FWIW: I just started working on 10.85-10.90M,64,65.
Hope to check in the results by Sunday.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360527]I I hope someone will find factors, SNFS, ECM, whatever, for the remaining 3. Otherwise I may try doing them with Pari. :w00t:[/QUOTE]

Have Space Heater and Prime95 V24 and these last 3 should be done by Spring.:mike:

A nice, "ends-in-5-or-0" milestone:

December 11, 2013. All exponents below 45 million have been tested at least once. :smile:

I am curious about a contributor known as 'america64'. There have been huge bursts of submissions in P-1 and LLTF. It is dramatic when seen on the "Last Week" scale. One has to dig down quite a few levels to see the "Past Year" changes.

[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/day/[/url]
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/week/[/url]
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/graph/31-40/[/url]

These are overall charts. It's interesting on the LLTF charts, too.
[url]https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/week[/url]

These look like LauV, Kracker, or Uncwilly slopes when they pull out the stops. Do we have some new serious silicon in the pool?

Ask LaurV about that...


[SIZE="1"](bug....)[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=kracker;362513]Ask LaurV about that...


[SIZE=1](bug....)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Hmmmm.....

[QUOTE=kladner;362512]I am curious about a contributor known as 'america64'. There have been huge bursts of submissions in P-1 and LLTF. It is dramatic when seen on the "Last Week" scale. One has to dig down quite a few levels to see the "Past Year" changes.

[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/day/[/url]
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/week/[/url]
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/graph/31-40/[/url]

These are overall charts. It's interesting on the LLTF charts, too.
[url]https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/week[/url]

These look like LauV, Kracker, or Uncwilly slopes when they pull out the stops. Do we have some new serious silicon in the pool?[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly, he has been doing massive amounts of 65-->66 TF on high exponents.

I remember seeing his factor found lines filling up large portions of the recent cleared report many times although I haven't checked those reports in quite a while...

[QUOTE=kladner;362512] Do we have some new serious silicon in the pool?[/QUOTE]

As blahpy noted, its not "new silicon". This user has been around for quite some time, and used to fork out a considerable amount of work in the high ranges. I think (s)he´s been rather quiet lately, though, at least as far as high ranges go. Probably carried the firepower over to the GPU72 arena.

I am happy to note that I just rolled past 300 THz-days in overall GPU72 statistics. :smile:

@ lycorn: Belated response- thanks for filling in those details. Kracker seems to be saying that this user might be another LaurV incarnation. That dude seems to have a huge hardware stable which he moves around from time to time. Though now that I think of it, some of that may currently be borged boxes belonging to others.

EDIT: I must also note that I just received another boot to the rear in P-1. As anticipated, LaurV, as himself, has roared past me and is now rapidly closing in on Uncwilly and Chuck.

[QUOTE=kladner;362706]I must also note that I just received another boot to the rear in P-1. As anticipated, LaurV, as himself, has roared past me and is now rapidly closing in on Uncwilly and Chuck.[/QUOTE]

I stopped doing P-1 a couple of weeks ago and switched those cores to DC.

We are pretty over-powered in the P-1 department these days so I hope his won't start a P-1 stats war. We could do with more GPU TF though. While we have "just" managed to TF everything to 74 being handed out for LL, abut more power would give us some much needed breathing room.

Well, LaurV had the power of himself, chalsall and me(although not all) combined.

[QUOTE=kracker;362716]Well, LaurV had the power of himself, chalsall and me(although not all) combined.[/QUOTE]

I had some inkling of that, but did not search back to read the posts. So that's america64, eh?

[QUOTE=Chuck;362711]I stopped doing P-1 a couple of weeks ago and switched those cores to DC.[/QUOTE]

Same here maybe a week back. Six cores are now doing DC, and only two are left doing P-1.

[QUOTE=kladner;362764]I had some inkling of that, but did not search back to read the posts. So that's america64, eh?[/QUOTE]

No, that's LaurV. What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.

