[QUOTE=ixfd64;431892]I think "Anonymous" would be more accurate. As for users without accounts, they should be marked as "Unregistered."[/QUOTE]
+1

Summy....
 

Seems to have picked up the pace...maybe he heard us talking about his rate of progress.

Still at the risk of expiring before completion but closing the gap.

[QUOTE=petrw1;432275]Seems to have picked up the pace...maybe he heard us talking about his rate of progress.

Still at the risk of expiring before completion but closing the gap.[/QUOTE]

How about that cat 1 with an ETA exceeding nine thousand days (almost a quarter century)?

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;432281]How about that cat 1 with an ETA exceeding nine thousand days (almost a quarter century)?[/QUOTE]

Different guy/gal.

I was only referring to the 63M assignment at the tail end and at risk of expiring before completion.
Besides that other one will be expired LOOOOOOONG before 9,000 days

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;432281]How about that cat 1 with an ETA exceeding nine thousand days (almost a quarter century)?[/QUOTE]How could [url=http://www.mersenne.org/M67542281]67542281[/url] be assigned to that computer ? It is a Category 1 assignment and the computer does not update and indeed the ETA is in 2041... Strange !

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;432310]How could [url=http://www.mersenne.org/M67542281]67542281[/url] be assigned to that computer ? It is a Category 1 assignment and the computer does not update and indeed the ETA is in 2041... Strange !

Jacob[/QUOTE]

See post #2415

[QUOTE=Prime95;432325]See post #2415[/QUOTE]

So were both cat 0 M67122481 and cat 1 M67542281 assigned in error? In any case, the cat 1 (M67542281) should get recycled around May 6 or May 7, assuming the owner doesn't report starting it.

[QUOTE=Prime95;432325]See post #2415[/QUOTE]

Being no direct answer to Jacob's question was provided, I'll just say that post #2415 has two parts. If it's the first part that we're supposed to "see," the implication would seem to be that the machine in question has been productive recently, but for some unknown reason, a ridiculous ETA was calculated for a new exponent. If it's the 2nd part of #2415 that we're supposed to "see," then the implication would seem to be that [url=http://www.mersenne.org/M67542281]67542281[/url] was assigned in error (in my view, a more logical explanation).

The latest stats for 63350927 (my own analysis) shows that it will finish in 20.5 days, just shy of the 18-19 days before it expires.

We're faced with one of those dilemmas again where it could be a real squeaker. The pace has picked up a bit ever since it stopped running at all for about a week, so it may actually recover enough oomph to finish in time.

On the other hand, if it might only miss the expiration deadline by a day... should we intervene and manually extend it? I guess that's a good question for George... personally I'd probably extend that courtesy since it really will be a difference of 24-48 hours.

There will be 18 more days for it to make some improvements in the predicted ETA (the client itself is still reporting an ETA that's 4 days further out than my own prediction, but Prime95 is pretty conservative in it's estimates). I just wanted to throw out the idea that this might be a good candidate for extending it a bit and letting the original assignee finish.

The alternative to letting it expire is that someone else will get it, start work on it, and unless they have a super fast machine, they'll be "poached" a day or two later by this expired work. Not as big a deal for first time checks, true, but still annoying for the person who just got the new assignment.

We could probably do with something in the expire rules. If an exponent is x% complete and will complete within x days then it is extended by x days as long as it reports in every x days and continues making progress.

It seems to me that a fair few exponents are coming up that expire but will probably be finished before the next assignee finishes it. We should be looking at the progress made.
To me if an exponent which has 60 days to complete is 70% complete at 60 days then it shouldn't be expired as the remaining 30% will probably take less than 30 days(quicker than we would as the next assignee to do).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;432584]The alternative to letting it expire is that someone else will get it, start work on it, and unless they have a super fast machine, they'll be "poached" a day or two later by this expired work. Not as big a deal for first time checks, true, but still annoying for the person who just got the new assignment.[/QUOTE]

I would argue you let "nature" take its course. Keep in mind it actually has 19 days to complete, and has done 3.1% in the last two days. And if you make an exception in this case, do you also do so for his other seven assignments? What about others in a similar situation?

The risk of a Cat 0 being "poached" by the expired assignee must be a risk accepted by those explicitly opting for that work type.

Fortunately soon this type of issue will occur far less frequently, as users like Summy won't be given inappropriate work even though they've "promised".

[QUOTE=chalsall;432589]I would argue you let "nature" take its course. Keep in mind it actually has 19 days to complete, and has done 3.1% in the last two days. And if you make an exception in this case, do you also do so for his other seven assignments? What about others in a similar situation?
[/QUOTE]

I would agree. And the advantage would be that that exponent gets doubled checked in a very short time. (and in the hypothetical that the both residues do not match we are made aware of this sooner rather than later)

Yesterday the last unassigned DCs under 36M were assigned. ~400 to go.

[QUOTE=henryzz;432588]We could probably do with something in the expire rules. If an exponent is x% complete and will complete within x days then it is extended by x days as long as it reports in every x days and continues making progress.[/QUOTE]

We should consider this.

