[QUOTE=petrw1;364786]This proposal excludes manual assignments but even they need some limit don't they?[/QUOTE]

We all gave up on "CaptainEntropy" being serious. Quite a number of years ago.

With prejudice.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364755]As an example, I plan to "poach" [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=45456781"]45456781[/URL]. Assigned to one of "curtisc's" machines for 1033 days; clearly stuck on P-1 Stage Two. I can complete it on one-half of one of my machines in about four days.

Does anyone consider this immoral? (And, if it turns out to be Prime, I'd be happy to let him add it to his collection.)[/QUOTE]
I think it hinges on whether you are a project administrator for GIMPS or not (in your particular case perhaps you are?), or if a project administrator has asked you to take this job. My main difficulty with what is going on in recent weeks is that a culture may be arising whereby anyone and everyone feels justified in taking work which seems "stuck" according to their own personal criteria for what that means. I appreciate that various individuals have been doing this for years, but it was always frowned upon. If unauthorised taking of other people's assignments is no longer frowned upon then I think it will become widespread, in which case I fear for the continued efficacy of the assignment system and the ability of slower contributors to feel confident that their assignments will be respected.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364769]Just to pitch in here I also agree that "poaching" near the bottom of the pile shouldn't be a huge deal.

I believe that one year is a very, VERY generous amount of time to do any one assignment. If your device takes one year to give a result, it is contributing virtually nothing to the project and is very likely going to have encountered at least one error in the quadrillions of cycles it spent.

I think even six months (I might push three) is too damn long for an LL test. I feel bad about doing TF on a CPU and my laptop, even at 24/7, would take weeks to do a single test in the DC range and I find even that to be too long, so I stick with P-1 as the only other useful work it can do.

Realistically, if your computer has too little RAM to do P-1 and the CPU is too slow to do an LL in less than three months, it should probably be in a heap somewhere.


If three or six months is too pushy, then at least consider removing assignment extensions on any assignment in demand. I don't care if a 70M first-time LL is going to take four months because no relevant milestone involving that assignment could possibly be met by then. On the other hand, some two-year-and-still-going assignment that at least 20 of us would gladly take and do in two days should definitely be recycled.[/QUOTE]

Sigh... you would be suprised at the percentage of work done by 4+ older computers,

Well, these two things come to mind reading. You either have a lot of money or pay a lot for power. Just my two cents.:smile:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;364791]I think it hinges on whether you are a project administrator for GIMPS or not (in your particular case perhaps you are?), or if a project administrator has asked you to take this job.[/QUOTE]

For the record, I have no administrative privileges for GIMPS.

On the other hand, I have quite a bit of CPU power to bring to bear (but far less than many others), and almost no GPU power.

On the other other hand this is a community effort; some grow impatient with those who waste our time holding up milestones, when we can do a job in less than a day or two (or four) which has been held up for two or three years, even though the "powers that be" said this wouldn't happen...

[QUOTE=Brian-E;364791] If unauthorised taking of other people's assignments is no longer frowned upon then I think it will become widespread, in which case I fear for the continued efficacy of the assignment system and the ability of slower contributors to feel confident that their assignments will be respected.[/QUOTE]

Then perhaps those in authority will endeavor to ensure they assign work in a more efficient manner.

[QUOTE=kracker;364793]Sigh... you would be suprised at the percentage of work done by 4+ older computers[/QUOTE]

On the contrary. I'm sure all of curtisc's computers are older than four years. Not to mention... Four year old computers can hold their own very well. I didn't say that anyone who takes more than two weeks to do a 65M LL should go fuck themselves. I said that anyone who takes more than three to six months to do a single double-check (by which I mean 30M) should be given less in-demand work and accept that if they take too long, their work may be poached.

Also, I did say that I admitted to being a bit gung-ho in saying that six months ought to be the limit. Even a year I think is completely manageable as far as maximum assignment extension goes.

Find me a computer that takes a year to run a double-check. And one that takes a year to run a DC. Now you can try to surprise me with how much work gets done by these computers.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364794]Then perhaps those in authority will endeavor to ensure they assign work in a more efficient manner.[/QUOTE]

This.

The exponent in discussion (45456781) was P-1 enough, by Jerry, in 2012. I think curtisc lost that computer, and can't access it, or whatever, but it should be ok to inform him before starting work for it (remark I did not say poaching, that would be if you work an exponent which is actively worked by other, trying to finish before the original assignee does :razz:)

[edit: oh, scrap that, I didn't see the other two pages of discussions following chalsall's post!]

[QUOTE=chalsall;364794]Then perhaps those in authority will endeavor to ensure they assign work in a more efficient manner.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364799]This.[/QUOTE]
That.

<Now looking tentatively at George Woltman>
Is there any particular reason why long-standing no-progress work in "preferred areas" is not reassigned? If it's a time and resources issue, can any particular trusted person perhaps be officially nominated to manually redistribute this work under very clear project guidelines? (There are certainly people who are keen and prepared to do this, and at least one who has actually started an initiative in the 28M-30M DC range. Could this perhaps be made "official"? Or is another approach indicated?)

[QUOTE=ATH;364779]I always quote Prime95 own idea for the assignment rules: [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=222164&postcount=443[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;364814]
<Now looking tentatively at George Woltman>
Is there any particular reason why long-standing no-progress work in "preferred areas" is not reassigned? [/QUOTE]

I think the key would be to let the server handle this, or at least most of it in a simple transparent way. At least 99% of all assignments that become residue should/could be handled is such a way.

My proposal would be to kill assignments in earliest possible stage of work being done rather than to wait until much time and electricity has been invested. As soon as a assignment and the rolling average exceed the max time limit the server should let the client inform the user how many hours per day the machine must work to complete the assignment in time. (let's say nine months or so for a DC) If the users indicates to do this the assignment is kept, otherwise it is reassigned to another client. If the rolling average gets above an absolute time limit (about 15 months or so for a DC) it is reassigned anyway.

I believe quit some of these troubled assignments are done by PC's that have been given a different role by it's owner later. Like primary PC replaced by new one or a tablet in the household that makes the user change it's always on habit.

An indication that such a clean up policy works is if the value 'preferred assignment treshold' - 'lowest outstanding assignment' is stable on a month to month basis.

[QUOTE=kracker;364742]65 now :party:
I have a few exponents as well.[/QUOTE]
51 now. They are dropping like flies. Although the bottom edge is still in place (the motion in the last 2 weeks on it has been impressive though.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;364788]We all gave up on "CaptainEntropy" being serious. Quite a number of years ago.

With prejudice.[/QUOTE]

Accepted. I'm just suggesting they could be unassigned.
Though I do find it curious that he continues to send new end dates but no evidence of any completions in the last few years.

[QUOTE=petrw1;364826]Accepted. I'm just suggesting they could be unassigned.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree. It would be a trivial thing for George to do -- one SQL statement.

[QUOTE=petrw1;364826]Though I do find it curious that he continues to send new end dates but no evidence of any completions in the last few years.[/QUOTE]

In some cases it's even worse than that -- for the Manual Assignments he has to manually extend them at least once every six months. I personally consider him to be intentionally trying to hinder progress.

[CODE]42576791 D 1011 2014-03-18 2014-01-02 2011-04-13 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
42577063 D 1022 2014-03-07 2013-12-21 2011-04-02 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
42577387 D 1454 2014-02-23 2013-12-01 2010-01-25 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
43093109 D 957 2014-03-12 2013-12-21 2011-06-06 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
43093321 D 957 2014-03-12 2013-12-21 2011-06-06 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
43094969 D 1454 2014-02-23 2013-12-01 2010-01-25 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
46819121 D 287 2014-03-22 2014-01-02 2013-04-06 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
50955127 LL 1251 -1079 2011-02-04 2014-03-18 2014-01-02 2010-08-16 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
52288427 LL 966 2014-03-03 2013-12-21 2011-05-28 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
52294271 LL 966 79 2014-04-07 2014-01-22 2014-01-15 2011-05-28 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
52492213 LL LL, 47.30% 936 -412 2012-12-02 2014-02-04 2013-11-17 2011-06-27 CaptainEntropy iMacCore2Duo
54716579 LL 244 -113 2013-09-27 2014-03-05 2013-12-21 2013-05-19 CaptainEntropy P4.3800.SonyVaio
55017731 LL 97 64 2014-03-23 2014-03-20 2014-01-02 2013-10-13 CaptainEntropy P4_2800
55956559 LL 818 2014-03-31 2014-01-13 2011-10-23 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
58239631 TF 1427 -1342 2010-05-17 2014-03-22 2014-01-02 2010-02-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
58307891 LL 1449 2014-02-28 2013-12-21 2010-01-30 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
60471511 LL 600 2014-03-09 2013-12-21 2012-05-28 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
60505799 TF 924 2014-02-13 2013-12-01 2011-07-09 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
60505889 TF 924 2014-02-13 2013-12-01 2011-07-09 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
60848497 LL 119 33 2014-02-20 2014-03-06 2013-12-21 2013-09-21 CaptainEntropy Moms_Dell
62825569 LL 154 2014-02-03 2013-08-17 2013-08-17 CaptainEntropy Manual testing[/CODE]

Edit: Oh, and 52492213 has been at 47.30% for at least two years.