[QUOTE=kracker;362771]No, that's LaurV. What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear. I don't unassign often, but did just recently quite a few times during a change of work type. I had no idea an unassign counted as "done".

I thought you were saying that america64 is LaurB on steroids.

[QUOTE=garo;362714]We are pretty over-powered in the P-1 department these days so I hope his won't start a P-1 stats war. We could do with more GPU TF though. While we have "just" managed to TF everything to 74 being handed out for LL, abut more power would give us some much needed breathing room.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that?

:davieddy:

[QUOTE=kracker;362771]What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reminding me about this bug. I'll try to squash it over the holidays. And, also, figure out the regression on the Overall Worker's page which is causing some oddities.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362822]Thanks for reminding me about this bug. I'll try to squash it over the holidays. And, also, figure out the regression on the Overall Worker's page which is causing some oddities.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. :smile:

[QUOTE=lycorn;361034]I would like to propose that we collectively engage in an effort to take to 65 bits all exponents that are below that level.
I have identified 3 different situations:

1. [B]Exponents lower than 1 MB, regardless of the current bit level they are factored to[/B]:
These cases have to be dealt with using the mfaktc version that works with small exponents. All caveats mentioned by TheJudger and LaurV in this thread shall be taken into account.

2.[B] Exponents > 1MB, factored to 63 bits or less:[/B]
GPU sieving doesn´t work for these bit levels, so either it is disabled in the config file or we use 0.19 or lower.

3. [B]Exponents > 1 MB, and factored to 64 bits:[/B]
For these exponents, mfaktc 0.20 shall be used.
[/QUOTE]

For "fun" I have been tracking progress to taking all exponents to 64 bits since September, 2010.

[CODE]September 2010: Just over 435,000 GhzDays of work left.
Some exponents still at 58 bits.
No exponents over 9,000,000.

December 2013: about 337,350 GhzDays of work left.
All but 3 to 61 bits.
No exponents over 8,000,000.
The top 5 producers do more than this in 1 year.

About 22% of the work completed.[/CODE]

We are not (very) far from running out of exponents factored to 64 bits.
Will mfaktc version 0.21 help us?
I mean, will it implement GPU sieving for <64bits and/or optimized support for exponents <1M?

All exponents below [B][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]26,813,491[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="Pink"]45,456,781[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 14,566

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Purple"]30402457[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="Purple"]43[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 215
Countdown to proving M([COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]32582657[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]44[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 12,721

That is a drop of 462 down to 215 in just over 1 month.
We have been averaging 107 DC's completed per day for the last year, that yields 39,000 per annum. That puts the proving of M45 out at about 2[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] years and M44 at 4 months.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;363908]All exponents below [B][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]26,813,491[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Purple"]30402457[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="Purple"]43[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 215

That is a drop of 462 down to 215 in just over 1 month.
We have been averaging 107 DC's completed per day for the last year, that yields 39,000 per annum. That puts the proving of M45 out at about 2[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] years and M44 at 4 months.[/QUOTE]

There has been a drive to eliminate some residue out of the pipeline coordinated in a [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19026"]thread[/URL] in the LMH subforum.

[QUOTE=tha;363955]There has been a drive to eliminate some residue out of the pipeline coordinated in a [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19026"]thread[/URL] in the LMH subforum.[/QUOTE]
I have been watching that thread. I would have grabbed a couple, but I am trying to clean up my P-1 for 100M TF trading obligations.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;363908]All exponents below [B][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]26,813,491[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="Pink"]45,456,781[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 14,566

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Purple"]30402457[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="Purple"]43[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 215
Countdown to proving M([COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]32582657[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]44[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 12,721

That is a drop of 462 down to 215 in just over 1 month.
We have been averaging 107 DC's completed per day for the last year, that yields 39,000 per annum. That puts the proving of M45 out at about 2[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] years and M44 at 4 months.[/QUOTE]

I have about 25 of them ... done in a couple weeks.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;363908]We have been averaging 107 DC's completed per day for the last year, that yields 39,000 per annum. That puts the proving of M45 out at about 2[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] years and M44 at 4 months.[/QUOTE]

And puts the proving of M48 out at about 13[SUP]1[/SUP]/[SUB]2[/SUB] years! Hopefully we will see some hardware improvements before then.

