[QUOTE=rudy235;468969]Ohh my G*d. They took me literally.
[/QUOTE]

I don't find cancer to be a joking matter, so taking it literally seemed better than taking offense.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;468975]they also know their fair share of tripe when they read it.[/QUOTE]

Trope not "tripe".:smile:

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;468980]I don't find cancer to be a joking matter, so taking it literally seemed better than taking offense.[/QUOTE]

:nocomment:

[QUOTE=rudy235;468983]Trope not "tripe".:smile:[/QUOTE]

Although I think we could say that every trope is trite. And I suppose there may be a trope that is tripe, but I'm drawing a blank thinking of any tropes that have to do with a cow's digestive system.

Fittingly, "tripe" is also defined as "something poor, worthless, or offensive" which I think defines where this thread has veered off to. :smile:

Course correction: Someone should poach that last <75M exponent

[QUOTE=Madpoo;469026]Although I think we could say that every trope is trite. And I suppose there may be a trope that is tripe, but I'm drawing a blank thinking of any tropes that have to do with a cow's digestive system.

Fittingly, "tripe" is also defined as "something poor, worthless, or offensive" which I think defines where this thread has veered off to. :smile:

Course correction: Someone should poach that last <75M exponent[/QUOTE]

I was not offensive They became offensive and I did not engage.

The whole idea (before it veered) was that the exponent was progressing way to slow.

I concur that something should be done. Two milestones are waiting.

If that is the general consensus I started the exponent, ETA ~ 60h.

[QUOTE=ATH;469033]If that is the general consensus I started the exponent, ETA ~ 60h.[/QUOTE]

Great! And on to 79.3 million. < 25,000 to get there! :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;469026]Course correction: Someone should poach that last <75M exponent[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ATH;469033]If that is the general consensus I started the exponent, ETA ~ 60h.[/QUOTE]
:no:
Poaching is bad enough as it is, we don't need it "officially" encouraged. Madpoo's words have a lot of "official" weight here around, and when you "tempt" the people to poach, you should clearly define, in this case, what's happening if this circus turns out a prime... Who gets the glory, who gets the money? :razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;469102]Poaching is bad enough as it is, we don't need it "officially" encouraged. [/QUOTE]

+1 :two cents:

:popcorn:

[QUOTE=ATH;469033]If that is the general consensus I started the exponent, ETA ~ 60h.[/QUOTE]

It is done. It was finished on the Oct 4th if we go by UTC.

So I was pessimistic in my guess and Chalsall was optimistic:

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=423041&postcount=349[/url]

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=423044&postcount=352[/url]

Chalsall was slightly closer with 7 months vs 8 months.

So, in reply to who gets the glory? Mikeblas does.

Who gets the money? No one.

[QUOTE=ATH;469257]It is done. It was finished on the Oct 4th if we go by UTC.[/QUOTE]

Actually it was Oct 5th UTC, it was Oct 4th EDT.

I know UTC is -2 hours from CET (my time) and it finished 4:47am CET, but I still subtracted -6 hours in my head (for EDT). I blame the 2 weeks of night shift I am currently doing, which will probably cost me billions of brain cells :)


Edit: Damn, 2h47min too late to hit 2 years exactly since last milestone:

2017-10-05 All exponents below M(74 207 281) tested at least once.
2015-10-04 All exponents below M(57 885 161) tested at least once.

[QUOTE=LaurV;469102]:no:
Poaching is bad enough as it is, we don't need it "officially" encouraged. Madpoo's words have a lot of "official" weight here around, and when you "tempt" the people to poach, you should clearly define, in this case, what's happening if this circus turns out a prime... Who gets the glory, who gets the money? :razz:[/QUOTE]

You may be right. I'd be in heap big doo doo if it turned out to be prime and I had encouraged someone to poach it.

In this case I was basing my comment on the fact that I highly doubted the current assignee would complete before it expired, so it was a preemptive strike. :smile: Might not hold much weight in a court of law, but I stand by that assessment anyway. LOL

For what it's worth, that assignment for M74095187 still hasn't updated since Oct 1 ... yeah, it's expired now but since it's in progress it would normally finish... the client won't unassign it and abandon it or anything.

I may be surprised and see him turn in a result in the next couple weeks, proving me wrong, but I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;469355]You may be right. I'd be in heap big doo doo if it turned out to be prime and I had encouraged someone to poach it.

In this case I was basing my comment on the fact that I highly doubted the current assignee would complete before it expired, so it was a preemptive strike. :smile: Might not hold much weight in a court of law, but I stand by that assessment anyway. LOL

For what it's worth, that assignment for M74095187 still hasn't updated since Oct 1 ... yeah, it's expired now but since it's in progress it would normally finish... the client won't unassign it and abandon it or anything.

