[QUOTE=Madpoo;402580]Ditto on the double-check milestones. Call me lazy. :) If you click on the links to see the assignment report, it only includes the stuff for that specific range.[/QUOTE]

Specifically for the milestones with very few remaining exponents...

The lone 54M exponent should finish (I hope) by June 15 but as I mentioned earlier, it's progress has been pretty sporadic. It will definitely expire no matter what once it reaches it's 665 day old limit in 29 more days at the most. If it fails to progress at all past 99% it will expire in just 25 days. I'll check in my own result for that one once the assigned user checks theirs in, or just before it would expire anyway.

For the 55M exponents (3 of them), one of those probably won't finish until March 2016, but it'll expire before then (104 days if it didn't progress at all, but a bit longer if it continues on it's plodding rate of progress). The other two should finish around the end of June or early July.

On the 56M exponents (4 of them), all but one of those shows a pretty accurate estimate right there on the report page. One of them has an ETA of June 4th but I'm estimating June 17. Close enough. They'll all make it.

For the double-check milestone, there was one that checked in today (it had expired and the new assignee finished it in a day). Of the 5 left, none will finish before they're expired.

Those 5 are NOT grandfathered, so different rules apply. I checked out how the rules apply to those, and they're in a category that gives them 240 days to finish. One only has 11 days left before that, and at it's current rate it'll take another 104 days. The other 4 have between 50-60 days before they expire but they're going to take 230-240 more days to finish, so they'll expire for sure in a couple months.

I hope that helps explain why I didn't try that hard to clarify the "how many are left" #'s since they'll only be there a couple months at most. LOL

(I probably spent more time writing this than it would have taken to just clarify the language or correct the query). :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;402518]
(I probably spent more time writing this than it would have taken to just clarify the language or correct the query). :smile:[/QUOTE]

You've explained only for this particular few months of time. But in a year the code will still be inaccurate, and you'll have to explain how we simply need to wait a few months again.

Best just fix the query now and be done with it.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M(57885161) once: 911
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 58M: 903 (135 still unassigned)

Doesn't add up in my interpretation?

No point in having a countdown that is deliberately wrong., just remove it or fix it in my opinion. Only those of us following this thread have any idea about when exponents will expire/finish and it makes no sense people would have to know that in order to find the correct value of the countdown.

[QUOTE=ATH;402603]No point in having a countdown that is deliberately wrong., just remove it or fix it in my opinion. Only those of us following this thread have any idea about when exponents will expire/finish and it makes no sense people would have to know that in order to find the correct value of the countdown.[/QUOTE]

There, fixed. :smile:

EDIT: FYI, I really was just trying to get those new stats out there sooner. I think in the past, the new milestones only showed up once the current one had been checked off. I had those changes ready to go and I was double-checking the thing that shows how many are unassigned, and figured I'd have those show up on the actual page. Seems like it was just more confusing than helpful. Whoops.

< 34M double-checked
 

I just checked in results for the last 5 exponents in the 33M range.

See my analysis above, but in summary, one of them only had 10 more days to finish before it expired but it wouldn't have finished for another 104 days. The other 4 had 50-60 days to finish but were going to take another 225-240 days, so they would have expired before finishing as well.

Now that I have a setup to track the actual progress, I feel more confident about the decision to poach them.

I also have some insight on why this particular user's work might be going so darn slow. The user in question is running all of this work on a 6-core E5-1650 processor with one assignment on each of the 6 cores.

I know from my own experimentation that even 2 assignments in that range will seriously flood the memory channel and slow down both of them. I can only speculate what kind of thrashing goes on with *six* of those going on at the same time on one CPU. No wonder it was only moving along at 0.3% per day on average for each one.

If the user had merely setup all 6 cores in a single worker, it would probably take 36-40 hours per exponent in that 33M range and all 6 of those would have been done in a couple weeks. The way it is now, it'd be lucky to finish 6 assignments in under a year.

Anyway, milestone page is duly updated.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;402616]...Anyway, milestone page is duly updated.[/QUOTE]

Umm... before anyone points this out:

The milestone page shows 897 left for the < 58M, with 116 unassigned (as of right now). By my math that should mean there are 781 assignments for first-time checks in that range.

However, if you actually look at the # of assignments here:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=54000000&exp_hi=58000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=54000000&exp_hi=58000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]

You'll count just 778. Where are those other 3?

I wondered too so I dug into it. For some reason there are 3 exponents where the first check is marked as "suspect" and they currently aren't reassigned to anyone. For whatever reason it's messing up the query counts. I'd actually noticed the discrepancy before but haven't had time to dig into it. Now that I know whassup [sic] I might be able to fix that and get it accurate again.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;402637]...For some reason there are 3 exponents where the first check is marked as "suspect" and they currently aren't reassigned to anyone. For whatever reason it's messing up the query counts. I'd actually noticed the discrepancy before but haven't had time to dig into it. Now that I know whassup [sic] I might be able to fix that and get it accurate again.[/QUOTE]

Fixed. Okay, milestone page updated to show the countdown to <58M, and for the nitpickers I included the handful in the <56M and <57M ranges.

For purposes of showing how many are left, I'm going with the notion that even if there's a test for an exponent like [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M57841879"]M57841879[/URL] where the one and only run is marked as 'suspect' in the database, then it doesn't really count? I haven't seen the assignment logic but in a case like that it may treat the exponent as a first-time check so it gets reassigned thusly (not waiting for the double-checkers).

Once all the #'s in a milestone are actually assigned it doesn't matter, but it threw it off a wee bit, just enough in this case to make it interesting.

Final 3 under 56M
 

Well, from what I can tell based on the progress of these 3 assignments, they all [I]should[/I] finish in time based on their rate of progress:
[CODE]54357769 2015-06-09 21:45
55027163 2015-06-30 13:48
55079077 2015-07-05 13:16[/CODE]

I'm keeping an eye on that 54M one since it's been pretty choppy, but dadgumit it's 99.2% done, yet it's going to expire pretty soon since it's 637 days old. The other 2 are a "mere" 556 days old and are at 85-86% done, and moving at a blazingly slow 0.33% per day or so. They're barely able to keep up with the exception for a grandfathered assignment in progress, but just barely.

Right now, at least, I expect all 3 should complete before they expire.

To remind, you already DC/TC those three, and they are not prime. But you did not report the result, waiting for the original assignee to report first and take the LL credit, then you will report and take the DC credit. This reminder is to avoid someone else wasting his resources on poaching them.

[QUOTE=LaurV;402724]To remind, you already DC/TC those three, and they are not prime. But you did not report the result, waiting for the original assignee to report first and take the LL credit, then you will report and take the DC credit. This reminder is to avoid someone else wasting his resources on poaching them.[/QUOTE]

Actually I've done my own test of that 54M exponent, but not the two 55M exponents. I have a better feeling about those 2 finishing so I wasn't too concerned (impatient of course, but not concerned that they'd expire first) :smile: