[QUOTE=chalsall;423765]That was 34973683. I'm talking about 34980299.[/QUOTE]

And 34973683 was recycled over half a day ago.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;423767]And 34973683 was recycled over half a day ago.[/QUOTE]

Yes. At ~00:00 UTC.

What part of [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=35000000"]this report[/URL] isn't clear? I'm talking about 34980299, which is due to expire tonight.

[QUOTE=chalsall;423768]What part of [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=35000000"]this report[/URL] isn't clear? I'm talking about 34980299, which is due to expire tonight.[/QUOTE]

I certainly was not confused what you were talking about. I only mentioned the other exponent in my post #2119 to point out that we likely will be reaching the milestone in less than 8 days.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;423738]Which parts would you want graphed? For many things weekly is enough.[/QUOTE]

I think most or all of the numbers would make fine graphs. And yes, for most of them weekly would be enough, but why throw away the extra data if we already have it?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;423812]I think most or all of the numbers would make fine graphs. And yes, for most of them weekly would be enough, but why throw away the extra data if we already have it?[/QUOTE]

I don't know exactly what you'd want graphed... Like a graph showing a downward trending line representing the countdown to when everything < 35M will be done? I think it'd be boring. LOL It's probably the kind of data that could easily be charted after the fact... just a count of how many remaining DCs there are for any given point in time below some threshold... but again I fear it'd be a boring mostly straight line ending at zero on some date.

I have been working on a fun little set of data today. Took me a while to get some of the data cobbled together.

The count of how many first time versus double-check results were checked in each day... it's a really... interesting... query to figure that out. I have to join on the same LL results for a particular exponent and then see if it had any previous results turned in or not. Took a while to figure out how to make that fast enough that I could go back to January 1, 2010 which I chose as my starting point.

Anyway, end result is that I should have a good starting point for how many results of different kinds are turned in each day as well as the # of assignments for each category handed out that day (no historical data for that one... just from today onwards) and then # of new users & computers.

I have it mostly ready to go, just need to schedule it as a daily job and then figure out what to do with this data.

[QUOTE=chalsall;423768]Yes. At ~00:00 UTC.

What part of [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=34000000&exp_hi=35000000"]this report[/URL] isn't clear? I'm talking about 34980299, which is due to expire tonight.[/QUOTE]

I didn't see any of these discussions about the other exponents until just now, after the daily expirations have run.

At any rate, there are only 2 left, both assigned on Jan 23 with ETAs in about a week for both of them. Fingers crossed they actually mean it.

It does remind me that I should get with George and discuss looking at the track record of CPUs that have the option ticked to get priority assignments. If they have that box checked but have done a lousy job of turning in assignments in a timely fashion, I vote to uncheck that box for them.

In other words, it's kind of lame when a cat 1 assignment goes out to someone who regularly takes 3+ months to finish, or has a lot of expired stuff in their past.

The system already takes some of that into account but I'm not sure how in depth it is and I'd rather just take that option off the table entirely for those unreliable machines.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;423839]It does remind me that I should get with George and discuss looking at the track record of CPUs that have the option ticked to get priority assignments. If they have that box checked but have done a lousy job of turning in assignments in a timely fashion, I vote to uncheck that box for them.[/QUOTE]

I definitely vote for that plan. Frustrating to see all those red expiration warnings for work that should have been completed quickly.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;423839]It does remind me that I should get with George and discuss looking at the track record of CPUs that have the option ticked to get priority assignments. If they have that box checked but have done a lousy job of turning in assignments in a timely fashion, I vote to uncheck that box for them.
[/QUOTE]
+1. We would also vote for it. At the end, it is everything about commitment. If i can't do it i say I can't do it. Or don't take it.

Maybe when we get within say 20 or 30 of a milestone, a new rule kicks in. Whenever any of those last few get recycled, it automagiaclly will get assigned to Aaron or Chris. Even better, when this happens have an e-mail go out to them letting them know that the exponent is theirs.

Haha, well... I won't go so far... but that [U]is[/U] an idea, too. :smile:
Everyone should have a chance to find that missed prime... You want these to guys two find them all? :razz:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;423851]Maybe when we get within say 20 or 30 of a milestone, a new rule kicks in. Whenever any of those last few get recycled, it automagiaclly will get assigned to Aaron or Chris. Even better, when this happens have an e-mail go out to them letting them know that the exponent is theirs.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LaurV;423852]Haha, well... I won't go so far... but that [U]is[/U] an idea, too. :smile:
Everyone should have a chance to find that missed prime... You want these to guys two find them all? :razz:[/QUOTE]

I agree that the first idea here is quite overkill, but how about Category 0 with 5-10 day return time instead of 60? Or maybe 15 day return time, since on my box, the most efficient use results in around 10-11 day tests at the current Cat 1 DC wavefront.