[QUOTE=rudy235;489492]I was soo confident that [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=43967279&full=1"]43967279[/URL] was going to finish in time.

Now I'm beginning to doubt it.
[/QUOTE]

It did check in okay today... it had 2 days of zero progress, and then a day of something like 2.9%. Today it managed to clock in 8.4% ... see, if it could only keep up that pace instead of going brain dead, we wouldn't be having this discussion. :smile:

Anyway, it has 3 days before it expires and if it can just do one more push, we could wrap this up tomorrow. LOL

[QUOTE=Madpoo;489745]It's weird... the 100% is reported by the client, and yeah, I think they do report in a rounded amount, but to report 100% it means the client would have to at least be 99.95% done since I think it reports as xx.x%[/QUOTE]

Isn't the actual iteration number also reported by client? Can't we just look at that instead of guessing what the heck is happening?

[QUOTE=axn;489748]Isn't the actual iteration number also reported by client? Can't we just look at that instead of guessing what the heck is happening?[/QUOTE]

No, I don't think it is, just the % to a tenth.

There are 4 active assignments like this:
45140231
45220801
78982117
79197193

All are from the same user, so I'm thinking he has some problem on his machine, I'd guess.

There are 23 expired assignments with this condition, a good # of which were from the user xolotl who definitely had some issues in the past (numerous false positives). In fact, that makes me wonder if that's related to the current situation - the server won't just accept a "is prime" result without some consideration so maybe it tried to turn in a prime result but it's being rejected as bogus? I'll have to dig into the logs.

Typically when someone checks in a prime result, whether it's real or a false positive, we get an email and we can look at the details to figure out if it seems legit. For example if someone checks in a "is prime" result within minutes of being assigned the exponent, I think we're safe in thinking it's a program error (it happens... gets in a zero loop real quick and speeds through or whatever).

We have received some false positives lately (something like 5 in a row from the same user in the 332M range, all in one day) so I know that's working, but I'll dig around just in case.

Oh, and that guy finally turned in the last of the < 44M exponents, so that's finally done. Whew, that was a slog. :smile:

What happened here with these 2 exponents [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79139153"]79139153[/URL] + [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79139219"]79139219[/URL] assigned on 2017-12-15 (see attached image). They were just barely Cat 1 when assigned and should have been completed in 90 days:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2017-12-15[/url]


[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79140000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

[QUOTE=ATH;489765]What happened here with these 2 exponents [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79139153"]79139153[/URL] + [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79139219"]79139219[/URL] assigned on 2017-12-15 (see attached image). They were just barely Cat 1 when assigned and should have been completed in 90 days:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2017-12-15[/url]


[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79140000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm not really sure. Somehow they slipped through the cracks. A funny quirk of the way my reports that show the 'days to expire' is using different code than the actual expiration code that runs each day. (one of many reasons being doing a countdown like the reports is non-deterministic since it could expire in a different amount of days based on a few things).

With -120 days before they expire, I think something got missed there. :smile: . I'll try to manually clean those up so they get re-assigned.

As of this morning (2018-06-20), we have reached the 79 million milestone for first-time checks. This, of course, means that the end of (the first stage of) classical GIMPS is near: indeed, a mere 27 first-time checks (still requiring just under a millennium of P90 computing time!) remain below 79.3 million.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;490172]As of this morning (2018-06-20), we have reached the 79 million milestone for first-time checks. This, of course, means that the end of (the first stage of) classical GIMPS is near: indeed, a mere 27 first-time checks (still requiring just under a millennium of P90 computing time!) remain below 79.3 million.[/QUOTE]

Yay! Speaking for myself, this 79.3 million impending milestone is far more important that any other common milestone.

[QUOTE=rudy235;490184]Yay! Speaking for myself, this 79.3 million impending milestone is far more important that any other common milestone.[/QUOTE]

Is the link to the classical GIMPS summary page anywhere on the site? I have seen it somewhere but can't remember where.

[QUOTE=Chuck;490203]Is the link to the classical GIMPS summary page anywhere on the site? I have seen it somewhere but can't remember where.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url]

How was the 79.3M limit chosen? It was the highest exponent possible with the highest FFT size available?


Do we want a new milestone at 86,028,121? Which is the 5,000,000th prime exponent.