77.77777777777%
 

Top of [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url]

[CODE]Exponent
Range
Start Count P | Composite(F) |
0 78498 33 | 61054 [/CODE]

closest I've come to advancing a milestone
 

I just finished the 2nd last 26M DC. The last is expected tomorrow by someone else.

I was hoping to hit three big things at once, but sadly I lost a couple of positions during my holiday in 365-Day P-1 and with school starting again, my laptop spends most of its time sleeping in my backpack.

I was close to top-100 P-1 for the year, but didn't quite get it. However, I broke top 100 all-time and 100 THz-Days around the same time.

[QUOTE=lycorn;363456]We are not (very) far from running out of exponents factored to 64 bits.[/QUOTE]

I must be missing something. I thought everything hit 65 a long time ago. Or is this for > 1000M?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364138]I must be missing something. I thought everything hit 65 a long time ago. Or is this for > 1000M?[/QUOTE]

I am assuming he is talking about all ranges, including >10M.

[QUOTE=petrw1;361495]Have Space Heater and Prime95 V24 and these last 3 should be done by Spring.:mike:[/QUOTE]

1 down...1753

[QUOTE=petrw1;364076]I just finished the 2nd last 26M DC. The last is expected tomorrow by someone else.[/QUOTE]

All exponents below 26,000,000 can be added to the 'some older milestones'.
All exponents below 27,000,000 can be added to 'the major GIMPS milestones' as of today indeed.

28M will be reached in not that long a time as well.

[QUOTE=petrw1;364159]1 down...1753[/QUOTE]
Yuck! I thought you factored it! I ran to see the factors.... then I realized you did TF to 61 :w00t:

:( sorry

The last 2 should be at 61 by April

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364138]I must be missing something. I thought everything hit 65 a long time ago. Or is this for > 1000M?[/QUOTE]

There are still just over 150K exponents trial factored to less than 65 bits, of wich ~ 12,000 are TFed to 64. They are all <9M.
See this report [URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/0/0/"]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/0/0/[/URL]

[QUOTE=lycorn;364274]There are still just over 150K exponents trial factored to less than 65 bits, of wich ~ 12,000 are TFed to 64. They are all <9M.
See this report [URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/0/0/"]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/0/0/[/URL][/QUOTE]

However if there is any solace...being on the small end they are NOT quick and easy. About 330,000 GhzDays of work.

January 12, 2014. All exponents below [B]28[/B] million have been double-checked.

:party:

In a rather sad milestone, I crossed over [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/graph/10-19/"]Pete's flat lined trace[/URL] in the GPU72 LLTF graph, in the past week or so.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;364454]January 12, 2014. All exponents below [B]28[/B] million have been double-checked.[/QUOTE]

9 more 28M. My 4 will be done in the next 4 days.

[QUOTE]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 106[/QUOTE] :smile:

Is there a list of those 106 numbers somewhere?

[QUOTE=Qubit;364549]:smile:

Is there a list of those 106 numbers somewhere?[/QUOTE]

The list of exponents is [URL="http://mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=26000000&exp_hi=30402457&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data"]in the first column here[/URL], the other columns contain data of the first time LL test of these exponents.

These exponents you can look up in the [URL="http://mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=26000000&exp_hi=30402457&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]active assignments[/URL] where they are listed in between some more assignments that have become superfluent but remain because of glitches or specific interest of some user.

In the past weeks a number of contributors have banded together and looked for ways to speed up progress without harassing other users too much.

