We are about to reach 1,000,000 in the Two LL for the "classic status"

[ATTACH]18179[/ATTACH]

However, when we reach 1,000,000 there won't be enough space and it will only show 6 digits.

[QUOTE=rudy235;486862]We are about to reach 1,000,000 in the Two LL for the "classic status"

[ATTACH]18179[/ATTACH]

However, when we reach 1,000,000 there won't be enough space and it will only show 6 digits.[/QUOTE]Actually, there is no problem. I took the html file and shoved in some extra digits and it works fine.

See the attached image [attach]18183[/attach]

We just passed 1M double checks (for the entire 1B range) now at 10pm UTC (at 9pm it was at 999,993):

Primes: 50
Factored: 29,350,080
[B]LL-D: 1,000,002[/B]
LL: 665,292
LLERR: 271
NO-LL: 19,831,839

Total: 50,847,534

[QUOTE=ATH;486875]We just passed 1M double checks (for the entire 1B range) now at 10pm UTC (at 9pm it was at 999,993):
[/QUOTE]

In a few weeks we will also reach [B]0[/B] for the Status unknown in the "Classic Status"

Looking at the recent results: [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_recent_results/[/url]

it looks like this was the 1,000,000th reported double checks:
[url]https://mersenne.org/M46888861[/url]

[QUOTE=ATH;486877]Looking at the recent results: [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_recent_results/[/url]

it looks like this was the 1,000,000th reported double checks:
[url]https://mersenne.org/M46888861[/url][/QUOTE]

I wonder why the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/"]classic GIMPS status report[/URL] is running behind, then?

As of this writing, it's showing a total of 999,706 for the "TwoLL" column

[QUOTE=GP2;487160]I wonder why the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/"]classic GIMPS status report[/URL] is running behind, then?

As of this writing, it's showing a total of 999,706 for the "TwoLL" column[/QUOTE]It only shows results for exponents up to 79.3M, not the entire 1B range.

[QUOTE=GP2;487160]I wonder why the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/"]classic GIMPS status report[/URL] is running behind, then?

As of this writing, it's showing a total of 999,706 for the "TwoLL" column[/QUOTE]

There are around 46 million prime exponents between 79.3Million and 999,000,000

Of those, less than less than 960 have been double tested.

Correction: There are around 46 million prime exponents between 79.3Million and [STRIKE]999,000,000 [/STRIKE] 1,000,000.000

Of those, less than less than 960 have been double tested.

I just happened to catch this a few minutes ago: exactly 1,000,000 double-checked exponents in the classical 79.3M range.

Also, we are very close to dipping below 40,000 P90-years of work to go in completing a first run through the classical range.

Question: If M(exponent) is double-checked and subsequently factored, does that reduce the DC total while increasing the "Factored" total?

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;487325]Question: If M(exponent) is double-checked and subsequently factored, does that reduce the DC total while increasing the "Factored" total?[/QUOTE]Yes. The table reads left to right. The totals must sum to the total number of exponents. If it is Prime, that is the highest status, then those with a known factor, then those that have been DC'ed, then Single LL, then unknown. An exponent can only be in one of those categories (technically it can have a factor and been tested once or twice, but it gets moved into the factored category once a factor is found.)

If I recall correctly that have been periods in the past were the DC or LL have dropped because of factors being found.

The classic report says "Status Unknown" 1,112 below 79.3M ?

This report says only 387 left:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

I have been saving hourly reports from [url]https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url] and I had a manual script to sum all the columns to get the data like in post #2816: [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=486875&postcount=2816[/url]

At the idea and request of rudy235 I made the script summing the columns run automatically and made it create this report, maybe people will find it useful:
[url]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/GIMPSstats.html[/url]

The 332M cutoff is just below the 100M digit line, which seems like the most interesting spot above 100M exponents. There are more LL tests done above 332M than between 100M and 332M.

[QUOTE=ATH;487349]This report says only 387 left:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]That is the assigned exponents. Maybe the others are not yet assigned.

[QUOTE=ATH;487349]The classic report says "Status Unknown" 1,112 below 79.3M ?

This report says only 387 left:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Maybe the classic report is not factoring in exponents that were PRP'ed instead of LL'ed.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;487324]I just happened to catch this a few minutes ago: exactly 1,000,000 double-checked exponents in the classical 79.3M range.