First of all, I'd give the 2-day extension if it looks like it will complete. It isn't that I worry about hurting his feelings, rather I don't think it is fair for the re-assignee who has signed up for first-time tests.

In this case it is no big deal as no work is really wasted, but for DCs it becomes much more important. Right now the database only keeps track of the last progress report and thus cannot make an accurate prediction of the completion date. Madpoo either has a SQL table I don't know about or is tracking it manually.

Maybe madpoo can comment on the feasibility of making accurate predictions and then we can discuss suggested rules for grace periods.

One idea is to require a registered e-mail for users who want Category 0 or 1 assignments. This will allow PrimeNet to send reminders when assignments are close to expiration.

[QUOTE=Prime95;432610]It isn't that I worry about hurting his feelings, rather I don't think it is fair for the re-assignee who has signed up for first-time tests.[/QUOTE]

Agreed... that ^^^

I'm more worried about the new assignee getting "poached" (but not really) when this finishes up only 2 days into their own run.

[QUOTE=Prime95;432610]In this case it is no big deal as no work is really wasted, but for DCs it becomes much more important. Right now the database only keeps track of the last progress report and thus cannot make an accurate prediction of the completion date. Madpoo either has a SQL table I don't know about or is tracking it manually.

Maybe madpoo can comment on the feasibility of making accurate predictions and then we can discuss suggested rules for grace periods.[/QUOTE]

Indeed... a SQL table I setup to track a daily snapshot of all assignments that have updated since the last time and have some progress to report. If they've checked in but the needle hasn't moved since last time, I think I ignore those.

Anyway, then it's down to an analysis of a particular exponent's progress over time which lets me estimate the actual daily rate.

It can be thrown off by periods of inactivity (machines being turned off for a day or two), but it tends to average out over long runs.

Once an assignment checks in, the history for it is removed as a way of cleaning up the DB. Expired assignments might get removed too...

For M63350927 specifically, the latest report shows it expiring in 15 days and finishing in 16.9.

Assignments get a sort-of reprieve since the expiration rules run just before midnight, so realistically it would expire about a day before it finishes (if I'm remembering that right).

Seeing that the demise of the 36M milestone draws nigh, perchance Aaron would find it expedient to forthwith codify the placement of 37M to list of future achievements.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;432806]Seeing that the demise of the 36M milestone draws nigh, perchance Aaron would find it expedient to forthwith codify the placement of 37M to list of future achievements.[/QUOTE]

It's not too close, but I do already have the update ready to go. I guess I could go ahead and put that up now. Keep an eye out for that.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;432753]For M63350927 specifically, the latest report shows it expiring in 15 days and finishing in 16.9.[/QUOTE]

And now I'm showing 12 days to expire, and 12.3 days to finish. So it might just finish under the wire after all. C'mon Summy! You can do it!

[QUOTE=Madpoo;432956]And now I'm showing 12 days to expire, and 12.3 days to finish. So it might just finish under the wire after all. C'mon Summy! You can do it![/QUOTE]

Latest is now [B]9[/B] days to expire and [B]8.2[/B] days to complete! Well, hooray, but geez... I know they got 90 days to finish but it still seems weird when someone *actually* takes 90 days to finish. Know what I'm saying? :smile:

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;432329]In any case, the cat 1 (M67542281) should get recycled around May 6 or May 7, assuming the owner doesn't report starting it.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, the owner did not report starting this exponent that had a nearly 25 year ETA, and it has been recycled. It's still a cat 1, not quite in the cat 0 range yet. The new owner's ETA is a mere 27 days.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;431346]Estimated time until this gets poached????
I am against such activity. I suspect it will occur in less than 2 weeks.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;431349]I think it will be poached before the 20th.[/QUOTE]
I am glad that we are both wrong.

I wondered if my machines were acceptable for category 0 assignments. I have the answer : I am the proud owner of the lowest double-check assignment. It should be finished in less than 4 days...

Jacob

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;420969]Taking a look at the old [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/"]"colorful stats report"[/URL]:[LIST][*]Only 8,600+ Mersenne numbers need factored to reach a total of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers in the "classical" exponent range of 0-79.3M.[/LIST][/QUOTE]

This number is now down to 1,417, and the milestone of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers could be reached by the end of May.

I may end up owing some apologies to some users who were assigned exponents I accidentally poached. :(

I specifically noticed it when looking at one I just checked in:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M35720957"]M35720957[/URL]

I had a handful of 35M exponents assigned to me and rather than keep them on some slower machines, I moved them to my fastest systems to get them done quicker. In the process I noticed I had some other 35M work that I'd manually planned to look at (they were exponents where the CPU doing the first check had a so-so chance of being bad)... Those worktodo entries got tossed in with the rest of my 35M stuff. Argh.

Anyway, if you're someone that I accidentally poached their assignment, I apologize and I'll donate my work credit to you, just PM me with the exponent and your Primenet username...