[QUOTE=Qubit;364549]:smile:

Is there a list of those 106 numbers somewhere?[/QUOTE]

The current number is 77.
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/"]Countdown to proving M(30402457) is the 43rd Mersenne Prime: 77[/URL]:kosmaj:

77 As of 19:29 EST:[CODE]28305107 30075313 30255503 30354253
28748821 30088549 30257027 30356087
28764713 30112079 30261811 30356647
28873849 30138149 30267511 30356653
28879159 30170867 30267751 30358501
28961683 30184789 30286357 30358921
29719853 30187747 30286493 30364979
29806061 30195889 30293587 30374779
29838439 30201211 30299561 30375701
29862601 30202373 30299749 30375739
29871139 30202603 30299833 30376009
29878237 30204901 30300539 30376441
29898031 30207883 30302123 30392501
29898079 30232183 30302539 30392707
29921741 30241259 30302761 30392777
29928341 30243641 30333203 30392833
29931263 30244273 30334763 30398911
29937487 30250669 30339389 30399143
29939321 30254773 30341747 30402401
29940049
[/CODE]

74 right now. Two of the 30M2 range are mine, they will be finished in 4-5 days. [edit: Legally assigned some time ago! No poaching please! :P]

[QUOTE=LaurV;364732]74 right now. Two of the 30M2 range are mine, they will be finished in 4-5 days. [edit: Legally assigned some time ago! No poaching please! :P][/QUOTE]
Right!
And a lot of the others will be being worked on by machines which take weeks or a few months and whose human operators don't post here. Let's watch and wait.

I started the tread in the LMH subsection a month ago to clean the assignments list from some apparently 'not being worked on DC assignments'. At that time I hoped we might be able to do some 40 to 80 exponents from a list of 117 within two months time. We are trying to find a balance between the risk of poaching and the risk of an exponent left behind.

As it says on the assignment rules page: 'The server may reassign exponents where the assignment is more than one year old.' I don't know if the server ever did do that. However you can find a guideline here. Don't embark on a single assignment that takes over a year to complete. (or do that well out of the range of server assignments or in the 332M range.) Maybe it is time to update the minimum system requirements for types of assignment as well, although that is tricky since PC's have different rolling averages.

It would be 'nice' if the server could transfer an assignment to a group of volunteers to complete a DC. That would then involve transfering the intermediate save file. Like when at least 25% is done and the outstanding time needed to complete is significant more than most other assignments in that range, a transfer would be instigated and proportional credit would be given in the case of a succesful DC. Of course the risk of a bad residue would remain, hence only volunteers to take such assignments.
Another option would be that the client can receive a message from the server in an early stage, like before 10% has been completed to abandon the assignment and switch to another type of work such as additional factoring.

In the mean time I think it would be good to 'protect' assignments in the LMH subsection by mentioning their shepherding in the relevant thread.

65 now :party:
I have a few exponents as well.

My last in 2 hours....and I am one willing to volunteer for cleanup duty...but I prefer to take the cautious road to declaring assignments abandoned.

Oh and unlike some of you I can't do a DC in under a day but I can do several in less than a week.

are we missing a milestone?
 

I'm interested in knowing when 10Million digits are all DC'd.

[QUOTE=petrw1;364745]I'm interested in knowing when 10Million digits are all DC'd.[/QUOTE]

Well, that wil be about when M44 will be confirmed in it's rank. The preferred DC exponents treshold will reach M44 around the first of June. So, all exponents will be assigned to a trusted client 60 days later, the first of August. With some luck and an end of year drive we might be able to accomplish that by Dec, 31.

[QUOTE=tha;364751]So, all exponents will be assigned to a trusted client 60 days later, the first of August.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly correct...

Those candidates which have been assigned, but then immediately abandoned, will be thusly assigned. Those which are "sat on" by very slow machines will linger; potentially for years (until, of course, they're "poached").

I would like to publicly support tha's comment about the "one-year limit" idea. This has been talked about (at length) here, and actually partially implemented on Primenet. Both the warning on the manual assignment page, plus via a message sent back to the client if the reported estimated completion date is more than a year away.

However, George / Scott never actually implemented the removal process. The client will drop an assignment (even if has had work done on it already) if it receives the appropriate message from the server, and then get a new assignment which is actually useful.

In addition to this, at least for DCing, I would like to suggest that the "preferred" status of assignments be those below the next "Milestone" (read: proofing the rank of an MP), OR 3000 candidates above the lowest DC candidate; whichever is greatest.

I know that some consider "poaching" to be abhorrent. And the "100.1 km/h is better than 100." argument.

But at some point a decision has to be made as to just when is a contributor not really contributing to the goals of this community. Is it really reasonable to allow someone to sit on a milestone blocking candidate for literally years, completing only a few tenths of a percent of work on a candidate per month (or, none at all)?

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=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 won't comment on the morality of it. But why not just inform curtisc of the problem and see what he wants to do about it.

[QUOTE=retina;364756]I won't comment on the morality of it. But why not just inform curtisc of the problem and see what he wants to do about it.[/QUOTE]

Excellent suggestion. I will do so.

Although I wonder why he wasn't already aware of this himself....

[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]

Considering the fact that it hasn't been actually LL'd (only Stage 1 of P-1 completed), I can't fathom calling this poaching in practice. In theory, maybe, but in practice, you haven't cost him any resources, except once it is complete if the machine continues to hang up on P-1 and isn't found.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364755]
However, George / Scott never actually implemented the removal process. The client will drop an assignment (even if has had work done on it already) if it receives the appropriate message from the server, and then get a new assignment which is actually useful.
[/QUOTE]

I think it is at least partially implemented.

I have on several ocassions lost assignments on day 61 of no progress. I have a few borged PCs that are hard to get to or that work sporadically....great guns for a couple months then nothing for a few only to return. :/

[QUOTE=petrw1;364763]I have on several ocassions lost assignments on day 61 of no progress. I have a few borged PCs that are hard to get to or that work sporadically....great guns for a couple months then nothing for a few only to return. :/[/QUOTE]

That's a slightly different thing, but thanks for bringing it up...

If a client doesn't report for 60 days, then Primenet will "recycle" the candidate and assign it to someone else. The next time your client checks in it will be told (in the meta) "You don't have a valid AID" and the client will drop the assignment and then request another.

The issue being discussed here is that Primenet should report back to the client the same message if the assignment is over a year old (or, arguably, if the claimed "Estimated Completion Date" - "Assignment Date" is greater than one year).

But it doesn't...

Yet.

[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.[/QUOTE]

I already started that one a few days ago. I can't do it in 4 days, as it is an older machine running 2 LL's at once, but in like 14 days or so.

[QUOTE=ATH;364765]I already started that one a few days ago. I can't do it in 4 days, as it is an older machine running 2 LL's at once, but in like 14 days or so.[/QUOTE]

LOL...

OK, I hadn't yet placed it on a machine, so I'll leave it to you to "poach". :smile:

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=TheMawn;364769]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.[/QUOTE]

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

I make sure the assignments I "poach" are well beyond those limits, and I would never poach an exponent with progress above say 70% even if it has been active for a long time, and has a long time to go.

[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]

Interestingly, this was written more than three years ago....

This proposal excludes manual assignments but even they need some limit don't they?

Case in point: sorry it formatted poorly.

Exponent
Work
Type

Stage, %
age
days

days
to go

Estimated
Completion Next
Update Updated Assigned Userid CPU Name
28525907 D 1510 2014-02-26 2013-12-21 2009-11-29 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
28526873 D 1510 2014-02-26 2013-12-21 2009-11-29 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
28527307 D 1510 2014-02-26 2013-12-21 2009-11-29 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
28530247 D 1453 2014-02-23 2013-12-21 2010-01-25 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
28530767 D 1142 2014-03-06 2013-12-21 2010-12-02 CaptainEntropy Manual testing
28530937 D 1142 2014-03-06 2013-12-21 2010-12-02 CaptainEntropy Manual testing

[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.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;364814]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?[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. And I'm sure half the people in this discussion have thought up of their own quite functional guidelines.