Also, we are very close to dipping below 40,000 P90-years of work to go in completing a first run through the classical range.[/QUOTE]

Yay! That is true milestone for the Classic. Now on to getting all first all LL done...

[QUOTE=retina;487354]That is the assigned exponents. Maybe the others are not yet assigned.[/QUOTE]Okay, I see now that all the assignments are reported to be assigned. So there is a large discrepancy in the numbers between the two reports. :sad:

[QUOTE=ATH;487349]The classic report says "Status Unknown" 1,112 below 79.3M ?

This report says only 387 left:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url][/QUOTE]

Report fixed to count PRP results

[QUOTE=Prime95;487500]Report fixed to count PRP results[/QUOTE]This report says 301 assignments:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78000000&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exp1=1&extf=1[/url]

This report says 299 assignments:
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url]

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=43000000&exp_hi=44000000[/url]

(below) 44M DC almost done
Bill Staffen seems to always be the holdout ;)
Maybe there is a conspiracy ! ( just kidding)

[QUOTE=srow7;488092][url]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=43000000&exp_hi=44000000[/url]

(below) 44M DC almost done
Bill Staffen seems to always be the holdout ;)
Maybe there is a conspiracy ! ( just kidding)[/QUOTE]

These 4 are not budging
[code]Active Assignments
Exponent range:
43920223 44000000
 (max 1000 results shown)

List Assignments
There are 4 assignments

43920223 D LL, 56.00% 18 5 2018-04-12 2018-05-23 2018-05-24 2018-05-29 Bill Staffen
43921463 D LL, 54.90% 18 5 2018-04-12 2018-05-23 2018-05-24 2018-05-29 Bill Staffen
43962551 D LL, 36.50% 23 7 2018-04-17 2018-05-23 2018-05-24 2018-05-31 Bill Staffen
43967279 D LL, 41.30% 23 7 2018-04-17 2018-05-23 2018-05-24 2018-05-31 Bill Staffen[/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;488279]These 4 are not budging
...[/QUOTE]

I'll kill the suspense... the person assigned those 4 holdouts (now 3) is doing that thing he's done before where they start out progressing fine but then (for the past couple weeks now) it still checks in, but there is zero progress from day to day.

I mean, that's fine... if the computer is needed for other tasks, then yeah, Prime95 should be suspended or whatever. But this user shouldn't be signed up to get the lowest exponent in that case.

I've got them on my radar... and yeah, if I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time this user has had this happen. Like I said, it's fine usually, but I have a harder time with it when they're category 0 assignments especially. The category zero and one threshold rules say:
[QUOTE]Assigned to users that promise to complete assignments quickly (see setting in green above).[/QUOTE]

When you get it assigned and then don't work on it for weeks at a time, I don't think that's really going along with the spirit of that. :smile: Just my opinion though, don't take that as an "official" primenet stance. LOL

I'd vote for disabling that checkbox behind the scenes in the database. If they really want they can check it again.

If they expire it will be automatically disabled for 120 days:

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/[/url]
"Computer must have no expired assignments or bad or suspect results in the last 120 days."

[QUOTE=ATH;488409]If they expire it will be automatically disabled for 120 days[/QUOTE]When some impatient person poaches it, is that considered the same as expiring?

[QUOTE=retina;488410]When some impatient person poaches it, is that considered the same as expiring?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure. What I can tell is that based on the current data, those exponents are progressing at 1.1 - 1.6% per day. All will expire long before being finished, based on those projections.

As mentioned, those last 4 (now 3) have stalled at 0% progress per day for the last couple weeks, since 2018-05-07:
43921463 stalled at 54.9%
43962551 stalled at 36.5%
43967279 stalled at 41.3%

When operating normally and actually making progress, they're capable of doing 8% per day, but these weeks at a time of not doing anything are weird. And I do vaguely recall other exponents assigned to him doing the same thing, but my memory is fuzzy on the details.

[QUOTE=ATH;487351]
At the idea and request of rudy235 I made the script summing the columns run automatically and made it create this report, maybe people will find it useful:
[url]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/GIMPSstats.html[/url]
.[/QUOTE]

iI just stumbled upon this post of yours.
Interesting report, thanks for sharing.

