[QUOTE=Madpoo;424308]I was wondering that myself, and whether the factoring graphs would be more useful to show only newly factored exponents rather than just any old factor for any exponent, previously factored or not.

That way we'd have a better sense of how the candidates for LL tests are being chipped away by TF.

Maybe I can work that data in there...[/QUOTE]

I added a new graph... "Newly factored exponents"

Basically I had to do the query per day and join on itself, looking to see if any earlier factors were reported for that same exponent. So it [I]should[/I] be accurate, and it does have a basic average over time which is kind of what I was expecting (for some reason... don't know why I thought it would, but it does).

Again, I included a trend line which I think is nice to see if we're going faster/slower over time.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424348]Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 35M: [color=red][size=5][b]1[/b][/size][/color]

User fireredd finished his/her expired assignment for M34973683, as I predicted.

We now wait for Greg.[/QUOTE]

Cool...

FYI, it'll probably be a while before I add a milestone for DC under 37M, but there is the countdown to proving "M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime" which is close enough until we actually get closer. Still 15,245 to go on that one... c'mon double checkers! :smile:

[QUOTE]
I added a new graph... "Newly factored exponents"
[/QUOTE]
looks good. thanks

can you double check the new accounts graph
the cpus added is consistantly 10x the users ???
My guess would be a new user adds 1 box at a time.

[QUOTE=srow7;424381]looks good. thanks

can you double check the new accounts graph
the cpus added is consistantly 10x the users ???
My guess would be a new user adds 1 box at a time.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it seems weird to me to, but the data is what the data is.

I can't explain it... it'd require some digging to figure out why that is.

--- Oh, I just did a cursory look at the # of new CPUs created per user since the start of the month... makes sense now...

Anonymous users don't get a new user ID, but they [B]do[/B] get a new CPU ID. So the new CPU count will always be higher as long as people are just running the app anonymously. Apparently by an order of magnitude... oh well.

64M and under - soon to expire assignments
 

There are 5 exponents that are soon to expire (4 of which seem like they already should have?)

I did the thing I did for the < 35M stuff and created my own assignments manually to make sure when they do expire, they won't get sucked up by someone who'll sit on them for another 3 months before expiring again...

The exponents in question are:
61552507 (will expire on Feb 2)

These 4 were all assigned last September and I have no idea why they weren't expired already... they're 122 to 131 days old, well past the "finish in 90 days" threshold:
63362797
63479179
63784823
63823523

Those last 4, I went ahead and started testing them since they really should have expired anyway. The 61M, I'll wait until it actually expires before doing a test.

As we go, I think this is a safe way to make sure exponents like these are handled and not reassigned to another slowpoke. I'm not saying *I* have to be the one to test them, but it'll reserve them in case we get another volunteer who will get it done promptly.

Meanwhile, I do kind of like the idea of a "cat 0" where people are actually lumped into that category by a server admin based on their track record of not flaking off, unlike the current "cat 1" system which is opt-in and apparently people are getting assignments they shouldn't.

I don't know what would be involved in a system like that because the assignment rules as they are now are already pretty complex, but I think it would help out when these "smallest 100" exponents in either DC or LL get reassigned, and we can be confident the next person will actually get them done.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424421]These 4 were all assigned last September and I have no idea why they weren't expired already... they're 122 to 131 days old, well past the "finish in 90 days" threshold:[/QUOTE]

Looking at [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=60000000&exp_hi=65000000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1"]this report[/URL] there are many candidates which should have already been recycled.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424421]
Meanwhile, I do kind of like the idea of a "cat 0" where people are actually lumped into that category by a server admin based on their track record of not flaking off, unlike the current "cat 1" system which is opt-in and apparently people are getting assignments they shouldn't.