In the meanwhile, on the bright side, M63350927 looks like it'll finish in just 4.7 more days (expires in 6). We can hope.

And it's done!

[QUOTE=ixfd64;433649]And it's done![/QUOTE]

*Finally*... that was brutal.

Milestone page updated. I think I might add a countdown for < 69M...

[QUOTE=Madpoo;433653]*Finally*... that was brutal.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly, four of Summy's other low assignments have already been recycled, and his remaining three are scheduled to be over the next few weeks.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;433649]And it's done![/QUOTE]

and its double-checked :smile:

I was ready to turn it in late saturday if Summy failed. It was NOT going to be reassigned again.

M66789971 - expired assignment will probably finish first
 

I've been watching this last < 68M exponent...
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M66789971"]http://www.mersenne.org/M66789971[/URL]

The most recent expired assignment has still been plugging away at it and by my estimation it will finish today. Whether or not it reports in today, unknown, but it's been doing about 0.4 % daily and it only has 0.2% left.

I was so sure it would finish today, I've already pre-staged the updated milestone page reflecting today's date as the completion of that < 68M milestone. Optimistic? You bet. :smile:

Let that be a good example to people who pick up these cat 0 or cat 1 things... if you plan to twiddle your thumbs and take as much time as you like, remember, the previous assignee might still be running it and could finish before you. A real tortoise/hare story... slow and steady wins the race (although I'm stretching the analogy since they didn't start their tests at the same time).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;434770]I've been watching this last < 68M exponent...[/QUOTE]< 6[b]7[/b]M?

[QUOTE=retina;434771]< 6[b]7[/b]M?[/QUOTE]

Umm... yeah... that's what I meant. Or, I mean, the mods must be changing my post and turning 67M into 68M. :smile:

2016-04-02 Jon "Pace" LL first test LL 69.9 % 2016-05-24

Monicker very aptly chosen!

[QUOTE=Madpoo;434770]Let that be a good example to people who pick up these cat 0 or cat 1 things... if you plan to twiddle your thumbs and take as much time as you like, remember, the previous assignee might still be running it and could finish before you.[/QUOTE]

Actually, there's a possibility there's a bug in the new Primenet assignment rules. Or, more specifically, the software hasn't codified all of the conditions specified in the [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]English[/URL].

Just by chance (because of this conversation) I happened to notice that "Reboot It"'s "RI_303" computer was assigned 67364053 today, and reported an ETA of 36 days. I found this a bit odd since the newest assignment rules says that Cat 0 assignments are given to machines expected to complete in 15 days, but have up to 30 days to do so.

It doesn't matter in this specific case, because the original assignee, "ME" [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=67364053&full=1"]ended up competing the assignment[/URL] after it was assigned to Reboot It.

But... I have reason to suspect the "Setting for 'days of work to queue' <= 3" clause for Cat 0 hasn't been included in the assignment code. RI_303 was given 67462853 on 2016-05-20 and is 29.40% complete; ETA 12 days.

Less than 22 Million UnFactored
 

[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/url]

[QUOTE=chalsall;434781]But... I have reason to suspect the "Setting for 'days of work to queue' <= 3" clause for Cat 0 hasn't been included in the assignment code. RI_303 was given 67462853 on 2016-05-20 and is 29.40% complete; ETA 12 days.[/QUOTE]

Hmm... maybe... maybe not.

M67462853 looks like it took 2 days between assignment and it's first check-in. It's checked in 3 times since then and it's averaging about 12% daily. I can't say if that'll hold true over the long run but if they run 24/7 I guess it should be okay.

Same user/same CPU is currently at 96.7% done on another assignment on what seems to be the same worker that'll be used for the other exponent you mentioned, so I imagine it'll start shortly. (and they're also doing P-1 assignments too).

But hey, why did you let your assignment expire before finishing? C'mon! :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;434770]I was so sure [M66789971] would finish today, I've already pre-staged the updated milestone page reflecting today's date as the completion of that < 68M milestone.[/QUOTE]And ... nothing happened. So yet another user that sits in front of the computer and kills P95 when the result showed not prime?

[QUOTE=retina;434798]And ... nothing happened. So yet another user that sits in front of the computer and kills P95 when the result showed not prime?[/QUOTE]

I was just talking about the previous, expired assignment that was still chugging. And I was soooo close. It actually just checked in about 15 minutes ago so we are now DONE with everything < 67M. Whew. But yeah, I was off by 3.5 hours... I suspect it was done earlier and just took longer to connect and report it for whatever reason. Oh well.

The current assignee is now a double check... it's set to finish in another couple weeks but it's kind of cool that other one came in earlier.

[QUOTE=petrw1;434788][URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/URL][/QUOTE]
Yeah! Nice milestone! :tu:
Now we only have to find 21 million more factors, to have "less than a million left!" ...
:razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;434801]Yeah! Nice milestone! :tu:
Now we only have to find 21 million more factors, to have "less than a million left!" ...
:razz:[/QUOTE]I want to see "less than 49 left".

[size=1]We [u]can[/u] factor those primes, just work harder![/size]

[QUOTE=retina;434802]I want to see "less than 49 left".
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean there is no prime left? And we work here in vain? :tantrum:
You know, yesterday when people were discussing in a parallel thread, about the largest mersenne full factored, I was thinking, "what the hack, that is 2[SUP]74,207,281[/SUP]−1, and I can't see you finding a larger one too soon..." :cmd:
But no time to post it...

[QUOTE=LaurV;434803]Do you mean there is no prime left? And we work here in vain?[/QUOTE]Yes, we work here in vain. But I don't see how that relates to primes in any way? :razz:

And besides, if/when a new prime is found just keep doing TF until you [url=http://www.quotesnpictures.com/an-easy-way-to-factor-large-prime-numbers/]find that factor[/url].

Expires in minus 42 days.
 

Should we read this as T minus 42?

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=36951293&exp_hi=36951293&execm=1&exfirst=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;435052]Should we read this as T minus 42?

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=36951293&exp_hi=36951293&execm=1&exfirst=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Ah, yeah, I need to update the calculation for days-to-expire with the new assignment rules. I figured it was a matter of time before something weird happened.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435094]Ah, yeah, I need to update the calculation for days-to-expire with the new assignment rules. I figured it was a matter of time before something weird happened.[/QUOTE]

Okay... it's kind of fixed.

This particular one was originally cat 2, but the new expiration rules say it doesn't fall under the expiration guidelines until it's *midway* in the cat 1 category. That was the tricky bit because my code was using the old rules of when it was simply in the cat 1 range at all.

So I adjusted for that and also implemented the other new rules for how many days are allowed, etc. Now it's showing the expiration as null since it's not under any particular countdown for the moment. It's 142 days old or something and according to the old rules it should have expired 22 days ago (at 120 days). But since the new rule only kicks in for "midway in category 1" it's still above that threshold where the clock really starts ticking.

There are some edge cases I'm not accounting for in these calculations (like exceptions for manually assigned work or if the cpu hasn't reported in recently, but I'm okay with that for now. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435107]until it's *midway* in the cat 1 category. :smile:[/QUOTE]

It's my job to make your life difficult :)

How do I adjust my settings so I just get Cat 4 double checks? My exponents to be tested were fine yesterday with respect to expiration, but now three of them are showing that they will expire before being finished. I'm tired of dealing with shifting exponents between computers to avoid expiration so I want the maximum time available.

[QUOTE=Prime95;435111]It's my job to make your life difficult :)[/QUOTE]

LOL... it's all good. Besides, I was happy when I paid more attention to the new rules to see all of the "must start within XX days" requirements. Those are good requirements and it lit up the assignment report page like a Christmas tree with all of the red and yellow "about to expire" assignments that weren't highlighted previously. :smile:

[QUOTE=richs;435114]How do I adjust my settings so I just get Cat 4 double checks? My exponents to be tested were fine yesterday with respect to expiration, but now three of them are showing that they will expire before being finished. I'm tired of dealing with shifting exponents between computers to avoid expiration so I want the maximum time available.[/QUOTE]

Hmm... you can at least ensure that you'll only get cat 3 or cat 4 assignments if you tell Prime95 to get more than 10 days of work at a time.

When you look at that option now, what is it set to?

If I'm guessing your Prime95 username correctly (is it also "richs"?) then it looks like you have 14 active assignments and one additional that expired on May 20. Of the active, 3 of them indeed show that they're category 1 now and were category 3 when assigned back in January. 3 different machines I think?

If that's the case, I guess these must be some older machines if it takes 4+ months to finish a test in the 37M range. I peeked at what the server is reporting for your CPUs and except for a Pentium 4 @ 2.8 GHz, the other 2 seem like they should be running a little faster. The rolling averages for all 3 are well below 1000 so it makes me think they're not running 24/7, or something else on there is CPU hungry?

You can probably get more speed out of it by having 2 cores on one worker instead of one core each for 2 workers (for your i3 and i7 cpus).

Anyway, at least from what I can tell, you're in no danger of getting cat 0/1/2 exponents just based on the performance aspect alone, but you would get cat 3. Even then, cat 3 has 240 days to complete... a solid 8 months of time should be enough, shouldn't it?

The assignment rules say you'll get cat 3 if the computer has enough recent GHz-days to indicate it could probably finish in 90 days. But those rules kicked in *after* those oldest assignments. The newer assignments would have been under the rules but those were cat 3 that are now cat 2... I guess that's the risk there is that you might get the lowest cat 3 stuff and then it could become cat 2 the very next day... you never know. But the expiration rule won't kick in until it's midway into cat 1 territory.

I hope that sheds a little bit of light (and may have useful info for anyone else out there in the same predicament).