I may be surprised and see him turn in a result in the next couple weeks, proving me wrong, but I doubt it.[/QUOTE]

But the exponent 74095187 had been already tested by mikeblas. Suspect result or not, this was a second testing. The result of ATH verified the previous result of AE5C73EB430E2D72 The other user "icedragon" verification is moot because if it coincides with the other 2 it is a third and thusly unneeded and if it differs it will not be taken into account.

[QUOTE=rudy235;469387]But the exponent 74095187 had been already tested by mikeblas. Suspect result or not, this was a second testing. The result of ATH verified the previous result of AE5C73EB430E2D72 The other user "icedragon" verification is moot because if it coincides with the other 2 it is a third and thusly unneeded and if it differs it will not be taken into account.[/QUOTE]

True, it's no longer needed, but the assignment will keep going.

In fact it checked in again today... still at the same 80.3%, no change since last time (6 days ago).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;469398]True, it's no longer needed, but the assignment will keep going.

In fact it checked in again today... still at the same 80.3%, no change since last time (6 days ago).[/QUOTE]

3 weeks later the user is still at 80.3%


2017-07-30 Icedragon LL double-check LL 80.3 % 2017-10-24 2017-10-05

Less than 20,000 primes remain to be tested for the first time to complete the classic view of 79.3 million.

[ATTACH]17165[/ATTACH]

This was the situation only 22 months ago (Jan 11, 2016)


[ATTACH]17164[/ATTACH] Just about 9 times more!

Fixed the milestone page
 

With PRP assignments and results now in the mix, it was messing up the milestone page. PRP assignments were showing up even with "exclude doublechecks".

Well, technically they were NOT doublechecks of another PRP test, but there was already an LL test done for the ones showing up so... not really a first time check either.

It was also failing to take into account when a PRP test was done but not an LL test.

Anyway, I got that all sorted out and now the milestone page should be accurate, and the assignments page with "exclude doublechecks" will NOT include PRP assignments when an LL test has already been done. If you want to see those overlapping PRPs, don't exclude doublechecks.

Basically, for now I'm going to pretend that a PRP test for an exponent that's already had an LL test is technically a double-check.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;472031]With PRP assignments and results now in the mix, it was messing up the milestone page. PRP assignments were showing up even with "exclude doublechecks".

Well, technically they were NOT doublechecks of another PRP test, but there was already an LL test done for the ones showing up so... not really a first time check either.

It was also failing to take into account when a PRP test was done but not an LL test.

Anyway, I got that all sorted out and now the milestone page should be accurate, and the assignments page with "exclude doublechecks" will NOT include PRP assignments when an LL test has already been done. If you want to see those overlapping PRPs, don't exclude doublechecks.

Basically, for now I'm going to pretend that a PRP test for an exponent that's already had an LL test is technically a double-check.[/QUOTE]So now those PRP "double checks" only seem to show up if I untick both the LL and DC boxes together.

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=75664571&exp_hi=76000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

That doesn't feel right to me.

[QUOTE=retina;472084]So now those PRP "double checks" only seem to show up if I untick both the LL and DC boxes together.

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=75664571&exp_hi=76000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

That doesn't feel right to me.[/QUOTE]

I'll have to think about this more when I'm not as tired...

Basically though, the idea is that exponents can be checked with either PRP or LL tests, and one or the other counts as a first-time check. If it's been LL tested and someone is doing a PRP test (which is the problem I saw and worked around), that's not a double-check.

Only a double-check of the same type (LL or PRP) is really a double-check, otherwise it's a different first-time check.

Anyway, if I somehow missed some use case that didn't seem obvious, I'll give it a re-think.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;472294]Only a double-check of the same type (LL or PRP) is really a double-check, otherwise it's a different first-time check.[/QUOTE]

If an exponent has an LL test [B]without any errors[/B] and a user tries to start a PRP test, maybe the server should force the assignment into an LL double check to avoid wasted work? And by the same logic if there is a successful PRP test without errors and the user tries to start an LL test, force it into a PRP double check?


[QUOTE=Madpoo;472294]Basically though, the idea is that exponents can be checked with either PRP or LL tests, and one or the other counts as a first-time check. If it's been LL tested and someone is doing a PRP test (which is the problem I saw and worked around), that's not a double-check.[/QUOTE]

So PRP double checks (when there already is an existing PRP first time test) should only show up if the "Exclude double-check assignments" is unchecked, and PRP first time test (regardless of existing LL test or not) should only show up when "Exclude first-time LL/PRP assignments" is unchecked.

