[QUOTE=Madpoo;423838]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.[/QUOTE]

Any and all numbers on that page, vs time. Each category could be its own graph, each entry in the category being a particular line on the graph.

I agree that for now it wouldn't be very interesting, but for example if you had the data for the last year, it would be a very nice looking graph. If we want to have data for the next year, we need to start saving it now, hence my request.

Is [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=601248421&full=1[/URL] this the largest LL test completed to date?

[QUOTE=alpha1;423864]Is [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=601248421&full=1[/URL] this the largest LL test completed to date?[/QUOTE]

I just completed again factorizaton up to 2^65 :smile:

Madpoo will surely be happy to DC this self verified result again :D

[QUOTE=manfred4;423889]Madpoo will surely be happy to DC this self verified result again :D[/QUOTE]

That was my first thought, too lol

[QUOTE=manfred4;423889]Madpoo will surely be happy to DC this self verified result again :D[/QUOTE]

Ugh, I just got done bellyaching about that one:
[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=423928&postcount=32"]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=423928&postcount=32[/URL]

In short, I couldn't if I wanted to, and it seems kind of fishy anyway.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;423855]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.[/QUOTE]

Okay, the more I think about this, the more I like this idea.

I think there should be a fifth category, called Cat 0 for backwards compatibility, with the following entry and completion criteria (differences from Cat 1 bolded):

[code]
First [B]50[/B] assignments

Exponents below [B]35171537[/B]

Assigned to users that promise to complete assignments quickly. Computer must be proven reliable,
returned at least [B]4[/B] results in the last 90 days for each LL worker thread, and
"days of work to queue" <= [B]2[/B]

Must be completed in [B]30[/B] days

Assignments are recycled when assignment is more than [B]30[/B] days old.
[/code]
The 30 day period to completion is quite generous, to help minimize duplicate work that happens in Cat 1 and would happen here too, but I think the 4 results in the last 90 days would still sufficiently guarantee a speedy return well within 15 days, even if there are 30 before the assignment is recycled.

Here's the Cat 1 values for reference:
[code]
First 3000 assignments

Exponents below 35663484

Assigned to users that promise to complete assignments quickly. Computer must be proven reliable,
returned at least 2 results in the last 90 days for each LL worker thread, and
"days of work to queue" <= 10

Must be completed in 60 days

Assignments are recycled when assignment is more than 60 days old.
[/code]

Why does the server even allow LL and DC on the same exponent to be done by the same user? It seems odd to allow that.

[QUOTE=blahpy;423961]Why does the server even allow LL and DC on the same exponent to be done by the same user? It seems odd to allow that.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that the server won't assign the same exponent to someone twice, but nothing is stopping someone from manually adding an entry to a worktodo.txt file.

That's how I'm trying to verify an overclock on a Skylake i5 right now; doing some unneeded triple checks on some of my own exponents . It made it through three plus days of torture test, but hasn't given me a matching residue yet. Turn down the clock, turn up the voltage, watch the core temps, re-run the tests, repeat. I haven't submitted any yet, but I plan to when they all match. The first time checks were all done by someone else, so why shouldn't I be able to get credit for the triple checks I've run; once they match that is.

[QUOTE=endless mike;423972]I'm pretty sure that the server won't assign the same exponent to someone twice, but nothing is stopping someone from manually adding an entry to a worktodo.txt file.[/QUOTE]

True. It won't automatically assign the same exponent if you did the first time check. But yeah, nothing's stopping people from running it manually and turning it in. Or even by mistake.

Many of Curtis' current self-verified work comes from what I'd assume are worktodo entries that got copied to more than one machine by mistake... first one finishes and then another one turns it in a few days or even months later. It includes the assignment ID but the assignment is no longer there so it just comes in as "unassigned".

Can't exactly reject it in a case like that. 99% of the time I trust the person who turned it in, but then there are the ones I don't know and/or have no reason to trust. :smile:

[QUOTE]That's how I'm trying to verify an overclock on a Skylake i5 right now; doing some unneeded triple checks on some of my own exponents . It made it through three plus days of torture test, but hasn't given me a matching residue yet. Turn down the clock, turn up the voltage, watch the core temps, re-run the tests, repeat. I haven't submitted any yet, but I plan to when they all match. The first time checks were all done by someone else, so why shouldn't I be able to get credit for the triple checks I've run; once they match that is.[/QUOTE]

That's how I'd personally prefer to see people testing their overclocked systems... doing double-checks.

5% of the time you'll get a mismatch anyway because that's the odds that the *other* system got it wrong, but in general you should match, and you're helping get the DC work caught up. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424006]Can't exactly reject it in a case like that. 99% of the time I trust the person who turned it in, but then there are the ones I don't know and/or have no reason to trust. :smile:
[/QUOTE]
You can if the shift is the same. Like when not only the worktodo was copied over to other machines, but also some checkpoint file, in that case they will come with the same shift and it can be rejected. But I assume those cases are pretty rare.