Oh, FYI, I looked at the 3 assignments that are now cat 1, and they're not yet below the midway point of cat 1 so the expiration rules don't apply yet. The assignment page should reflect that fact, now that I fixed how expirations are calculated. Check your assignments again and you may be pleasantly surprised that there's no expiration countdown yet.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435117]Oh, FYI, I looked at the 3 assignments that are now cat 1, and they're not yet below the midway point of cat 1 so the expiration rules don't apply yet. The assignment page should reflect that fact, now that I fixed how expirations are calculated. Check your assignments again and you may be pleasantly surprised that there's no expiration countdown yet.[/QUOTE]I think richs question highlights a problem. Shouldn't users be able to know from day 1 the amount of time they have to complete the assignment? All the uncertainty about when things expire is disappointing.

I'm still showing three assignments that potentially will expire. Take for example 38442727. This was assigned as a Cat 3 on April 24, originally with a 180 day expiration period (which was fine and would have been completed within that time period). Now it is a Cat 2 showing expiration in 84 days which on my older desktop is in danger of expiration.

I will shift that assignment to a faster machine, but all these changes in expiration dates are a hassle. I don't want to have an assignment working and then lose the work on it due to expiration.

I have days of work set to greater than 10, but I get Cat 3 assignments that change into Cat 2 within a day or two. What I really want is an option to get Cat 4 assignments so I can just let everything handle itself. Thanks!

[QUOTE=richs;435132]I will shift that assignment to a faster machine, but all these changes in expiration dates are a hassle. I don't want to have an assignment working and then lose the work on it due to expiration.[/QUOTE]

This shouldn't be happening.

The [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]assignment rules[/URL] are very clear that the expiry is based on what category the assignment was in *at assignment time*. It doesn't matter if a Cat 3 almost immediately becomes a Cat 2 -- that assignment still has 270 days to complete, and further, must have moved into Cat 1 before it will be recycled.

Probably (hopefully) this is simply an issue of the reporting code not correctly and/or fully codifying the human language (the contract).

[QUOTE=richs;435132]Take for example 38442727. This was assigned as a Cat 3 on April 24, originally with a 180 day expiration period (which was fine and would have been completed within that time period). Now it is a Cat 2 showing expiration in 84 days which on my older desktop is in danger of expiration.[/QUOTE]

Doh! I should try to pay more attention!

What [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=38442727&exp_hi="]is being reported is mostly correct[/URL]. It is showing it will expire in 84 days because it hasn't started yet. "Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started within 90 [days]". Edit: Seems like the report is 30 days off (in the client's favour).

Once "home2000" reports even a tiny bit of progress the expiry should jump up to 270 days from the date of assignment. And even then it won't be recycled until it is the 8,500th lowest first-time untested candidate.

[QUOTE=retina;435118]I think richs question highlights a problem. Shouldn't users be able to know from day 1 the amount of time they have to complete the assignment? All the uncertainty about when things expire is disappointing.[/QUOTE]

But they do... [URL="www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/URL]

The fact that they get a grace period until it reaches midway through category 1 is irrelevant. :smile:

[QUOTE=richs;435132]I'm still showing three assignments that potentially will expire. Take for example 38442727. This was assigned as a Cat 3 on April 24, originally with a 180 day expiration period (which was fine and would have been completed within that time period). Now it is a Cat 2 showing expiration in 84 days which on my older desktop is in danger of expiration.

I will shift that assignment to a faster machine, but all these changes in expiration dates are a hassle. I don't want to have an assignment working and then lose the work on it due to expiration.

I have days of work set to greater than 10, but I get Cat 3 assignments that change into Cat 2 within a day or two. What I really want is an option to get Cat 4 assignments so I can just let everything handle itself. Thanks![/QUOTE]

In the case of [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=38442727"]M38442727[/URL] it's because you haven't started it yet. The "% done" is zero.

Here is what the assignment rule page says for category 3 double-checking:
[QUOTE]Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started within 120 (unless manual testing) days or when the exponent moves midway into the first category and the assignment is more than 240 days old.[/QUOTE]

It was assigned 36 days ago and since it hasn't started yet, will expire in another 84 days.

But once you [B]do[/B] start it, that expiration time will "clear".

Just understand that assignments can expire for different reasons...
[LIST=1][*]Because it hasn't started in the # of days specified since being assigned (120 days for cat 3 DC)[*]The CPU hasn't checked in for a certain # of days (only for cat 0/1 assignments)[*]Because it moved into category 1 and the total-time rule goes into effect (240 days for cat 3 DC)[/LIST]
In other words, to boil it all down, you do have 240 days, but you have to start within 120 days (and let the server know you started, obviously). :smile:

Does that make more sense, hopefully? Sorry for any confusion or concern.

Doh! Ninja'd by madpoo

[QUOTE=chalsall;435148]Once "home2000" reports even a tiny bit of progress the expiry should jump up to 270 days from the date of assignment. And even then it won't be recycled until it is the 8,500th lowest first-time untested candidate.[/QUOTE]

FYI, the "midway into the first category" rule means this (I had to look at how it was implemented to make sure)

Look at the cat 0 threshold (currently 36266120 for double-check). Then look at the cat 1 threshold (currently 37345412).

The midway point is merely (cat 0 limit + cat 1 limit) / 2 = 36805766

So as of this minute, everything below 36805766 falls under the new "midway into cat 1" rule. Helpful?

It's not (as I first thought, like you perhaps) the point at which half of the assignments are above/below. Which I was glad for, because that would have been more work to figure out. :smile:

[QUOTE=sdbardwick;435151]Doh! Ninja'd by madpoo[/QUOTE]

Double Doh! Yeah, I was reading the LL rules rather than the DC rules.

I'm going to go back to my garden now.... :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435150]

In other words, to boil it all down, you do have 240 days, but you have to start within 120 days (and let the server know you started, obviously). :smile:
[/QUOTE]

Maybe add a superscript * footnote to the report indicating that the expiration time will increase once the assignment starts?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435150]It was assigned 36 days ago and since it hasn't started yet, will expire in another 84 days.

But once you [B]do[/B] start it, that expiration time will "clear".[/QUOTE]And there is the confusing part. Two expiry dates. But reports only show one expiry date. I was also confused by this. I understand now, but so many others that don't read here probably won't understand.

[QUOTE=retina;435180]And there is the confusing part. Two expiry dates. But reports only show one expiry date. I was also confused by this. I understand now, but so many others that don't read here probably won't understand.[/QUOTE]

maybe call it the gtil date ? short for get to it or lose it

[QUOTE=retina;435180]And there is the confusing part. Two expiry dates. But reports only show one expiry date. I was also confused by this. I understand now, but so many others that don't read here probably won't understand.[/QUOTE]

From a snapshot-in-time perspective, the expiration date that shows when work hasn't started yet is actually correct. It may be based on a steady-state assumption that the current condition (not started) won't change, but it is what it is, just a point in time declaration that if conditions stay as they are, it will expire in XX days.

Another example would be an assignment that today shows no expiration, but tomorrow it moves below the mid-cat 1 level and now it has an expiration. Conditions changed so the expiration time changes to match.

We [I]could[/I] exclude the "hasn't started yet" from showing expiration times but consider that a large % of assignments actually never do start and I think it's nice to get an idea of when those are set to expire.

What is the purpose of showing the expiration time at all, I guess? If it's a clue to the assignee that time is running out and they might need to do something about it, they need to see that countdown no matter how it was derived.

To George's point, if we somehow highlight or make note of the fact that some expiration times are due to the work not starting, as opposed to simply taking too long, that might work. I'll explore some options with that.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435214]We [I]could[/I] exclude the "hasn't started yet" from showing expiration times but consider that a large % of assignments actually never do start and I think it's nice to get an idea of when those are set to expire.[/QUOTE]

If it is ok to show a "date of expiry" instead of "days to expire", you could just show the "deadline to start" and "deadline to finish" dates.

everything below 36M double-checked
 

Ah... the last of the 35M DC's finished. I was expecting that today and had the new page ready to go.

In less than 4 months we went from this:
[CODE]All exponents below 35,049,317 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 63,012,913 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 64M: 19 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 65M: 27 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 66M: 38 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 67M: 160 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 68M: 5,316 (4,354 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 75,758

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 36M: 4,131 (3,486 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 12,698
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 91,788
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 100,506
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 388,723
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 706,261[/CODE]To this [CODE]All exponents below 36,046,457 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 67,364,459 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 68M: 1,094 (Estimated completion : 2016-12-18)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 69M: 5,665 (2,822 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 56,573

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 37M: 4,047 (3,357 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 4,548
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 68,973
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 76,489
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 357,840
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 674,380[/CODE]
I think that the new assignment rules are working really well.:smile:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;433300]This number is now down to 1,417, and the milestone of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers could be reached by the end of May.[/QUOTE]

Now down to 160.

2016-01-19 3 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 81,884

2016-05-03 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 61,933

2016-05-26 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 57,649

2016-06-02 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 56,397

Avg rate since Jan 19th: 188.5 per day
Avg rate last 30 days: 184.5 per day
Avg rate last 7 days: 178.9 per day

So if we count on somewhere between 160 and 200 per day, we will finish between 2017-03-11 and 2017-05-20.

[QUOTE=ATH;435410]So if we count on somewhere between 160 and 200 per day, we will finish between 2017-03-11 and 2017-05-20.[/QUOTE]That fits with the projection of "finishing" the range to 79.3 late 3rd quarter 2017.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;435402]Now down to 160.[/QUOTE]

That old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL] lists 2152480 exponents below 35.1M, but there are only 2152470. Are there 10 exponents in that range that are both factored and have 2 LLs, or what's causing the discrepancy?

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;435542]That old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL] lists 2152480 exponents below 35.1M, but there are only 2152470. Are there 10 exponents in that range that are both factored and have 2 LLs, or what's causing the discrepancy?[/QUOTE]

Fixed. Either a typo or human mis-adding when two lines were merged.