[B]75838877 LL LL, 93.80% 7 -22 2017-09-17 2017-11-05 2017-11-06 2017-11-06 Edward Miller
75909439 LL LL, 59.30% 8 -19 2017-09-22 2017-11-06 2017-11-07 2017-11-09 Edward Miller[/B]


These two exponents have not been updated since the first week of November. They will eventually expire in 7 0r 8 days but in the meantime... :rant:

[QUOTE=rudy235;472575]These two exponents have not been updated since the first week of November. They will eventually expire in 7 0r 8 days but in the meantime... :rant:[/QUOTE]I doubt there will be a need for a "Christmas Miracle" this year. We have been mowing through milestones so well, we have no need to be hasty. Also, since they are first time checks.....

Seriously, 5 of the million level milestones cleared this year after last year's [FONT="Arial Black"][COLOR="Red"]10[/COLOR][/FONT]. We have passed the largest known prime, so any new prime found by a first time check will be a WR prime. The past 2 years have seen 7 of the million level milestones cleared too. This is really doing well.

One of those two is gone.. And now there are 8 in total to go.

[b]75909439 LL LL, 59.30% 8 -19 2017-09-22 2017-11-06 2017-11-07 2017-11-09 Edward Miller[/b]

Exponent
[code]
75787577 LL LL, 79.20% 1 1 2017-09-11 2017-12-09 2017-12-10 2017-12-10 aurashift

75838877 LL LL, 69.60% 27 0 2017-12-06 2017-12-09 2017-12-10 2017-12-09 Nick Thorpe

75753169 LL LL, 0.30% 29 4 2017-12-08 2017-12-08 2017-12-09 2017-12-13 owftheevil[/code]

[code]There is 1 assignment


75787577 LL PRP, 79.20% 26 0 2017-12-10 2017-12-14 2017-12-15 2017-12-14 ATH[/code]

[code]There are 23 assignments

Exponent

41741723 D LL, 87.50% 11 0 2017-10-26 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-14 Michael.Reilly
41798833 D LL, 30.20% 0 -22 2017-11-04 2017-11-14 2017-11-15 2017-11-22 driveByUpgrades
41866973 D LL, 81.80% 12 -16 2017-11-13 2017-11-26 2017-11-27 2017-11-28 Fred G
41873383 D LL, 74.20% 30 1 2017-11-14 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-15 Derek
41916769 D LL, 90.50% 15 -14 2017-11-18 2017-11-29 2017-11-30 2017-11-30 camelNotation
41918467 D LL, 42.80% 34 6 2017-11-18 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-20 rextherunt
41918711 D LL, 44.00% 34 6 2017-11-18 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-20 rextherunt
41924983 D LL, 88.40% 39 2 2017-11-23 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-16 P_B_MCL
41925823 D LL, 31.30% 35 7 2017-11-19 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-21 rextherunt
41930101 D LL, 14.70% 12 -10 2017-11-20 2017-11-26 2017-11-27 2017-12-04 Fred G
41937281 D LL, 26.40% 36 8 2017-11-20 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-22 rextherunt
41941013 D LL, 12.60% 25 5 2017-12-09 2017-12-12 2017-12-13 2017-12-19 LHS_IT
41945063 D LL, 71.40% 38 4 2017-11-22 2017-12-12 2017-12-14 2017-12-18 Richard_Otter
41955049 D LL, 87.30% 38 -1 2017-11-22 2017-12-12 2017-12-13 2017-12-13 Kish
41963699 D LL, 93.30% 38 0 2017-11-22 2017-12-13 2017-12-16 2017-12-14 BigBrother
41966129 D LL, 41.20% 12 -7 2017-08-28 2017-12-01 2017-12-02 2017-12-07 ANONYMOUS
41967389 D LL, 90.10% 39 0 2017-11-23 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-14 exbo
41967449 D LL, 93.60% 39 0 2017-11-23 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-14 honzakr
41969203 D LL, 60.60% 39 6 2017-11-23 2017-12-12 2017-12-14 2017-12-20 Richard_Otter
41969987 D LL, 68.80% 39 0 2017-11-23 2017-12-08 2017-12-15 2017-12-14 pi
41971463 D LL, 44.90% 40 8 2017-11-24 2017-12-10 2017-12-17 2017-12-22 jingfired
41973341 D LL, 77.20% 40 0 2017-11-24 2017-12-10 2017-12-11 2017-12-14 David Barina
41994479 D LL, 79.60% 40 1 2017-11-24 2017-12-13 2017-12-16 2017-12-15 BigBrother
[/code]

All exponents below 76 049 321 have been tested at least once.

We are close to finishing ths milestone. Oddly enough none of the exponents have updates since a week ago.

[code]
There are 4 assignments

Exponent Assigned Last Update

41873383 D LL, 74.20% 21 -8 2017-11-14 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-15 Derek
41941013 D LL, 12.60% 16 -4 2017-12-09 2017-12-12 2017-12-13 2017-12-19 LHS_IT
41971463 D LL, 69.00% 31 2 2017-11-24 2017-12-17 2017-12-24 2017-12-25 jingfired
41973341 D LL, 77.20% 31 -9 2017-11-24 2017-12-10 2017-12-11 2017-12-14 David Barina[/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;474729]We are close to finishing ths milestone. Oddly enough none of the exponents have updates since a week ago.