[QUOTE=retina;488410]When some impatient person poaches it, is that considered the same as expiring?[/QUOTE]


Both of these exponents now appear as expired.

[code]

[SIZE="2"]Assigned User Work Type Stage % Done Updated [COLOR="Red"][B] Expired[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 56.0 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-25[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 54.9 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-27[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;488483]Both of these exponents now appear as expired.

[code]

[SIZE="2"]Assigned User Work Type Stage % Done Updated [COLOR="Red"][B] Expired[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 56.0 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-25[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 54.9 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-27[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[/code][/QUOTE]Oh. So someone else can expire your tests early and make you lose your status?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;488393]I've got them on my radar... and yeah, if I'm not mistaken, this isn't the first time this user has had this happen. Like I said, it's fine usually, but I have a harder time with it when they're category 0 assignments especially. The category zero and one threshold rules say:[/QUOTE]

These 4 in question are in category 1, if you look at the thresholds on April 12th and 17th when they were assigned:

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2018-04-12[/url]
Category 0 First 200 assignments Exponents below 43887714

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2018-04-17[/url]
Category 0 First 200 assignments Exponents below 43923288

[QUOTE=rudy235;488483]Both of these exponents now appear as expired.

[code]

[SIZE="2"]Assigned User Work Type Stage % Done Updated [COLOR="Red"][B] Expired[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 56.0 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-25[/B][/COLOR]
2018-04-12 Bill Staffen LL double-check LL 54.9 % 2018-05-25 [COLOR="Red"][B]2018-05-27[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]


[/code][/QUOTE]And they are still updating.

So MadPoo poached them before expiry, caused the original user to get an "expired" penalty on their record, and wasted compute resources for an unneeded triple check. The impatience in that one is strong.

[QUOTE=retina;488907]And they are still updating.

So MadPoo poached them before expiry, caused the original user to get an "expired" penalty on their record, and wasted compute resources for an unneeded triple check. The impatience in that one is strong.[/QUOTE]

Nothing unusual about the way this was handled.


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

[B]Category 0[/B]

Must be completed in 30 days

Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started with 10 days or when [B]assignment is more than 30 days old.[/B]


Entirely legit, and if Madpoo didn't snipe it someone else would have.

[QUOTE=GP2;488913]Nothing unusual about the way this was handled.


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

[B]Category 0[/B]

Must be completed in 30 days

Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started with 10 days or when [B]assignment is more than 30 days old.[/B]


Entirely legit, and if Madpoo didn't snipe it someone else would have.[/QUOTE]The assignment had not expired. The page showed it had more than two weeks remaining till expiry. From what I understand it wasn't assigned as cat-0. So the user was promised some time to finish it. The user was still within the time. And later someone/something decides that the expiry date was not sufficient and it gets finished by someone else. At least that it my understanding. I'm sorry if I got some facts wrong, but it feels wrong that a promise is given and then revoked later.

[QUOTE=retina;488410] At least that it my understanding. I'm sorry if I got some facts wrong, but it feels wrong that a promise is given and then revoked later.[/QUOTE]

I do not see it that way. i believe thar Madpoo has been restrained.

He probably has already the residue for 43967279 calculated but he is waiting for the original assignee to conclude his process.

At this point it looks likely that it will conclude and there is no indication that Madpoo is going to go ahead with his results, if that were the case.

[QUOTE=GP2;488913]Nothing unusual about the way this was handled.


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

[B]Category 0[/B]

Must be completed in 30 days

Assignments are recycled if assignment is not started with 10 days or when [B]assignment is more than 30 days old.[/B]


Entirely legit, and if Madpoo didn't snipe it someone else would have.[/QUOTE]


They were actually Category 1, you have to look at the threshold levels on the day they were assigned, they do not change category as time goes on. See my post 2 posts before yours.