My own thoughts: Let the smallest 5000 exponents of the LL and of the DC range be called the trailing range for each assignment type. Trailing-edge exponents are only assigned to registered users whose rolling average is high enough that it would take them less than two weeks to finish for a DC, six weeks for LL.

If reported progress is such that it would take three or nine weeks, respectively, to finish, the assignment can be recycled at any time.

This is just so that the bottom can be cleaned up a little bit. The actual numbers are purely for example. Maybe they're a bit optimistic. I don't know.

[QUOTE=tha;364815]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.[/QUOTE]

This kind of goes hand in hand with the idea that a bunch of people who set up Prime95 to start on bootup probably forgot that Prime95 runs at all, and are actually just being a hindrance by running an assignment just long enough to refresh the time limit.

Honestly, there's all this talk of changing how the assignment ownership setup works with "preferred" assignments but I think just killing any assignment with no work done in six months or progress so slow it would take years, would clean things up a lot. I think that should be the first step.

The last big push to clear out assigned but not worked on exponents came about 10 years ago. A forum member who went by the name of GP2 compiled a list of exponents that were unlikely to be finished any time in the near future and had been assigned for 1.5 years or more. After much consultation with forum members - and carving out legitimate exceptions from the list - George beat the v4 server till it coughed up these assignments and everyone lived happily ever after.

<movie trailer voice>[B]Until now[/B]</movie trailer voice>.

I propose that someone make a list of exponents that have been assigned for > 720 days for LL and > 360 days for DC, then prune exponents that look like they are going to finish in the next month or so based on their recent progress. Hand this list to George, sit back and watch the magic happen.

Here is the thread y'all need to read to see the kind of data that prods George into taking action :smile:. [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1201[/url]

And the follow-up here:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=1381[/url]

GP2's research on error prone machines led to significant improvements in the way exponents with non-zero error codes were handled. v5 has the LLERR column thanks to this work and releases 1st time exponents with non-zero error codes for re-testing immediately.

Look at [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=35[/url] for the last time forum members tried to clear out blockers in a coordinated fashion.

The thousand day club:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=1349[/url]

GP2 we miss ya!

How did these mystical men of the past find all that data? It seems like there were four or five really really big .txt's floating around or something.

[QUOTE=JC;17860]If I remember well, first 33M exponents have been released in September 1999. At that time, one full year was needed by top-speed machines to complete them.[/QUOTE]

LOL

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364843]How did these mystical men of the past find all that data? It seems like there were four or five really really big .txt's floating around or something.[/QUOTE]
Yes, there were. For example, you could download a text file with all current LL test assignments and how far each had progressed - to the nearest interation! - at last report. By collecting a series of these files over a period of time you could quite easily write a quick program to detect old assignments which were showing no progress. I believe those text files stopped being available with the migration from v4 to v5 in 2008. Now I guess we have to construct suitable database queries.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;364844]Now I guess we have to construct suitable database queries.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It's become a little more complicated since v4 of the server.

"Spidy" is already collecting the required data. I'm working on a Perl script which will answer at the least the "real-time" question of "Assigned Date" - "Claimed Estimated Complete Date".

Momentary glory
 

Settin' on top of the world :razz:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364843]How did these mystical men of the past find all that data? It seems like there were four or five really really big .txt's floating around or something.

LOL[/QUOTE]

In V4 there was a readily available file listing ALL assignments.
Granted that was only up to 79.3M then.
and P-1 and ECM were NOT listed types.

Am I showing my age? :blush:

[QUOTE=chalsall;364846]Yes. It's become a little more complicated since v4 of the server.