[code]
There are 4 assignments

Exponent Assigned Last Update

41873383 D LL, 74.20% 21 -8 2017-11-14 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-15 Derek
41941013 D LL, 12.60% 16 -4 2017-12-09 2017-12-12 2017-12-13 2017-12-19 LHS_IT
41971463 D LL, 69.00% 31 2 2017-11-24 2017-12-17 2017-12-24 2017-12-25 jingfired
41973341 D LL, 77.20% 31 -9 2017-11-24 2017-12-10 2017-12-11 2017-12-14 David Barina[/code][/QUOTE]

Not so odd.. consider that:
1 - We are near the Christmas holidays
2 - None of the previous numbers is held by a greedy forumite...

[QUOTE=ET_;474745]Not so odd.. consider that:
1 - We are near the Christmas holidays
2 - None of the previous numbers is held by a greedy forumite...[/QUOTE]


Apparently at least one of the 4 (jingfired) was a "greedy forumite" (whatever that means). S/he just completed the task at hand in one big swoop.
There are now 3 assignments
[code]
Exponent Assigned Last Update

41873383 D LL, 74.20% 20 -9 2017-11-14 2017-12-13 2017-12-14 2017-12-15 Derek
41941013 D LL, 12.60% 15 -5 2017-12-09 2017-12-12 2017-12-13 2017-12-19 LHS_IT
41973341 D LL, 81.90% 30 3 2017-11-24 2017-12-24 2017-12-25 2017-12-27 David Barina
[/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;474758]Apparently at least one of the 4 (jingfired) was a "greedy forumite" (whatever that means). S/he just completed the task at hand in one big swoop.
There are now 3 assignments[/QUOTE]As a reminder to the "greedy forumites": these are double checks and we are doing well at clearing milestones. Don't poach them. First time LL's can become DC's with out to much in wasted CPU time. With the new assignment rules system and the new 'prove your machine with some DC's' system, we are clearing DC's at a good pace. 2017 has been a great year for milestones. There is only 1 more that I would like to see this year. Most of you can guess what it is.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;474760]As a reminder to the "greedy forumites": these are double checks and we are doing well at clearing milestones. Don't poach them.[/QUOTE]

But it wasn't poached. The posted data above indicates that [M]M41971463[/M] was assigned to jingfired on 2017-11-24, who completed it just now. And there is no recently expired assignment to anyone else. It was merely being updated intermittently rather than daily.

[QUOTE=GP2;474763]But it wasn't poached.[/QUOTE] I did not indicate that it was. I was cautioning against poaching the remaining exponents.

One of the 3 is about to finish. The other 2 will be reassigned in January and the [U]important[/U] milestone, will be done by summer 2018,

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;474760] Most of you can guess what it is.[/QUOTE]
A... prime? Ok, done, milady...
Hehe...

:goodposting:

All under 42M now double-checked. I kind of wanted to get it done prior to the upcoming announcement of the new prime and just to cap the year off.

Let's see... 2017 started with double-checks clearing out somewhere between 38-39 million and now we've completed all under 42 million. Pretty good.

We're very close to the milestones for proving the ordering of M(42643801) -- just 1,426 to go. And M(43112609) isn't too far behind with just 2,974 to go. I think we can get those done in the first couple months of the year?

I still hope we find a "hidden prime" somewhere between 43M and 57M because that'd be pretty cool and fun, but at the current double-checking rate, I don't think we'll get up to 57M for 2-3 years at best unless we get a lot more interest in the DC work. That's over 236 thousand exponents to go, but we'll get there eventually.

I look forward to the day when PRP becomes the default work type, so we can "finish" the LL DC.

Factoring high level status ....
 

From here: [url]https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url]

[CODE]Min 54.52% 677M
Max 79.50% 0M
Avg 57.58%

%Ranges Counts
70-80 2
65-70 16
60-65 143
55-60 820
50-55 19
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=petrw1;476416]From here: [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/URL]

[CODE]Min 54.52% 677M
Max 79.50% 0M
Avg 57.58%

%Ranges Counts
70-80 2
65-70 16
60-65 143
55-60 820
50-55 19
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
James has some nice graphs of the factoring progess:
Up to 192M:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_100M/[/URL]
Up to 1000M
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_1000M/[/URL]
Up to 2^32 (4294M):
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits/[/URL]

The 5,000,000th prime exponent is not so far away: 86,028,121

I not sure if that warrants a new milestone countdown?

if M86028121 could be a mersenne prime, that would be a nice coincidence

[QUOTE=firejuggler;476513]if M86028121 could be a mersenne prime, that would be a nice coincidence[/QUOTE]

'fraid not:

86028121 Factored 1376449937

Less than 9,999 primes remain to be tested for the first time to complete the classic view of 79.3 million.

