessments. Which makes sense because on that page, there's no way of knowing which actual machine will be doing the test. Some normally reliable *user* might put this work on a very unreliable *cpu*.
[/QUOTE]

Turns out there's some code in the manual assignments that checks if an exponent is factored to at least 71 bits... the ones I'm trying to do are only factored to 70 bits (they're in the 40M-50M range). I kind of thought those had all been done up to 71 or 72 but I guess not entirely.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396033]Turns out there's some code in the manual assignments that checks if an exponent is factored to at least 71 bits... the ones I'm trying to do are only factored to 70 bits (they're in the 40M-50M range). I kind of thought those had all been done up to 71 or 72 but I guess not entirely.[/QUOTE]

Please do keep in mind the status of each candidate... No LL, no DC, matching LLs, factored.

[QUOTE=chalsall;396040]Please do keep in mind the status of each candidate... No LL, no DC, matching LLs, factored.[/QUOTE]

Well, let me be more precise... it looks like there's some code that makes sure any double-check requests are factored to at least 71 bits, and first-time checks to at least 73 bits.

That probably fairly represents most of what's out there for current assignments.

In my case I was trying to manually assign some pretty specific ones in advance of the current batch of double-checks and I suppose the TF to higher bit levels just isn't there yet?

No worries of course, it just had me scratching my noggin' to figure out why I was getting an error for my request...just a minor mystery.

By the way, 2 of those last 3 exponents below 55M (the ones being done by user "Haoran") are progressing REALLY slow.

I was curious about their progress and it looks like over a 4 day period they progress about 0.4% - 0.5%. Since they're at ~65% done it's going to take them probably another 8-9 months.

That 3rd one being done by user "Ollum98" is also progressing pretty slow... about 0.1% each time it checks in every 3-4 days. It's at 96.20% but still, at that rate we're still looking at 3-4 months to completion.

These must really be running like only a few hours a day or something because their ETA's they're calculating when they check in are VERY wrong, but I think we established that previously.

Thoughts from the crowd? I've already done my own LL tests on these 3 but just holding them as double-checks since I figured they'd be done sooner than the end of 2015...now I'm skeptical. It's just weird to me to take nearly 2 years for one LL test.

If I did check in my results, these other runs would still be double-checks, but if anyone thought that's a bad idea I'll do nothing. :) It is an essentially meaningless milestone (first time < 55M done)... it'll also hold up the <56M and probably <57M first-time checks too. I think it'd be kind of lame if it held up the countdown to first time checks up to M48...

I haven't thought out whether even these grandfathered assignments might actually be subject to expiration in the next 8-9 months?

Holding them for DC is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Give them the time that the rules say they should have, and then submit them as LL's and wait for their work to come in as a DC.

Just make sure that they don't get assigned to someone else in the meantime.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396132]I've already done my own LL tests on these 3 ... If I did check in my results, these other runs would still be double-checks, but if anyone thought that's a bad idea I'll do nothing.?[/QUOTE]I say check them in now. Productivity is not reduced and it could stop someone else doing another set of LL tests and wasting their time.

[QUOTE=retina;396136]I say check them in now. Productivity is not reduced and it could stop someone else doing another set of LL tests and wasting their time.[/QUOTE]

That's my inclination, but then I'm probably just annoyed at it taking so long. LOL

On a brighter note, I'm doing checks on some of these "suspicious" results that were turned in by flaky computers. Two of them finished up in the past 24 hours... one double-checked okay, one was a "success" in that it proved the original result was in fact bad. Proof of my assertion that these bad computers really shouldn't be trusted.

Good thing we double-check each exponent as a matter of course, but it'd be nice to find these possibly flaky first-time checks and do a quicker double-check on them.

Odds of a missing prime lurking among the few hundred/couple thousand between M45 and M48 are unlikely but that'd sure be weird, and a little cool.

Knocking out these suspicious results will help me sleep better at night anyway. If I start with the most obviously suspicious ones, there were less than 10 (machines that had done over 100 results of which > 70% are known to be bad). Once those are cleared I can broaden to some less likely but still highly probably bad results... at least 50 results by that computer where more than 50% are bad. Even then it's still 16 currently. I have to really start stretching it like > 10 results and > 50% failures to get to 36 possibles.

Once I drop the failure rate to something like > 25% failures, that's when it gets to be a bigger pool... > 10 results of which > 25% are bad = 378 exponents. If we guessed 20-30% of those are also bad, then we're cooking.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396132]I haven't thought out whether even these grandfathered assignments might actually be subject to expiration in the next 8-9 months?[/QUOTE]

The one at 96.2% will expire ~ June 4th 2015 + 3.33 days for every extra percent done "plus a grace period if close to finished" (unspecified grace period).

The one at 64.1% will expire ~ May 15th 2015 + 3.33 days for every extra percent done

The one at 63.4% will expire ~ May 13th 2015 + 3.33 days for every extra percent done

From what you said they are doing less than 0.3% per day (1% in 3.33 days), so they will eventually expire, except the one at 96.2% might just make it if it does 0.1% every 3 days and depending on the grace period.

[QUOTE=retina;396136]I say check them in now. Productivity is not reduced and it could stop someone else doing another set of LL tests and wasting their time.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;396138]That's my inclination, but then I'm probably just annoyed at it taking so long. LOL[...][/QUOTE]
I'll be as unpopular as I always am, but I'm still going to say this.:smile:

Productivity is not the only consideration here.

If I was the assignee doing the first time test slowly but surely, I'd be pretty annoyed if you pinched my assignment and relegated my work to a DC. I'd be embarrassed that someone had thought it necessary to do this, and I'd feel worthless as a GIMPS participant as a result.

Every participant in this project is an individual. Some of us work with only one slow machine and have the client software running only part time. That does not mean we are any less enthusiastic than those of you who throw entire farmyards of hardware at the project. Taking part and meaning something is what motivates us.

I agree with you, retina, that the assignment may well get poached by others anyway. But I don't like to see prominent participants here condoning such impatient behaviour.

[end of sour rant]
:alex::leaving: