[QUOTE=ATH;425975]Aaron or George can you confirm it is recycled at midnight UTC and when the age is changing from 90 to 91 days?[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't speak for how the expiration works... in my analysis I'm using the date of the assignment compared to the current date using a SQL datediff by day.

It doesn't round up... if the difference is half a day, well, that's "0".

The task to expire things runs around midnight UTC. It may not be on the dot but it probably does, or close enough. I forget.

If that task runs and the datediff between when it was assigned and the time the expire task runs is big enough to make it expire, there you go. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;426032]
The task to expire things runs around midnight UTC. It may not be on the dot but it probably does, or close enough. I forget.[/QUOTE]

I've definitely seen assignments recycle over half an hour [b]before[/b] midnight UTC. So if you want to do something ahead of an exponent recycling, you probably want to do it around 23:00 UTC.

Yes I will do it before midnight UTC, but the question is, if it is when the age changes from 89 to 90, or 90 to 91.

Right now the variable Age (days) is at 89:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=62259079[/url]

My point is to avoid poaching it as long as there is a chance for the user to turn it in, but turn it in before it is assigned to someone else who might take his time with it.

If you are not sure, then I will wait until 90-91, so we learn how it works.

I turned mine in about 12 hours before Age turned to 91 days, because I had to go to work.

But it has still not expired now 9 hours after the Age turned to 91:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=62259079[/url]

Is it because the user was so close to finishing 98.1% ? That exponent was Cat 1 even back on Nov 15th.

[QUOTE=ATH;426303]I turned mine in about 12 hours before Age turned to 91 days, because I had to go to work.

But it has still not expired now 9 hours after the Age turned to 91:
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=62259079[/url]

Is it because the user was so close to finishing 98.1% ?[/QUOTE]

No I don't believe that has anything to do with it.

[QUOTE=ATH;426303]That exponent was Cat 1 even back on Nov 15th.[/QUOTE]

Because it got poached I believe it is now considered a cat 4 DC assignment. If it were not poached, I believe it would have expired instead of becoming a DC assignment. It should expire in about a month if its status isn't updated before then.

Rather than any first time LLs being expired would it be worth changing it to a DC assignment and rereleasing it for LL.
I realize that a lot of those will expire but they would at least be cat 4 DC(and far out).

[QUOTE=henryzz;426541]Rather than any first time LLs being expired would it be worth changing it to a DC assignment and rereleasing it for LL.
I realize that a lot of those will expire but they would at least be cat 4 DC(and far out).[/QUOTE]

That might be a good thing to feed to proven-unreliable machines to stop them from working on relevant assignments.

The last exponent below 61M to be tested at least once ([url="http://www.mersenne.org/M60732869"]M60732869[/url]) has now finished its first LL. It's also the last one below 62M.

Well done.
So Chris has to get rid of the first 2 rows in [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/current_level/"]the table[/URL], and add two at the end. Like 80 and 81M?

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;426626]The last exponent below 61M to be tested at least once ([url="http://www.mersenne.org/M60732869"]M60732869[/url]) has now finished its first LL. It's also the last one below 62M.[/QUOTE]

Just updated the milestone page (finally... I was out of town).

Perhaps a new Countdown to M66,438,563? All Mersenne numbers less than 20,000,000 digits checked at least once.