[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424551]Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 35M: [color=red][size=7][b]0[/b][/size][/color][/QUOTE]

Milestone page updated.

[QUOTE=chalsall;424564]...Lastly, a personal bug-a-boo of mine... I find it a bit ridiculous that even anonymous users can come in and get unlimited numbers of assignments via the Manual Assignment page which are almost never worked, but take 180 days to expire. This has caused (and is causing) headaches trying to appropriately feed the P-1'ers.[/QUOTE]

I think this was also the issue with 100M digit assignments for LL, and the desire among some folks to do additional factoring on them, but couldn't because they were assigned many (many!) years ago.

For cat 4 work, the general notion was that even if they'd passed their expiration date, as long as they were *still* category 4 there was no rush to expire them.

That's probably a decent idea *as long as* the assignment has been updated recently, giving us some indication that, "yes, it's taking a really long time, but hey, I really am making progress and I'm still alive out here".

In terms of that sort of grace for the larger exponents, I could see a case being made to go ahead and expire them anyway if they updated the assignment in the expiration-time window. Meaning large cat 4 work that is still cat 4 when it should have expired will be made available again if it hasn't even been updated in a year.

The "extended super awesome" grace period might only apply to the grandfathered assignments... so don't quote me on how that works in regards to assignments made after Feb. 2014.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424586]The "extended super awesome" grace period might only apply to the grandfathered assignments... so don't quote me on how that works in regards to assignments made after Feb. 2014.[/QUOTE]

"Assignments made prior to 2014-03-01 will be given, as promised, at least a year to complete.

Surely grandfathered assignments no longer enter the equation... (And, don't call me Shirley....)

[QUOTE=chalsall;424594]"Assignments made prior to 2014-03-01 will be given, as promised, at least a year to complete.

Surely grandfathered assignments no longer enter the equation... (And, don't call me Shirley....)[/QUOTE]

There are some still. *Most* are in the 100M digit range (332M +)

On the double-checking side of things, the smallest one is M42577387 so it's still far out from the DC wavefront.

Assigned 2010-01-25 and last updated 2015-12-28. But hey, it's at zero percent done and it's supposed to check in again sometime in April. :smile:

That one is well past the expiration date, but since it's cat 4 it's in an extended grace period. It'll expire the moment it becomes cat 3, I suspect.

On the first-time LL side, the smallest one is M67852651. Just *barely* a cat 2 assignment. It'll become cat 1 very soon (threshold is 67605842 right now).

My estimate of M67852651 is 2024-06-18. But it's already past it's maximum expiration date... pretty sure it'll expire the instant it's cat 1.

Similar situation with M67852927 (same user in fact).

There are a total of 13 grandfathered first time checks below 70M. Then the rest of them are 100M and up.

Here's how the rest break down:[LIST][*]38 DC grandfathered assignments (unsurprisingly, a good bit of these were once LL assignments that got switched to DC when someone checked in a first time test).[*]917 LL grandfathered assignments. Just those 13 < 70M and then 904 > 100M. In fact, 747 of them are 332M and up.[/LIST]
Of the LL grandfathered stuff, there are only a couple that I think have a chance of completing before expiring:
M69211411 (60 days to go)
M69211427 (48 days to go)

It depends on when those become cat 1, I guess, since both of those are already 130 days past the grandfathered expiration times, and they're on borrowed time right now.

If this kind of trivia is interesting, the absolute [B]oldest[/B] assignment is:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M332197309"]M332197309[/URL] - December 2008... yes, over 6 years ago. But it *is* still being worked on... 84.6% done and a self-reported ETA of September 2016. My own observed ETA for it is March 2017 based on it's rate of 0.0388% per day of progress.

Some raw data on current assignments:

[CODE]LL cat counts
1 824
2 74
3 7859
4 15681

grandfathered (all manual assignments)
4 13

manual assigns
3 243
4 3543

all extends
3 22
4 173

manuals extended
3 1
4 67

5 days overdue
1 56
2 22
3 1063
4 3558

10 days overdue
1 40
2 10
3 868
4 1693

20 days overdue
1 32
2 10
3 721
4 1214

30 days overdue
1 25
2 10
3 593
4 889

unstarted by cat, month assigned
3 8 2
3 9 13
3 10 11
3 11 37
3 12 41
3 1 139
4 4 14
4 7 1
4 8 291
4 9 301
4 10 472
4 11 442
4 12 403
4 1 1619


DC cat counts
1 549
2 265
3 2162
4 115395

grandfathered
4 29

manual assigns
3 517
4 1342

all extends
3 8
4 103

manuals extends
4 62

5 days overdue
1 39
2 1
3 151
4 76135

10 days overdue
1 22
2 1
3 127
4 54024

20 days overdue
1 2
2 1
3 106
4 31823

30 days overdue
1 2
2 1
3 87
4 16264

unstarted by cat, month assigned
3 8 6
3 10 19
3 11 278
3 12 128
3 1 86
4 3 27
4 4 25
4 5 10
4 6 23
4 7 7
4 8 119
4 9 15
4 10 41
4 11 86
4 12 64
4 1 925

[/CODE]

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424161]I'm thinking of running my own DC on this one, as the residue seems suspicious, as I also mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Well, indeed M61233727 has a somewhat interesting 64-bit residue. The residue I got matches that of submitted result (at least all of the non-masked digits match). I will wait for about 11 days when MikeB's assignment will probably expire before submitting my result.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424747]Well, indeed M61233727 has a somewhat interesting 64-bit residue. The residue I got matches that of submitted result (at least all of the non-masked digits match). I will wait for about 11 days when MikeB's assignment will probably expire before submitting my result.[/QUOTE]

Oops! I forgot I needed to remove the result from my results file before connecting to the internet. Oh well, the seemingly abandoned assignment would have expired a few days ago had it not been converted to a DC.

The residue contained a (hex) digit sub-sequence of 6 ascending digits.

M49 DC milestone clock undercounting?
 

It looks like the milestone page countdown to proving that M49 is really M49 might be undercounting the remaining number of tests.

If my understanding of the countdowns is correct, the double-check milestone totals should be equal to the sum of the total number of exponents that have been checked once, and *twice* the total number of virgin (or LL-ERR) exponents. This is because the virgin exponents will each require (at least) *two* tests in order to be successfully double-checked.

AFAICT these countdowns are all correct for the primes for which no virgin tests remain to be cleared (which would include every prime except for M49). But the M49 countdown is only single-counting the virgin tests, and I suspect that if there were other primes (or DC milestones) above the first-LL minimum, their counts might be off as well.

If I have thought this out correctly, the M49 countdown could be fixed by simply adding on the number in the M49 *first-time-test* countdown (e.g. using the present figures, the "big" M49 countdown would become 710,771 + 77,601 = [B]788,372[/B]).

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;425767]If my understanding of the countdowns is correct, the double-check milestone totals should be equal to the sum of the total number of exponents that have been checked once, and *twice* the total number of virgin (or LL-ERR) exponents. This is because the virgin exponents will each require (at least) *two* tests in order to be successfully double-checked.[/QUOTE]

It depends on whether you're counting the tests or the exponents. If you're counting the tests, then you can't give any accurate numbers -- I mean, there are going to be some (unpredictable) number of triple checks, quadruple checks, etc... So the only reasonable thing is to give the number of exponents.
/my 2c

I agree with axn, counting the number of tests is not possible until they've already been done. That leaves only one reasonable metric, counting the number of exponents.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425781]I agree with axn, counting the number of tests is not possible until they've already been done. That leaves only one reasonable metric, counting the number of exponents.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I believe it's simply a count of the # of exponents below M49 that need to be verified. Whether that's one more test, 2 more, 3+ more, who knows, but that's how many are currently unverified.