[QUOTE=retina;488919]The assignment had not expired. The page showed it had more than two weeks remaining till expiry. From what I understand it wasn't assigned as cat-0. So the user was promised some time to finish it. The user was still within the time. And later someone/something decides that the expiry date was not sufficient and it gets finished by someone else. At least that it my understanding. I'm sorry if I got some facts wrong, but it feels wrong that a promise is given and then revoked later.[/QUOTE]

Even for Category 1, the expectation is that it will be completed within 30 days:


[b]Category 1[/b]

Computer must have enough LL and DC GHz-days over the last 120 days to indicate the assignment will be completed in 30 days


That's not phrased as a requirement, and if this particular user was doing their best and making steady daily progress, then probably they would have been given some slack. But "stalled at 0% progress per day for the last couple weeks", as Madpoo noted? They're going to get poached without sympathy.

This happens with every milestone when it drops down to the low single digits. Stuff happens, a bit of drama ensues, and then everybody forgets about it until the next milestone.

PS,

I run LL tests on the cloud. Sometimes spot instances prices spike, and then the tests stall until prices drop back to more normal levels.

For that reason, I keep the "promise to complete assignments quickly" flag turned off. I don't get automatically assigned anything below category 2, although on rare occasions I manually grab something smaller if it's strategic.

Maybe the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/"]Assignment Rules[/URL] phrasing could be changed to say not just "promise to complete assignments quickly", but also add an admonition about needing to make steady progress. Category 1 assignments that stall without progress for a couple of weeks are fair game when the milestone countdown gets low enough, that's the reality and the wording should be changed to reflect it.

[QUOTE=rudy235;488926]I do not see it that way. i believe thar Madpoo has been restrained.

He probably has already the residue for 43967279 calculated but he is waiting for the original assignee to conclude his process.

At this point it looks likely that it will conclude and there is no indication that Madpoo is going to go ahead with his results, if that were the case.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, I've already run my own test on M43967279 but I noticed that the assignee finally got off his behind and got those assignments going again, so I held off checking those in.

All 4 of those exponents were idle for 3 weeks. I did 3 of them, the ones that would expire first, and it's still likely they would have expired before he finished. This last one may finish in time with a couple days to spare. It all depends on whether he stalls out again or not.

For what it's worth, I don't think poached assignments are considered when determining if a computer can get cat 0 or cat 1 exponents; only expirations that occur from actually taking too long (the method of expiration is logged).

Was I too impatient? Well... time will tell. Based on how the progress had stalled out entirely, in my mind it was reasonable to assume they were just stuck. And yeah, it did kind of bug me that we have someone who got cat 1 assignments and then for 3 weeks nothing was happening. That probably made me more impatient than I would have been otherwise.

Anyway, at this point I guess I'll see if the other 3 I poached finish before they would have expired or not. If they do, then I'll have to suck it up and issue a big mea culpa. Plus I've learned that I shouldn't let my annoyance at a particular exponent's progress make me more impatient. I could have at least waited a bit longer to see if progress resumed (which it did, a few days later).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;489023]I could have at least waited a bit longer to see if progress resumed (which it did, a few days later).[/QUOTE]

Patience, young grasshopper... :wink:

At the end of the day, if you hadn't done this, someone else probably would have.

And with regards to the claim that you've "wasted cycles", it could be pointed out that none of the work we do here is really all that important. Other than presenting "driving problems", of course....

It would be nice if the "lowest exponents" setting were per-machine and not account-wide. I have some machines that get shut off occasionally that I don't want to get low exponents. I have others that run 24/7, and I'd like these to work on low exponents.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;489154]It would be nice if the "lowest exponents" setting were per-machine and not account-wide. I have some machines that get shut off occasionally that I don't want to get low exponents. I have others that run 24/7, and I'd like these to work on low exponents.[/QUOTE]If you set the "days of work to queue up" higher than the threshold you will get a higher category. If you set it to 11 days you should get CAT 3 work units. This of a setting that you can apply to selected machines.

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;489185]If you set the "days of work to queue up" higher than the threshold you will get a higher category. If you set it to 11 days you should get CAT 3 work units. This of a setting that you can apply to selected machines.

Jacob[/QUOTE]

True!

[QUOTE=chalsall;489025]Patience, young grasshopper... :wink:

At the end of the day, if you hadn't done this, someone else probably would have.
...[/QUOTE]

Probably.

