Sorry for another stupid question. What it the difference between [B]Smart assignment[/B] and [B]Run on any CPU[/B]?

[QUOTE=davieddy;276062]Admirable as your "grabbing" efforts are, it is a one-off exercize. Provided the new exponents dished out are optimally TFed (72) even the expiries will have no further need for TF. Maybe some P-1.[/QUOTE]

That is correct. If new exponents dished out are optimally TFed, then [i]eventually[/i] expiries will have no further need for TF. Just now, they do. Currently new exponents are TFed to 71. Over time, the number of expiries < 71 will diminish while the mini-project's capacity might increase. [i]Eventually[/i] we will be able to do all these expiries and then some. At this point we start impementing your proposal.

But [i]until then[/i], it is better that we catch the low TF expiries.

[QUOTE=Christenson;276058]Do you want factors, or the no factor found results, too?[/QUOTE]

It's actually the no factor found results I want. The factored assignments are nice to know about, but they will unreserve themselves.

[QUOTE=kladner;276061]EDIT: When I took up this task, Mr. P-1 said approximately, "You don't have to tell me about factors, but it's OK if you do."

I've settled on saving the contents of uploaded results.txt files in one file and shooting that off to Mr. P-1. No filtering. He can do as he wants with it. He already said that it doesn't have to be all his stuff, though that's all I have from mfaktc at the moment.

It's also really easy once the results have been uploaded. Ctl-A, Ctl-X, Ctl-S, (switch files) Ctl-V, Ctl-S. Maybe there's even a way to batch file that.[/QUOTE]

All rolled up together in one file is just fine. In fact, it's better for me.

I'm now tracking 19 batches given to 11 different volunteers. I've had to develop processes to manage this burgeoning workload on the hoof. What I'm looking for, is a way to minimise my own workload, minimise yours, and reduce the scope for screwup as much as possible. I can think of several ways to do this:

Option 1. I maintain a record of each batch I give you. When you've completed a batch, you tell me, identifying which batch by the ID I gave you. This is what I have been doing since a few days ago, until yesterday.

Pros: Fairly convenient for me.

Cons: "All I did was copy your assignments to my worktodo, then delete your email/PM. I don't know what assignment belongs to what batch, and in any case, you never did give me a batch ID"

Option 2: "Here are the assignment keys. Unreserve them all when you're done"

Pros: Really easy for me as I no longer have to track what I've given you.

Cons: "How do you unreserve assigments again? All I did was copy your assignments to my worktodo, then delete your email/PM. My worktodo still lists the uncompleted assignments but I no longer have a list of those I have completed."

Option 3: You send me back a list of completed assignments. I grep my tracking files for these assignments, unreserve them, then (using grep again) remove them.

Pros: Convenient for me

Cons: "All I did was copy your assignments to my worktodo, then delete your email/PM. My worktodo still lists the uncompleted assignments but I no longer have a list of those I have completed." Also there's the possibility of error. You may report as completed an assignment that you actually haven't.

Option 4: You send me your results files. I parse them for the exponents using a script, then proceed as in option 3.

Pros. Easy for me. Easy for you. Reduced scope for error.

Cons: None that I can think of.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;276069]I don't have them. But I can give you a list of factors found, if that's sufficient?[/QUOTE]

I don't need the factors found, though they're nice to know. But you're good anyway, you've already told me about some batches you've completed, which I'll unreserve shortly. Just let me have the results files moving forward. If any discrepancies emerge, I'll contact you.

One Con I know of for option 4: the 5000 character limit on PMs. But it's a zero; I keep my results files sort of permanently; the file is up to 200K or so, which is, compared to a drive with 100s of Gigabytes, pretty small....

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;276097]At this point we start impementing your proposal.
[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9nmfcRp6ZY"]Don't impement(sic) with my tutu[/URL]

David

It seems clear that this process needs to be implemented in the PrimeNet software. NOW. I'm sorry that I'm not smart enough to offer any assistance.

Why not have just one batch per volunteer to minimize confusion? When I finish, I email and say "I'm done, send more". Perhaps there will be a little dead processing time between batches but so be it.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;276099]I'm now tracking 19 batches given to 11 different volunteers. I've had to develop processes to manage this burgeoning workload on the hoof. What I'm looking for, is a way to minimise my own workload, minimise yours, and reduce the scope for screwup as much as possible. I can think of several ways to do this:[/QUOTE]

If it would help this sub-project, I'd be willing to invest a bit of time to modify my "MiniPrimeNet" code to facilitate this.

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

1. Mr. P-1 and anyone else collecting expired candidates uploads the exponents after getting them assigned as Anonymous.

2. "Workers" log into the server and ask for some number of assignments and what bit level they're going to work them up to.

3. The server watches these exponents (once a day or so, to not have too high an impact on the real PrimeNet server), and automatically unassigns them once it sees the pledged bit level has been achieved.

Would this be at all useful and desirable?

If so, if Mr. P-1 could PM me a sample set of exponents which the server would have to parse during step 1, I could probably get this implemented over the weekend.

It seems like it would be better to just use PrimeNet, but if George doesn't have the time, this is the next best option.

[QUOTE=chalsall;276113]
"Workers" log into the server and ask for some number of assignments and what bit level they're going to work them up to.
[/QUOTE]
Shirkers of the world unite.
What have we got to lose?

David

[QUOTE=Dubslow;276129]It seems like it would be better to just use PrimeNet, but if George doesn't have the time, this is the next best option.[/QUOTE]
It's not the time. It's the inclination.

Pottymouth