GIMPS status
The page provides a "classic" summary of the search status for Mersenne numbers with exponents below 79,300,000.


Low High Numbers Primes Factored TwoLL OneLL

Total 4,630,913 50 3,013,378 980,872 626,618 [B]9,995[/B]


It took 60 days to go from 20K to 10K


[ATTACH]17165[/ATTACH] 11/08/2017

This was the situation 2 years and 2 weeks ago (Jan 11, 2016)


[ATTACH]17164[/ATTACH] Just about 18 times more!

I've been watching the milestone countdown for proving the placement of M42643801 since it had grown frustratingly slow.

Of the 7 currently left, one stopped responding 11 days ago, and all of the other 6 had been checking in somewhat regularly but were simply not progressing from day to day. Very unusual since it was from different users.

I checked today and noticed that those 6 that had stalled had all, as of earlier today, reported at least a minor tick upwards in % done.

I don't know what causes Prime95 to keep running (keep checking in results daily) but not progressing. Something else running on there keeping it from getting any CPU time at all? Doubtful. A setting to keep it from doing any work if certain programs are running, which happened to be left running for weeks on end? Maybe. Some other unknown bug?

It was just weird that it affected different users in this countdown and then they all, on the same day, picked up again.

Perhaps the next version of Prime95 should only request category 3+ work if there are any settings that keep it from running full time? At least exclude it from cat 0 and 1.

Anyway, just pointing out some strange observations on the server side. There are some in the countdown to < 77M first times that are also being stubbornly slow, and I've seen this in the past. Not a new phenomenon.

That was my line of thought exactly. I did want to look Zen and not fret too much but, yes, I did notice that what was a healthy path a few weeks ago (around the New Year) had began to freeze.

It has happened many times before but now that we have 3 milestones at our grasp -and yet so far- it becomes a bit frustrating.

Mind you, the only ones I care for, of the pending, are the M(42643801) and M(77 232 917) :smile:

As to the ‘million milestones’ they seem to be too artificial. I guess 45, 50, 55… and 79.3, 80, 85, 90 million are the only ones I am looking forward to.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;480376]I've been watching the milestone countdown for proving the placement of M42643801 since it had grown frustratingly slow.

Of the 7 currently left, one stopped responding 11 days ago, and all of the other 6 had been checking in somewhat regularly but were simply not progressing from day to day. Very unusual since it was from different users.

I checked today and noticed that those 6 that had stalled had all, as of earlier today, reported at least a minor tick upwards in % done.

[…]

It was just weird that it affected different users in this countdown and then they all, on the same day, picked up again.

There are some in the countdown to < 77M first times that are also being stubbornly slow, and I've seen this in the past. Not a new phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

M42,643,801 has been verified as the 46th Mersenne prime. Congratulations to everyone involved!

[QUOTE=ixfd64;480647]M42,643,801 has been verified as the 46th Mersenne prime. Congratulations to everyone involved![/QUOTE]

Yay!
On to the 47th. M(43112609). Still 287 to go.:smile:

[QUOTE=ixfd64;480647]M42,643,801 has been verified as the 46th Mersenne prime. Congratulations to everyone involved![/QUOTE]

Ugh, yes. Someone (I think) poached a couple, and I did the last two. They were stalled. Well, one stopped checking in, but even before that, it's progress history showed it would run and then stall for days/weeks. The other one was doing the same, either no progress at all between checkins or moving very slowly like < 0.1% daily.

The same is true of some of the < 77M exponents. I picked one up just as it expired which will be done in another hour, and also turned in 3 others that had definitely stalled.

It's just weird to me to see a computer updating an assignment with zero progress for weeks on end. One was at 98% for the longest time and I kept thinking it would get a burst of energy and finish, but it's been at 98% for over 2 weeks...

The assignment for M76872911 and M77213089 are progressing nicely. They're updating and shows progress from day to day and their estimated completion they report jibes well with my prediction (4 and 6 days respectively) so we should be good with those.

Is someone going to update the main page with the news about M42,643,801 being officially the 46th Mersenne prime?

[QUOTE=ixfd64;480724]Is someone going to update the main page with the news about M42,643,801 being officially the 46th Mersenne prime?[/QUOTE]

Whoops, I forgot the home page has an existing blurb there about M45's proof-of-order.

It might be good to cleanup that home page anyway, remove some of those older mini-milestone things like the older "double checked up to M(xxx)" mentions.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;480732]Whoops, I forgot the home page has an existing blurb there about M45's proof-of-order.