Taking a look at the old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL]: Only [SIZE="3"][B]19[/B][/SIZE] Mersenne numbers need factored to reach a total of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers in the "classical" exponent range of 0-79.3M.

*Your* factor could be number 3,000,000!

[QUOTE=Prime95;435547]Fixed. Either a typo or human mis-adding when two lines were merged.[/QUOTE]

So, the count of factors had been a little off. Well, I guess a slightly premature celebration will be averted.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;435561]Taking a look at the old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL]: Only [SIZE="3"][B]19[/B][/SIZE] Mersenne numbers need factored to reach a total of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers in the "classical" exponent range of 0-79.3M.

*Your* factor could be number 3,000,000![/QUOTE]

And in the full report to 1 billion if you sum the factored column there are a total of 28,859,765 exponents factored (June 4th 11pm UTC) out of the 50,847,534 prime exponents below 10[sup]9[/sup] (56.76%):

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

[CODE]
2016-06-04 11pm UTC:

Primes: 49
Factored: 28,859,765
LL-D: 857,782
LL: 640,360
LLERR: 369
NO-LL: 20,489,209
--------------------
Total: 50,847,534
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;435561]Taking a look at the old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL]: Only [SIZE="3"][B]19[/B][/SIZE] Mersenne numbers need factored to reach a total of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers in the "classical" exponent range of 0-79.3M.

*Your* factor could be number 3,000,000![/QUOTE]

Well, we're passed 3 million now. I think it was probably user "Bruce" (not to be confused with me) that submitted the lucky factor. I'm not sure, though.

62,000 in the first 1,000,000 range factored.
 

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

As we get closer to finishing the < 68M range, I noticed something weird. Out of the 16 remaining, about 12 of them are probably going to expire before finishing.

I ran my little query to analyze their daily rate of progress and you can disregard the ETAs being reported for most of them... I have *real* ETA's projected at 100+ days (or even 221 days in the case of M67820569 based on an observed 0.28% per day rate).

I mean, yeah, like that one will expire in 41 more days, but geez.

On the bright side, it was assigned before the new rules went into effect. However, about half of the ones I'm looking at were assigned *after* the new rules, but the machines in question are poking along like M67739429 (0.63% daily) or simply stopped checking in like M67673351 (which would have finished 23 days ago if they hadn't given up or whatever...it was doing 8.84% daily up 'til then).

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that info out. It doesn't really mean a whole lot in regards to the new assignment rules since we have some in there that predated those, but it was still weird that so many out of the remaining were in the "likely to expire" category.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;439859]... it was still weird that so many out of the remaining were in the "likely to expire" category.[/QUOTE]I thought it was expected behaviour. The last few in any category will always be the ones that are dragging their heels.

[QUOTE=retina;439863]I thought it was expected behaviour. The last few in any category will always be the ones that are dragging their heels.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. There will always be those who abandon for whatever reason. The new rules mean that when it happens, the LL test will almost certainly be completed by the next person who gets it, not that LL tests will always finish.

[QUOTE=retina;439863]I thought it was expected behaviour. The last few in any category will always be the ones that are dragging their heels.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it was just odd to see that half of those I think will expire were assigned [B]after[/B] the new rules were in place.

Oh well... at least they won't be getting any more cat 0/1 stuff for a while if that happens.

This day in GIMPS.....
 

I looked back in my records of the summary page: [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url] from back to 2008 almost back to when the v5 server started. I looked specifically at today Aug 23rd at 18:00 UTC and summed up the numbers with a program.

[CODE] 2016-08-23 2015-08-23 2014-08-23 2013-08-23 2012-08-23 2011-08-23 2010-08-23 2009-08-23 [COLOR="Red"][B]2008-11-20[/B][/COLOR]
18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC 18:00 UTC [COLOR="Red"][B]10:00 UTC[/B][/COLOR]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primes: 49 48 48 48 47 47 47 47 46
Factored: 28923338 28576259 28291984 28021026 27871933 27686192 27462158 26245385 25682322
LL-D: 879314 791072 742738 700969 657589 611738 557954 518800 492556
LL: 638188 642571 610467 557144 506861 488761 480513 452520 425328
LLERR: 327 406 568 784 1035 1353 2099 3025 5530
NO-LL: 20406318 20837179 21201730 21567564 21810069 22059443 22344763 23627757 24241752

Total: 50847534 50847535 50847535 50847535 50847534 50847534 50847534 50847534 50847534
[/CODE]

Note that for 2008 the date is Nov 20th at 10am UTC, that is the earliest full summary page I have.

Notice that for 2013, 2014 and 2015 the total 50847535 is 1 too high compared to the 50,847,534 primes under 1 billion. I looked for errors in my summing program but I could not find any, and I did not bother adding all the numbers by hand, so I assume there was 1 too many in one of the columns on the summary page back then.