I checked his 4 exponents (3 of which I poached). None of them are done yet, and curiously enough, the last check in on all 4 are showing zero progress from the day before. That's after a decent 6.6% and 7.3% progress the previous 2 days (after the 3 week slumber they were in). 2 of those 4 decided to stall out at 98% and 97% which, if I hadn't already poached them, would have been even more aggravating if they were stuck there for a while with everyone watching and waiting. LOL

That last remaining exponent that I haven't poached (well, not officially... my result is done and waiting for a better time) is now stuck again at 83.2%. I just hope it picks up again soon. It expires in 8 days so it should really only take about 3 days of it's *actual* rate of progress that I know it's capable of, so if I see it stall out for 5-6 more days I'll really think about checking mine in when I feel like it couldn't finish in time even if it did start up again. :smile:

Well, it's still stalled out, second day in a row of that.

Of his last 4 (3 I already poached):
43920223 and 43921463 - would have expired on it's own in 2 more days
43962551 - would have expired on it's own in 7 more days
43967279 - will expire in 7 more days

The 2 that would have expired in a couple days are *soooo* close. 98% and 97%. Just one more little oomph will finish those. 43962551 at 78.1% and 43967279 at 83.2% would normally be expected to finish in 7 days, but these periods of inactivity throw a wrench into it.

Now, when his system is really cooking along, it can do an average 7% per day, give or take. That's only 2-3 days for those exponents that are 78.1% and 83.2%, and only a few hours for the ones at 98% / 97%. So... c'mon! :smile:

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

Now I'm beginning to doubt it.


In the meantime the under 79 million first time verifications have gone down from 18 to 6. [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78715723&exp_hi=79000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1"]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78715723&exp_hi=79000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]

[QUOTE=rudy235;489492]In the meantime the under 79 million first time verifications have gone down from 18 to 6. [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78715723&exp_hi=79000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1"]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=78715723&exp_hi=79000000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL][/QUOTE]
What does it mean that one of the exponents is done to 100%, but is still listed as assigned?

[QUOTE=patrik;489548]What does it mean that one of the exponents is done to 100%, but is still listed as assigned?[/QUOTE]

Rounded to 100.00%? Maybe few more iterations to go?

It's must be stopped somewhere above 99.90% ? or maybe above 99.95%?

One week ago , this exponent was already displayed as 100.00 % done

[QUOTE=patrik;489548]What does it mean that one of the exponents is done to 100%, but is still listed as assigned?[/QUOTE]

I would guess > 99.995% registers as 100.00%

[QUOTE=ATH;489559]It's must be stopped somewhere above 99.90% ? or maybe above 99.95%?[/QUOTE]

Surely there is a C language printf statement somewhere internally that is displaying the figure, even if the actual language used by the server is PHP or similar.

So anything above 99.95% is rounded to 100.0%, in according with the usual rules for printf rounding to one decimal place.

In fact I verified this just now:

51637528 / [M]51663607[/M] = 99.94952% = displays as 99.9% after Manual Communication
51638156 / [M]51663607[/M] = 99.95074% = displays as 100.0% after Manual Communication

[QUOTE=De Wandelaar;489566]One week ago , this exponent was already displayed as 100.00 % done[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rudy235;489567]I would guess > 99.995% registers as 100.00%[/QUOTE]

But the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent"]Exponent Status[/URL] page only display progress to one decimal place. That is, either 99.9% or 100.0%

The threshold for displaying 100.0%, as I mentioned, is 99.95% iterations completed.

[QUOTE=GP2;489569]But the [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent"]Exponent Status[/URL] page only display progress to one decimal place. That is, either 99.9% or 100.0%

The threshold for displaying 100.0%, as I mentioned, is 99.95% iterations completed.[/QUOTE]

I believe we've beaten the subject to death!

[QUOTE=rudy235;489572]I believe we've beaten the subject to death![/QUOTE]

:deadhorse:

[QUOTE=rudy235;489572]I believe we've beaten the subject to death![/QUOTE]
Beating that horse more, if one lets the default numbers be, for the frequency of reports, or if he uses "reasonable" values (like every 1 million iterations, which is quite ok for a test of 80M+ even if it takes 40 days on a shitty computer, it still makes two reports per day), then every "step" of the report is about 100/80=1.25%. Therefore the number of exponents for which "shit happens" (i.e. last report falls in between 99.95% and 100%) is so small, and they are so rare, they can be counted on the fingers of one hand...

(Well, not exactly, but still, we don't see any problem here...)

Or, ya 'no, just fix it for real by turning off rounding. Or if that proves to be too difficult in C for some reason then just subtract 0.05 before printing the value.

Also, while you're at it, remove the trailing '0'. It is unneeded and gives a false impression about the precision being shown.

[QUOTE=axn;489558]Rounded to 100.00%? Maybe few more iterations to go?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[QUOTE=ATH;490210]How was the 79.3M limit chosen? It was the highest exponent possible with the highest FFT size available?[/QUOTE]

Yes. It was the highest possible expo with 4096K x87-based FFT (which used 80 bit registers and therefore supported a higher range compared to the SSE2-based FFT which had a lower range).

Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79212557"]79212557[/URL] and [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79306891"]79306891[/URL] and several others not have an expiration date?

[QUOTE=ATH;490369]Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79212557"]79212557[/URL] and [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79306891"]79306891[/URL] and several others not have an expiration date?[/QUOTE]

You seriously need to get out more.

Take a walk. This isn't really all that important.

[QUOTE=ATH;490369]Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79212557"]79212557[/URL] and [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79306891"]79306891[/URL] and several others not have an expiration date?[/QUOTE]

I noticed that both of them are PRP tests and not LL tests. I wonder if there’s something weird about PRP tests and expiration dates. Are the others that you mention also PRP tests?

[QUOTE=chalsall;490372]You seriously need to get out more.

Take a walk. This isn't really all that important.[/QUOTE]

Right back at you.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;490386]Right back at you.[/QUOTE]

Yeah... LOL....

[QUOTE=ATH;490369]Why does [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79212557"]79212557[/URL] and [URL="https://mersenne.org/M79306891"]79306891[/URL] and several others not have an expiration date?[/QUOTE]

I haven't figured out the PRP expirations or if/how they differ from LL assignments, so I haven't added any code to estimate their expiration date yet.

Assignment expiration discrepancies
 

[QUOTE=Madpoo;490426]I haven't figured out the PRP expirations or if/how they differ from LL assignments, so I haven't added any code to estimate their expiration date yet.[/QUOTE]
When I check my assignments, at [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/workload/[/URL], LL tests have expiration days, PRPs don't.
Expires (days) column is empty for PRP entries. ALL PRP entries.
In fact, LL is the only type of assignment that shows expiration there.
But if I go to [URL]https://www.mersenne.org/manual_extension/[/URL], everything lists an expiration number of days (and some of them are years away; up to 960 days)
Most of the above applies to both Prime95/PrimeNet-connection, and manual reservations.

What's up with that?


FYI PRP of M79306891 will restart on a GPU in about 9 hours, and run for a few days without primenet progress indications, to completion.

[QUOTE=ATH;490210]How was the 79.3M limit chosen? It was the highest exponent possible with the highest FFT size available?


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

This new limit has now been incorporated to the milestone page.
[QUOTE]
Countdown to verifying all tests below the classic 79.3 million limit: 22[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rudy235;490455]This new limit has now been incorporated to the milestone page.[/QUOTE]

Check out the second value. It stay ed at 79000000 last time I saw it :smile:

[QUOTE=ET_;490472]Check out the second value. It stay ed at 79000000 last time I saw it :smile:[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

[QUOTE=rudy235;490512]I don't understand what you mean by that.[/QUOTE]

When I click on the link of the remaining exponents, only 1 instead of 21 are shown because the url is wrong

[QUOTE=ET_;490591]When I click on the link of the remaining exponents, only 1 instead of 21 are shown because the url is wrong[/QUOTE]

I see that now.
This is the correct link. [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=79087153&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1"]https://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=79087153&exp_hi=79300000&execm=1&exp1=1&extf=1&exdchk=1[/URL]
One of the Moderators should be able to fix that. Hint Hint!

[QUOTE=rudy235;490455]This new limit has now been incorporated to the milestone page.[/QUOTE]

But the wording is wrong:

"Countdown to verifying all tests below the classic 79.3 million limit: 19"


It should be "first time checking all exponents"

Also the link at "19" has the wrong limit 79000000 instead of 79300000, as others have pointed out.