It might be good to cleanup that home page anyway, remove some of those older mini-milestone things like the older "double checked up to M(xxx)" mentions.[/QUOTE]

Well, I updated the home page. I took the opportunity to add some stats about our high watermarks for DC and LL exponents as well as the previous days counts on how many LL/DC/factors were done.

Some general cleanup too, like making sure version 29.4 is prominently featured on the home page to try and get folks (who don't read the forums) to notice it and update since it has a lot of new features and performance changes.

The LL test for M76872911 just completed. This means all exponents below 77M have now been checked at least once.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;481110]The LL test for M76872911 just completed. This means all exponents below 77M have now been checked at least once.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't paying attention when it happened, but I did update the milestone page now. I also got an update ready for when the last one under M(50) comes in... I think in the next 24 hours if it keeps up the pace.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;481192]I also got an update ready for when the last one under M(50) comes in... I think in the next 24 hours if it keeps up the pace.[/QUOTE]It looks like we may get 2 (and possibly 3) more milestones completed by the end of March.
:clap:

Interesting milestone coming up
 

There is a rather interesting milestone approaching that I've looked at over the years...

It's the count of unverified exponents done by a Primenet version 4 computer (pre-2008'ish).

There are only 537 of them left, most of them in the 43M-44M range, so they should be done soon. I think when I first looked a couple years back there were several thousand (over 10K maybe?) and here we are now, near the end!

There were a handful above 44M that I went ahead and reserved (25 or so) as well as some already assigned to others.

It'll be great to finally get those older results "off the books". My SQL queries that look for work done by "probably" bad computers has to do some extra gymnastics to account for the different way these results are stored, and not having to worry about those will make things simpler. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;481248]It'll be great to finally get those older results "off the books". My SQL queries that look for work done by "probably" bad computers has to do some extra gymnastics to account for the different way these results are stored, and not having to worry about those will make things simpler. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Don't look now, but there's one user (spica) still turning in new v4_computers results. Most recently [M]M75759427[/M].

You might get one or two new first-time tests a year. But those results are all good. I don't know if they have any current v4 assignments.

New milestone
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(77 232 917): [SIZE="5"]0[/SIZE] :smile:

[QUOTE=GP2;481251]Don't look now, but there's one user (spica) still turning in new v4_computers results. Most recently [M]M75759427[/M].

You might get one or two new first-time tests a year. But those results are all good. I don't know if they have any current v4 assignments.[/QUOTE]

That's true, but the way they're stored in the database is different because they have a version 5 user id instead of a reference to their v4 user id. :smile: It's a funny distinction in the back-end involving a weird set of joins to get their v4 user name and has its own column (along with the cpu info). I'll be happy when those are all DC'd.

I'm actually not sure how this happened, but of the remaining exponents with that legacy info, the most recent are from April 2012... that's *long* after 2008 when the Primenet server went from v4 to v5 but I suppose George may have done some manual imports of old results. There are really only a handful beyond 2008.

Why would an exponent assigned today would have its expiration before the ETA ?


78156787 LL [SIZE="3"][7[/SIZE] [SIZE="3"]11][/SIZE] 2018-03-26 2018-03-26 2018-03-27 2018-04-06
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=78156787&full=1"]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=78156787&full=1[/URL]

According to the assignment rules the user must start the LL test within 7 days

[QUOTE=Prime95;483452]According to the assignment rules the user must start the LL test within 7 days[/QUOTE]

I must be missing the point, but assuming it starts in 7 days (or 6) there won't be enough time to complete the assignment. In all (or at least where I've looked) when a number is assigned ETA is less than Expiration.

Once prime95 tells the server it has started the exponent then the 30-day expiration rule takes over.

[QUOTE=rudy235;483463]I must be missing the point, but assuming it starts in 7 days (or 6) there won't be enough time to complete the assignment. In all (or at least where I've looked) when a number is assigned ETA is less than Expiration.[/QUOTE]

This is a valid point. And the candidate in question is [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78156787&exp_hi=78156787"]this[/URL].

But it you look at the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]rules closely[/URL], they have to be started within ten (10) days, and completed within 30.

Seems to me they are within that.

Want to go out and hunt any moose while the women debate?

I have a two man tent I know how to use....

I am [U]not[/U] questioning the rules.

If anything I have an issue with the "Estimated Time of Completion. If it said for instance that the the ETA was 6 days then there would be no question asked.

This has been assigned today.

[QUOTE=rudy235;483470]I am [U]not[/U] questioning the rules.[/QUOTE]

You should ***always*** question the rules.

[QUOTE=rudy235;483470]If anything I have an issue with the "Estimated Time of Completion. If it said for instance that the the ETA was 6 days then there would be no question asked.[/QUOTE]

Watch what happens with that particular candidate.

[QUOTE=rudy235;483470]I am [U]not[/U] questioning the rules.

If anything I have an issue with the "Estimated Time of Completion. If it said for instance that the the ETA was 6 days then there would be no question asked.