1944-08-23 [URL="http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-484553"]Romanian Insurrection[/URL] :razz:
(sorry, could not stop myself when I saw those dates!)
/offtopic

There could be a milestone coming up in the "weird and wacky" category. Maybe an award for "longest running and useless test result"

[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M26553437"]M26553437[/URL]

There's an expired assignment that was assigned that exponent back in May of 2011, it was picked up (poached?) by someone and finished DC in Nov 2012, the assignment itself technically should have expired once the DC was done, but it looks like it was actually expired when the grandfather rules were implemented back in Jan/Feb 2014.

Despite all of that, the user has continued plugging away at it and is now 95.8 % done.

His machine is predicting an ETA of Aug 26 but it's probably one of those cases where it keeps saying "I'll be done soon" even though soon never seems to come.

My actual analysis of the progress can't project an ETA because it actually hasn't gone up even a single 1/10 of a percent for the past several months... but hey, it keeps checking in so at least it's running, even if it might only do 0.1% every 6 months?

The same user is also doing 27384901 and 27385009 which actually have logged enough progress to say that it's doing 0.001% daily, so they're estimated to finish in 2041 to 2049. Set your alarm clocks.

There's actually an older machine that's still checking in for these exponents: 25413671 and 25413779

But unlike that other one, it hasn't actually started yet (or it's still under 0.1% done?) so it's not as much fun. The curious thing about that one is the CPU running them: "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4702MQ CPU @ 2.20GHz"

You'd think it would be a little further along by now. :smile:

The number of LL decreased this year for the first time. This is due to an increase in LL-D.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

September 2, 2016 Double-checking proves M(37156667) is officially the 45th Mersenne prime.

[QUOTE=GP2;441386][url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

September 2, 2016 Double-checking proves M(37156667) is officially the 45th Mersenne prime.[/QUOTE]

I guess [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primes/[/url] needs to updated to remove the asterisk.

[QUOTE=GP2;441386][URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/URL]

September 2, 2016 Double-checking proves M(37156667) is officially the 45th Mersenne prime.[/QUOTE]

There's no better birthday present than a new GIMPS milestone, especially one that confirms a Mersenne prime's place in line! :smile:

Just four days shy of eight years (from one end of the Obama administration to the other!) between discovery and final confirmation. Seems like only yesterday that these twins were found.

[QUOTE=0PolarBearsHere;441388]I guess [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primes/[/url] needs to updated to remove the asterisk.[/QUOTE]

Ah, whoops, yeah. I think George might have that fixed by now... he beat me to it. :smile:

Now I know why we found out M47* before M45. That was because the graphic on the bottom of that page to look nice. Otherwise, M46* and M47* dots would have been overposed on top of each other and we could not see them clearly. And you tell me there is no god... :davar55:

[QUOTE=LaurV;441436]Now I know why we found out M47* before M45. That was because the graphic on the bottom of that page to look nice. Otherwise, M46* and M47* dots would have been overposed on top of each other and we could not see them clearly. And you tell me there is no god... :davar55:[/QUOTE]
Can you please post a link to the graph?

[QUOTE=rudy235;441479]Can you please post a link to the graph?[/QUOTE]

At the bottom of the page [url]http://www.mersenne.org/primes/[/url]

[QUOTE=LaurV;441436]...Otherwise, M46* and M47* dots would have been overposed on top of each other and we could not see them clearly. And you tell me there is no god... :davar55:[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right! :bounce:

Another little milestone!

All exponents below 68M have been tested at least once.

Smallest double-check : is it jinxed ?
 

Some exponents will just not finish, sometimes even when almost done. For instance the smallest exponent needing a double check : [url=http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=37513111&full=1]M37513111[/url], it was less than 15 % from completion during the penultimate abandoned attempt and less than 7 % during the last.

I hope to have it finished tomorrow 2016-10-16 round 20:10 UCT.

Jacob

A few misc. milestones that interest me....
 

Besides those regularly chatted about; i.e. 50th Prime.

We may or may not see any of these in 2017

1. When 80% of exponents < 1 Million are either Factored or Prime.
[url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url]
-- Currently at (62,155+33)/78498 = 79.22%

2. When there are a total of 30 Million Factored exponents
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/url] ... for next 2 as well
-- Currently at 28,984,181

3. When there are a total of less than 20 Million Un-Factored exponents
-- Currently at 21,863,304

4. When all exponents above 30 Million are factored to 70 bits.

We have just ( yesterday, actually) factored 57.00% of all exponents below 1B.
I wonder when we will reach 60%. Reckon it will take at least 5-6 years, given that going from 54.9% to 57% took over three and a half years.
Another milestone I'm looking forward to is "all numbers with exponents less than 1B trial factored to at least 63 bits". We are getting there, slowly but surely.

[QUOTE=lycorn;445257]Another milestone I'm looking forward to is "all numbers with exponents less than 1B trial factored to at least 63 bits". We are getting there, slowly but surely.[/QUOTE]

Before year end... a couple of us are on it.

[url]www.mersenne.org/assignments?exp_lo=37000000&exp_hi=38000000&execm=1&exp1=1[/url]
DC 38M milestone being held up by abandoned assignments from
dubslow and kracker
can you guys complete them or unreserve them
thanks