[QUOTE=GP2;490650]But the wording is wrong:

"Countdown to verifying all tests below the classic 79.3 million limit: 19"


It should be "first time checking all exponents"

Also the link at "19" has the wrong limit 79000000 instead of 79300000, as others have pointed out.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the wording is wrong (but forgivable) . But the link is "quite" wrong. LOL

NOW its been corrected BUT while the link in Milestones says 14 to go...
[code]There are [COLOR="Red"][B]14[/B][/COLOR] assignments

79087153 LL PRP, 37.90% 28 2 2018-06-26 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-06-30 ATH
79110139 LL LL, 88.00% 0 12 2018-03-30 2018-06-26 2018-06-27 2018-07-10 Ansh Mehta
79145629 LL LL, 69.50% 5 13 2018-04-04 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-07-11 TeamCritter
79173343 LL LL, 24.80% 7 9 2018-04-06 2018-06-17 2018-06-18 2018-07-07 Jon Russell
79176271 LL LL, 23.40% 8 9 2018-04-07 2018-06-17 2018-06-18 2018-07-07 Jon Russell
79188049 LL LL, 75.80% 25 1 2018-06-23 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-06-29 Jon Pace
79212169 LL LL, 24.10% 12 30 2018-04-11 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-07-28 arnaud
79212557 PRP PRP, 20.90% 10 2018-04-11 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-07-08 ANONYMOUS
79260299 LL LL, 73.10% 27 -6 2018-04-26 2018-06-14 2018-06-15 2018-06-22 mestigoit
79277617 LL LL, 33.90% 15 6 2018-06-13 2018-06-28 2018-06-28 2018-07-04 riccardo uberti
79281949 LL LL, 85.10% 20 6 2018-04-19 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-07-04 -Anonymous-
79289767 LL LL, 78.00% 15 2 2018-06-13 2018-06-28 2018-06-28 2018-06-30 riccardo uberti
79293779 LL LL, 0.30% 15 8 2018-06-13 2018-06-28 2018-06-28 2018-07-06 riccardo uberti
79293901 LL 5 5 2018-06-26 2018-06-27 2018-06-28 2018-07-03 ATH
[/code]

The link to the Classic [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/[/url] says differently: 13 to go!

[code]


Low High Numbers Primes Factored TwoLL OneLL

[SIZE="1"]69,100,000 79,300,000 562,700 2 365,079 7,495 190,111 [SIZE="3"][COLOR="red"][B]13[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE] 0.007 470 2.604 4096
Total 4,630,913 50 3,018,412 1,008,286 604,152 [SIZE="3"] [COLOR="Red"][B]13[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE] 0.025 470
[/SIZE][/code]

this was 2 weeks ago:
[QUOTE=rudy235;490802]
[code]


79212169 LL LL, 24.10% 12 30 2018-04-11 2018-06-28 2018-06-29 2018-07-28 arnaud

79260299 LL LL, 73.10% 27 -6 2018-04-26 2018-06-14 2018-06-15 2018-06-22 mestigoit
[/code]


Now the advance is even worse.
[code]
There are 2 assignments

they have changed people in charge of them but the are still nowhere near to closing!


There are 2 assignments
[code]
79212169 LL LL, 0.60% 20 4 2018-07-10 2018-07-13 2018-07-14 2018-07-24 Dax Mickelson
79260299 LL LL, 84.10% 5 -6 2018-04-26 2018-07-09 2018-07-10 2018-07-14 mestigoit[/code]

[QUOTE=rudy235;492213]this was 2 weeks ago:
There are 2 assignments

they have changed people in charge of them but the are still nowhere near to closing!


There are 2 assignments
[code]
79212169 LL LL, 0.60% 20 4 2018-07-10 2018-07-13 2018-07-14 2018-07-24 Dax Mickelson
79260299 LL LL, 84.10% 5 -6 2018-04-26 2018-07-09 2018-07-10 2018-07-14 mestigoit[/code][/QUOTE]
Hopefully Aaron has taken official notice of the first one and worked some db assignment magic on this. I noticed that someone threw a bunch of TF at it recently.

Maybe there could be a subset of the Mersenn-aires that TF and P-1 to the extreme stragglers of first time milestones. 'It ain't poaching if you are doing a different work type.'