This has been assigned today.[/QUOTE]

It will keep counting down from 7 days until his client reports at least 0.1% progress, then it will switch to the 30 day countdown. Unless he reports no progress then it will expire in 7 days.

[QUOTE=ATH;483496]It will keep counting down from 7 days until his client reports at least 0.1% progress, then it will switch to the 30 day countdown. Unless he reports no progress then it will expire in 7 days.[/QUOTE]

At last! A reasoned explanation.

I don't understand how someone could reserve more than two thousand exponents in the category 1 double checking range. Especially since the reservation rules do not seem to be applied to trial factoring. It was not done through the normal manual reservation page.

Good thing is that the assignments are slowly being completed.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;483618]I don't understand how someone could reserve more than two thousand exponents in the category 1 double checking range.

Jacob[/QUOTE]

You know about this address?

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

[QUOTE=masser;483653]You know about this address?

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/manual_gpu_assignment/[/url][/QUOTE]I remembered that address, but the assignments do not seem manual assignments. Anyway at that page one cannot reserve exponents in the double-check range at the moment. ("Error code: 40 / Error text: No assignment available for GPU trial factoring, cpu_id: 1455, user_id = 2"

I think the reservation was made by having the workunits in a wortodo file and communicating with the server and that should be refused in at least the category 1 range.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;483661]I remembered that address, but the assignments do not seem manual assignments. Anyway at that page one cannot reserve exponents in the double-check range at the moment. ("Error code: 40 / Error text: No assignment available for GPU trial factoring, cpu_id: 1455, user_id = 2"

I think the reservation was made by having the workunits in a wortodo file and communicating with the server and that should be refused in at least the category 1 range.

Jacob[/QUOTE]

Have you been to [url]www.gpu72.com?[/url]

Its a side-project of GIMPS.
They reserve large chunks of DCTF or LLTF work and dole them out to anyone on the site.

[QUOTE=petrw1;483667]Have you been to [url]www.gpu72.com?[/url]

Its a side-project of GIMPS.
They reserve large chunks of DCTF or LLTF work and dole them out to anyone on the site.[/QUOTE]They may have made the assignments. But I think it should not be possible to reserve in the Category 1 range unless by conforming to the assignment rules. And clearly those assignments do not respect the rules. There is enough TF work outside of Category 1.

Jacob

[QUOTE=masser;483653]You know about this address?

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/manual_gpu_assignment/[/url][/QUOTE]

I didn't, but thanks, it just made it a lot easier for me to reserve new work in the future for my GPU :smile:

[QUOTE=KEP;483675]I didn't, but thanks, it just made it a lot easier for me to reserve new work in the future for my GPU :smile:[/QUOTE]

Or if you want to focus your GPU-TF efforts on the LL or DC leading edges consider this:

[url]www.gpu72.com[/url]

It's a thing Chris is working on. He's using my GPUs to squeeze out another bit level before they get assigned for DC. My turn around time on DCTF is about 2 days and I'm DCTFing about 70 per day.

[QUOTE=rudy235;483519]At last! A reasoned explanation.[/QUOTE]

Also, bear in mind that in some cases, multiple expiration rules may actually be in play at the same time, so when I came up with the query to give the time-to-expire, I ended up using the value that expires sooner if it's under 10 days (I think).

For instance, you may have 30 days to complete but if you haven't started it yet, the expiration time is shorter. But yeah, once you check in even 0.1% of progress it counts as "started" and then the other rules are in play.

It's been a while since I looked at it... I think there was some other case where it could expire sooner, but I don't remember what (or I'm thinking of something else) :smile:

[QUOTE=petrw1;483679]Or if you want to focus your GPU-TF efforts on the LL or DC leading edges consider this:

[url]www.gpu72.com[/url][/QUOTE]

Well I'll see in about 170 days when my ~11700 tasks running from 68 bit to 72 bit completes. I'm not having the fastest GPU in the ballpark anymore, so I'm not really sure that the 86.4 GHz days produced each day (n=689M) is going to make much of a difference on the push to 1 bit higher effort. It is however going to bring us ~720 candidates closer towards the 20,000,000 unfactored candidates milestone :smile:

[QUOTE=KEP;483754] It is however going to bring us ~720 candidates closer towards the 20,000,000 unfactored candidates milestone :smile:[/QUOTE]

:party:

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;483684]It's a thing Chris is working on. He's using my GPUs to squeeze out another bit level before they get assigned for DC. My turn around time on DCTF is about 2 days and I'm DCTFing about 70 per day.[/QUOTE]

Just to speak further to this...

I asked Mark if it would be OK to assign his GPUs some low TF'ing work, where it technically wouldn't make sense (economic cross-over point). He agreed. He can do [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dctf/week/"]about 75 a day in that range[/URL].