"Spidy" is already collecting the required data. I'm working on a Perl script which will answer at the least the "real-time" question of "Assigned Date" - "Claimed Estimated Complete Date".[/QUOTE]

Cool. I would have been first in line to help but my programming experience is one Visual Studio C++ course I took two years ago. I'm not too bad with Excel, though, if you need a hand processing the data once it's been gathered.


Regarding the team 1000+ entries, I think a lot of those were semi-decent computers working on exponents larger than the ones by a factor of six or seven. I don't think we ought to care how long someone's been working on some 100M exponent until the trailing edge of the wave is there.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364846]"Spidy" is already collecting the required data. I'm working on a Perl script which will answer at the least the "real-time" question of "Assigned Date" - "Claimed Estimated Complete Date".[/QUOTE]

OK, my first attempt at filtering this data is now complete. A CSV format file is available at [url]https://www.gpu72.com/data/20140119_older_than_three_months.csv[/url]

It contains all the current assignments (as of today) which are 90 days of age or older. This is intended to be imported into a spreadsheet program (or other custom code) for sorting and drill-down.

Hopefully the column headers make sense; the "Need" column is "0" if the work being done has already been completed.

The "Est_Comp" column is the number of days after assignment the candidate is expected to take to complete, based on the percentage actually completed combined with the age of the assignment. If no percentage completed has been reported (common for Manual Assignments) then the value is 999999999.

Note that candidates under the control of GPU72 for TFing and/or P-1'ing is not included in the list, since we marshal their progress very carefully.

Please let me know if anyone has any comments, questions or suggestions.

Well well, look who we have on top :razz:

EDIT: Hmm.. I see I'm in there. I didn't know I had LL assignments outside gpu72... Wonder why :razz:

Older than three months with 0% progress sounds fairly dubious to me. If it's just queued work, the program will automatically fetch more. I'd say re-release all of the ones with 0%.

I seriously doubt very many people would be pissed off if we did that.

Could you filter the list for 0% completion and see how many that is?

EDIT: I would also recommend implementing some kind of requirement to get bottom-of-the-pile work so that the same users don't give us the same problem a year down the line.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364918]Could you filter the list for 0% completion and see how many that is?[/QUOTE]

Sure; as could anyone who imports the CSV file into the tool of their choice... :wink:

2,462 assignments older than 91 days, and 0% work completed.

4,915 assignments older than 91 days, and less than 10% work completed (thus inferring approximately 2.5 years to complete best-case for most cases).

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364918]EDIT: I would also recommend implementing some kind of requirement to get bottom-of-the-pile work so that the same users don't give us the same problem a year down the line.[/QUOTE]

Completely agree.

George, Scott and James (should) have much better heuristics available to them via the Primenet server. I derived this list using only publicly accessible data.

Further, I question the value of the "Manual assignments" from Primenet (particularly for "Anonymous"). Why are they valid for 180 days before being recycled? And in some cases users extend them for many years with no reported progress.

[QUOTE=kracker;364911]EDIT: Hmm.. I see I'm in there. I didn't know I had LL assignments outside gpu72... Wonder why :razz:[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. But the data is:

[CODE]31133689,D,1,0,131,999999999,131,"kracker","Manual testing"
32110523,D,1,0,131,999999999,131,"kracker","Manual testing"
32146871,D,1,0,128,999999999,128,"kracker","Manual testing"
36666697,D,1,0,111,999999999,111,"kracker","Manual testing"
37000181,D,1,0,121,999999999,121,"kracker","Manual testing"
37777787,D,1,0,111,999999999,111,"kracker","Manual testing"
38500339,D,1,0,110,999999999,110,"kracker","Manual testing"
58125523,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58126811,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58137509,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58193693,LL,1,0,102,999999999,102,"kracker","Manual testing"
64018411,LL,1,0,119,999999999,119,"kracker","Manual testing"[/CODE]

Is this a bug somewhere that you are reporting?