I am throwing a bunch of P-1 at 79777211 (I went to mersenne.ca and asked for the worktodo entry with a 5.5% chance of finding a factor.)

[ATTACH]18959[/ATTACH] January 3rd 2018




[ATTACH]18960[/ATTACH] Today August 14[SUP]th[/SUP] 2018

[QUOTE=rudy235;493919][ATTACH]18960[/ATTACH] Today August 14[SUP]th[/SUP] 2018[/QUOTE]

:retina::chalsall::et_::george::anurag::curtisc::dubslow::skiing::cheesehead::pirate::grenade:

I'm sure at the time, finishing the first time tests on exponents up to 79.3 million seemed as out of reach as getting to the moon. What version of Prime95 introduced that 4M FFT size, and what year was that anyway?

Umm... let me google that for myself: version 19.0, October 10th, 1999 - nearly 19 years ago ... same version that introduced P-1 factoring

In August 1999, we had just finished first time testing exponents up to 4 million, and in October 1999, exponents up to 2 million had been double-checked.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;493933]I'm sure at the time, finishing the first time tests on exponents up to 79.3 million seemed as out of reach as getting to the moon. What version of Prime95 introduced that 4M FFT size, and what year was that anyway?

Umm... let me google that for myself: version 19.0, October 10th, 1999 - nearly 19 years ago ... same version that introduced P-1 factoring

In August 1999, we had just finished first time testing exponents up to 4 million, and in October 1999, exponents up to 2 million had been double-checked.[/QUOTE]

Would you venture a guess as to when we could reach the limit of 79.3 million for double checked? 10 Years?

80 million goal achieved!
Nice to tick off those x0 increments.

[QUOTE=rudy235;493936]Would you venture a guess as to when we could reach the limit of 79.3 million for double checked? 10 Years?[/QUOTE]

I'm going to draw a terrible comparison here, so brace yourself. :smile:

It took the first-time checks 5 years to go from 45M to 79.3M so maybe the DC's will take the same amount of time.

The reason I say it's a terrible comparison is because not as many people are doing DC work, but then again as time goes on and throughput improves because of new CPU/GPU designs, maybe it would stick to that pace.

Another way to look at it is that the DC "million" milestones are being crossed every ~4 months, based on a very small sampling of recent dates. Again assuming increases in CPUs that may help keep that pace, we could expect to hit 79.3M for double-checks in (34 * 4) months = 11.3 years. :smile:

[QUOTE=Madpoo;494044]I'm going to draw a terrible comparison here, so brace yourself. :smile:

It took the first-time checks 5 years to go from 45M to 79.3M so maybe the DC's will take the same amount of time.

The reason I say it's a terrible comparison is because not as many people are doing DC work, but then again as time goes on and throughput improves because of new CPU/GPU designs, maybe it would stick to that pace.

Another way to look at it is that the DC "million" milestones are being crossed every ~4 months, based on a very small sampling of recent dates. Again assuming increases in CPUs that may help keep that pace, we could expect to hit 79.3M for double-checks in (34 * 4) months = 11.3 years. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Yeah i think this last estimate may be a tad optimistic.. may some apathy among the people that volunteer with the double checking will be somewhat compensated by better processors and even by better programming. I might not be able to see this milestone accomplished, but at the very least I with to see it get to 60 million.

Roughly 62K double checks was done in the last year, so that would be 9-10 years, IF the increasing speed of the hardware keeps up with the increasing LL runtime from 45M to 79M.

[QUOTE=ATH;494067]Roughly 62K double checks was done in the last year, so that would be 9-10 years, IF the increasing speed of the hardware keeps up with the increasing LL runtime from 45M to 79M.[/QUOTE]

We might be doing better actually....

Correct my if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that a few years back George changed the rules that all new PCs must successfully complete at least 2 DC's per core before doing LL....and/or the default work type for new PCs was also changed from LL to DC.

[QUOTE=petrw1;494113]We might be doing better actually....

Correct my if I'm wrong but I seem to recall that a few years back George changed the rules that all new PCs must successfully complete at least 2 DC's per core before doing LL....and/or the default work type for new PCs was also changed from LL to DC.[/QUOTE]

The default is to do 1 DC per year. New clients haven't done 1 DC in the last year, so they get assigned a DC to start by default.