I then very carefully reserved a few hundred candidates above the "wave-front" and started feeding Mark's GPUs the work. Once he started turning in results I then reserved the rest. In parallel to this, I had my two little GPUs do Cat 0 and 1 work which was about to expire.

Read: I was *very* careful not to "starve" the DC workers. And this was done with the intention of helping GIMPS; between Mark and myself we've [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/20/3/4000"]eliminated 17 candidates from having to be DC'ed[/URL].

[QUOTE=chalsall;483770]And this was done with the intention of helping GIMPS; between Mark and myself we've [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/20/3/4000"]eliminated 17 candidates from having to be DC'ed[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Just to follow up on this...

Mark and I had [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/30/3/4000"]an unexpected "rate of return" on this[/URL]. 27 candidates eliminated by way of TF'ing, with only 1,564 runs from 72 to 73 (nominal would have been ~16).

[QUOTE=chalsall;484293]Mark and I had [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/30/3/4000"]an unexpected "rate of return" on this[/URL]. 27 candidates eliminated by way of TF'ing, with only 1,564 runs from 72 to 73 (nominal would have been ~16).[/QUOTE]
Good for you! I love when we eliminate exponents with a kill (factor found).

[QUOTE]I asked Mark if it would be OK to assign his GPUs some low TF'ing work, where it technically wouldn't make sense (economic cross-over point). He agreed. He can do [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dctf/week/"]about 75 a day in that range[/URL].[/QUOTE]
I was gratified to see my two modest (GTX xx60s) GPUs still holding in at tenth place. I am astounded that the long-departed and much-missed "Pete" is still [U][B]#8[/B][/U] though he has been inactive here for years. He pulled out in disgust regarding all the noise and battles surrounding the banned davieddy, though there may have been other conflicts that disturbed him. :picard:

Great News:
April 8, 2018 All tests below M(43 112 609) are verified, officially making it the 47th Mersenne prime. :smile:

[QUOTE=kladner;484455] the banned davieddy,[/QUOTE]
Was David banned? I am under the impression he just vanished...
Might be wrong, though.

[QUOTE=lycorn;484805]Was David banned? I am under the impression he just vanished...
Might be wrong, though.[/QUOTE]
I regret to inform you that he did not jump. He was pushed, with considerable cause. EDIT: .....as well as with great regret. :davieddy:

Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M77998639"]M77998639[/URL] not have an expiration day?

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=77000000&exp_hi=78000000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

[QUOTE=ATH;484909]Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M77998639"]M77998639[/URL] not have an expiration day?

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=77000000&exp_hi=78000000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]So far there has been no answer to my query of the same.

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=484730#post484730[/url]

It must be a prime 🤔

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;484914]It must be a prime 🤔[/QUOTE]And the three other missing numbers must also be prime. It's all a huge conspiracy! :exclaim:

[QUOTE=ATH;484909]Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M77998639"]M77998639[/URL] not have an expiration day?

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=77000000&exp_hi=78000000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Just guessing: Maybe PRP doesn't expire?

[QUOTE=petrw1;484919]Just guessing: Maybe PRP doesn't expire?[/QUOTE]

My 3 assignment further down: 78204331, 78240893, 78373777 are all PRP assignments with expiration dates, but for some reason the "Worktype" is LL even though they are PRP assignments.

It might be because a previous LL assignment expired and I took it as a PRP.

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=77000000&exp_hi=78400000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

A little visual of how the milestones have been going.
[attach]18144[/attach]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;486209]A little visual of how the milestones have been going.
[attach]18144[/attach][/QUOTE]
What happened around 2008? Why the kink?

[QUOTE=kladner;486215]What happened around 2008? Why the kink?[/QUOTE]
Per [url]https://www.mersenne.org[/url]
[QUOTE]April 8, 2018 — Nearly 9 years ago in August 2008, M(43112609) was discovered, and now GIMPS has finished verification testing on every smaller Mersenne number. With no smaller primes found, M(43112609) is officially the 47th Mersenne prime.

At the time of the discovery, M(43112609) was actually the 45th known Mersenne prime because M(37156667) wasn't discovered until 2 weeks later, and M(42643801) was found nearly a year later in June of 2009! The last time a Mersenne prime was discovered out of order was in 1988 when M(110503) was found over 4 years after M(132049), and in 1961 M(4423) was discovered mere seconds before M(4253) because of the order in which the printout was read.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;486217]Per [URL]https://www.mersenne.org[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks!

Under 21.5 Million unfactored
 

April 30.

[url]https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20180430/0/1/0[/url]

As of today May 3rd, 3pm UTC:

Primes: 50
Factored: 29349926
LL-D: 999937
LL: 665285
LLERR: 271
NO-LL: 19832065

Total: 50847534

So 50,847,534 - 29,349,926 = 21,497,608 unfactored