[QUOTE=chalsall;364921]I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. But the data is:

[CODE]31133689,D,1,0,131,999999999,131,"kracker","Manual testing"
32110523,D,1,0,131,999999999,131,"kracker","Manual testing"
32146871,D,1,0,128,999999999,128,"kracker","Manual testing"
36666697,D,1,0,111,999999999,111,"kracker","Manual testing"
37000181,D,1,0,121,999999999,121,"kracker","Manual testing"
37777787,D,1,0,111,999999999,111,"kracker","Manual testing"
38500339,D,1,0,110,999999999,110,"kracker","Manual testing"
58125523,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58126811,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58137509,LL,1,0,116,999999999,116,"kracker","Manual testing"
58193693,LL,1,0,102,999999999,102,"kracker","Manual testing"
64018411,LL,1,0,119,999999999,119,"kracker","Manual testing"[/CODE]

Is this a bug somewhere that you are reporting?[/QUOTE]

Not really. Just some assignments that I hadn't realized I had.

[QUOTE=chalsall;364920]Further, I question the value of the "Manual assignments" from Primenet (particularly for "Anonymous"). Why are they valid for 180 days before being recycled? And in some cases users extend them for many years with no reported progress.[/QUOTE]

I'm standing right beside you on this one. "Anonymous" needs restrictions on their ability to get and extend assignments. Perhaps they too could be restricted from taking bottom-of-the-pile assignments entirely and be not allowed to extend them past 90 days for DC, 180 for LL?

[QUOTE=chalsall;364919]Sure; as could anyone who imports the CSV file into the tool of their choice... :wink:[/QUOTE]

Believe me, I would have gladly done it myself, but I don't know that any of the software I use can filter that. Unless excel has some comma-spacing option for columns.

I think I'm gonna go check that out...

EDIT: Omagad it does. Forget sleeping tonight, I'mma sort me through some data...

EDIT: Which fucker let me through 3 and a half years of engineering without telling me about this?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364929]EDIT: Which fucker let me through 3 and a half years of engineering without telling me about this?[/QUOTE]

In all seriousness, there was a reason I dropped out of University about 25 years ago. I wasn't learning anything I hadn't already taught myself.

I was then invited back to teach by the same University about ten years later....

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364918]I seriously doubt very many people would be pissed off if we did that.[/QUOTE]

My 6 will all be done within a few weeks ... and that is without intervention.

Not pissed off ... no ... but I do often have work over 90 days ... for a couple of reasons:

1. 90 is the maximum "Days of work to queue up" you can specify and sometime I do that if I want to load up with work in a "sweet" range ... knowing that it will all get done within the 90 days plus however long it takes to complete once started ... up to 45 more days.

2. Sometimes I need to juggle my worktodo a little to complete "prime" (pun intended) assignments first (i.e. milestone helpers). This can move some a little beyond 90 days.

So could I suggest 90 days is a little too aggressive; especially considering how many are on the list well beyond that. And because a specific assignment has no progress doesn't mean it isn't moving up the list in the worktodo.

Safer but probably much more difficult might be to look for NO progress and NO reduction in Days to complete over time.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;364928]I'm standing right beside you on this one. "Anonymous" needs restrictions on their ability to get and extend assignments. Perhaps they too could be restricted from taking bottom-of-the-pile assignments entirely and be not allowed to extend them past 90 days for DC, 180 for LL?[/QUOTE]

Except that ANONYMOUS is many different people who choose not to be named.

Some are very well behaved in this regard ... some ???

[QUOTE=chalsall;364934]In all seriousness, there was a reason I dropped out of University about 25 years ago. I wasn't learning anything I hadn't already taught myself.

I was then invited back to teach by the same University about ten years later....[/QUOTE]

Sadly the kind of work I'm going after requires the bachelor's degree at a minimum. If I was in business I probably would have given up and just gone and started working.