I don't know what would be involved in a system like that because the assignment rules as they are now are already pretty complex, but I think it would help out when these "smallest 100" exponents in either DC or LL get reassigned, and we can be confident the next person will actually get them done.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;423956]
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 [STRIKE]4[/STRIKE] [B]6[/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 [STRIKE]4[/STRIKE] 6 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.
[/QUOTE]

I should correct my post: I meant either 6 results in the last 90 days, or 4 in the last 60 -- either way, something that amounts to a 15 day average turn around in the last 60 or 90 days. The current Cat 1-4 requirement is an average 45 day turnaround, so I think this Cat 0 requirement would be substantially more difficult to meet, and so substantially less computers than even Cat 1 would be eligible -- and further, the time between when a computer stops doing useful work and when it becomes ineligible for Cat 0 is also very much reduced, so only truly active computers would be eligible. It wouldn't increase rule complexity either, just have way more stringent values.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;424424]I should correct my post: I meant either 6 results in the last 90 days, or 4 in the last 60 -- either way, something that amounts to a 15 day average turn around in the last 60 or 90 days. The current Cat 1-4 requirement is an average 45 day turnaround, so I think this Cat 0 requirement would be substantially more difficult to meet, and so substantially less computers than even Cat 1 would be eligible -- and further, the time between when a computer stops doing useful work and when it becomes ineligible for Cat 0 is also very much reduced, so only truly active computers would be eligible. It wouldn't increase rule complexity either, just have way more stringent values.[/QUOTE]

Why not simply adjust Cat 1 and Cat 2? I remember reading somewhere that there aren't many Cat 3 machines, so it would be okay to put more machines in that category.

[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.

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.
...[/QUOTE]

I did a cursory look.

18 users have had 2+ expired assignments (LL and DC only, not counting expired factoring stuff) just in the last 30 days, but they've checked the box to get preferred assignments.

Of those 18, 3 users currently have at least one Cat 1 assignment in either the LL or DC ranges.

If I broaden it to 2+ expired assignments in the past *60* days, there are 30 users, 4 with a cat 1 assignment.

Well, this one is *almost* cat 1... it was assigned back in April 2014 (not grandfathered) so I have no idea why it's not expired already... at least we can say that it wasn't cat 1 (or even cat 3) when it was assigned nearly 2 years ago.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M67729117"]M67729117[/URL]

Still, the user has had 7 expired assignments in the past 2 months which I think means they shouldn't be getting preferred assignments if they're letting other stuff expire.

Here's another example:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M36542903"]M36542903[/URL]

It was probably cat 2 when assigned, but even then, a user with 10 expired assignments in the last 2 months shouldn't be getting preferred stuff, even cat 2.

One more example:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M35049253"]M35049253[/URL]

Pretty sure this would have been cat 1 when assigned... user has 8 expired assignments in the last 60 days.

At least in that case it seems like the user is working on it... it's a DC that's 96 days old and I thought it would have expired after 60, so there must be some grace period in there if the user has reported progress, or updated recently?

Even if we believe its self-reported ETA of Jan 28 (today), I don't consider 96 days to be a fulfillment of "Assigned to users that promise to complete assignments quickly."

Emphasis on "quickly". 96 days to finish something in the 35M range... that's not quick. :smile:

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;424426]Why not simply adjust Cat 1 and Cat 2? I remember reading somewhere that there aren't many Cat 3 machines, so it would be okay to put more machines in that category.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that would be entirely viable as well. I've always thought in the back of my mind that the 4 categories seem a bit too many.

The main thrust of the idea is substantially increasing the number of recent results, from the average 45 day turn around to 15. Checking for no expired assignments for the most stringent category wouldn't be a bad idea, though it might count as increasing the rule complexity.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424421]These 4 were all assigned last September and I have no idea why they weren't expired already... they're 122 to 131 days old, well past the "finish in 90 days" threshold:
63362797
63479179
63784823
63823523[/QUOTE]

I believe these were cat 2 when assigned. That means they will expire at 150 days since they have moved into the cat 1 range.