[QUOTE=chalsall;293489]If you look back on this thread, you'll see the new limits. Basically I'm bringing the allowed quantity, and age, down to one month.

...

I will shortly add highlighting on the View Assignments page for old P-1 assignments so it's clearer. Also, if the P-1er's argue that one month is too short, we can take the limit up to, say, six weeks. But I think the previous limit of three months is simply too long.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I understood. I temporarily added a machine to help the two slow boxes that hold the 7 offending assignments I have.

I think it would be useful to distinguish between allowed quantity and age. I'm running very different machines, from really slow to quite fast. I cannot avoid that some of my later assignments finish earlier than some of the old ones. My slow machines finish one P-1 in 10-11 days (per thread; certainly also because I change the assignments from "...,2" to "...,3"). I used to add batches of 5 assignments when only 1 or 2 were left. Looks like I need to add them one by one to comply with the new rules. I just checked: primenet gave me a 56.3M P-1 test, I could switch the machines to primenet assignments again (but I like your nice statistics ...).

Or, you change the logic to hand out assignments up to a total of 25 days at most, if the oldest assignment is below 50 days? How's that?

The P-1 GHz-days credits seem to be off in some cases. For example, from my completed exponents list :

** 52374953 72 P-1 2012-02-07 15:28:33 2012-03-14 02:41:20 3.685

But my prime.log shows

Sending result to server: UID: kcjaget/Laptop, M52374953 has a factor: 441339726116774185834183

RESPONSE:
pnErrorResult=0
pnErrorDetail=CPU credit is 2.8833 GHz-days.

This only seems to be a problem on P-1s that find factors ... in most cases the results match what I'm seeing in my log files.

I'm not really worried about getting too much credit, but this 3.68x number shows up in the assignment page as well. I wanted to point it out in case it was used to figure out how many days of P-1 work are assigned. If so, its overestimating by a decent amount.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293581]Ah good :smile:


I would rather get the lower expos at 71 bits than the higher expos at 69 bits. Make sure everything it thoroughly done.[/QUOTE]

I believe you can choose lower expos on the "Get Assignments" screen.

Also the odds are slightly higher of finding a 69 bit factor than a 71 bit.

Also if you find a factor of a 60M exponent you save more work than for a lower exponent.

Also, do I say also too much?

[QUOTE=Bdot;293600]Or, you change the logic to hand out assignments up to a total of 25 days at most, if the oldest assignment is below 50 days? How's that?[/QUOTE]

That seems reasonable.

OK, I have adjusted the code's logic such that P-1 assignments are now valid for 50 days. However, new assignments won't be given out if there's more than 25 days worth assigned, [I][U]or[/U][/I] the oldest is more than 45 days old. (It didn't make sense to me to assign new work on the same day one or more of the old were going to be expired.)

I have also added the warnings and highlights on the View Assignments page. And, just for fun and because I was in the code, I've added a column for "GHz Days" for each assignment.

[QUOTE=kjaget;293602]I'm not really worried about getting too much credit, but this 3.68x number shows up in the assignment page as well. I wanted to point it out in case it was used to figure out how many days of P-1 work are assigned. If so, its overestimating by a decent amount.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for letting me know. Dubslow pointed out the over-credit before, and it's on my todo list, but the overestimating might be an issue I'll need to look into.

[QUOTE=petrw1;293609]I believe you can choose lower expos on the "Get Assignments" screen.[/QUOTE]

In fact, someone has to change the "Maximum Range" to be higher than 60M to get assignments at 61M.

While working within the wave is the most important thing at the moment, I know some people love working the low TFed candidates, so I thought I'd have Spidy bring in a few when they became available.

[QUOTE=petrw1;293609]Also, do I say also too much?[/QUOTE]Yes :smile:
[QUOTE=petrw1;293609]I believe you can choose lower expos on the "Get Assignments" screen.

Also the odds are slightly higher of finding a 69 bit factor than a 71 bit.

Also if you find a factor of a 60M exponent you save more work than for a lower exponent.
[/quote] What I meant here is that there are many expos 50M-60M that are already at 71 bits that Spidey doesn't reserve. The available TF from GPU272 at 71 bits are only those exponents that were picked up at lower bits and taken to 71. So in this case, I would prefer to take those expos at 71 without us, have Spidey grab them, and finish the job to 72 before going higher.


[QUOTE=chalsall;293621]In fact, someone has to change the "Maximum Range" to be higher than 60M to get assignments at 61M.

While working within the wave is the most important thing at the moment, I know some people love working the low TFed candidates, so I thought I'd have Spidy bring in a few when they became available.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, that is totally fair ;)

So, I was bored waiting for an AI training run to finish (I often wish I had the computing power some of you do... :wink:) and thought I'd expose a graph I use in the Admin area...

The [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/assigned/"]Assignment Age and Pledge Level[/URL] graph is available as a sub-menu of the "Overall System Progress" menu. Not sure that's the best place for it, but I couldn't think of where else, and it doesn't warrant it's own menu item.

Note that this only shows LL and DC Trial Factoring assignments which haven't been extended. I'll bring the P-1 assignments into this once we've retired some of the old assignments.

The graph shows that we're doing quite a good job of keeping assignments "timely", and that most people are now going to 72 bits in one go in the LL range.

Heh.. if you're bored, I would be interested in a graph where the x axis is date, and each "slot" on the y-axis is one of my individual assignments, with a bar representing the assigned date through to completion date. For me and LLTF, it would be a pretty boring graph, since I only have one mfaktc instance, but for P-1 it would be an interesting mix as assignments are moved around from worker to worker and I prioritize lower expos/older assignments, etc...

I wasn't going to say anything, but now you've presented me an opportunity to pester you with an idea that's cool, awesome, hard to implement and totally useless :smile:

[QUOTE=flashjh;293360]Over the next few days I'll unreserve stuff that is old and rebuild my worktodo files.[/QUOTE]
All done

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293626]Yes :smile:[/QUOTE]
WRONG. Petrw is spot on.
[Quote]What I meant here is that there are many expos 50M-60M that are already at 71 bits that Spidey doesn't reserve. The available TF from GPU272 at 71 bits are only those exponents that were picked up at lower bits and taken to 71. So in this case, I would prefer to take those expos at 71 without us, have Spidey grab them, and finish the job to 72 before going higher.[/QUOTE]
WRONG.
[Quote]On the other hand, that is totally fair ;)[/QUOTE]
WRONG.

You sure weren't kidding when you said you hadn't understood me.

Read the "TF strategy" thread again.

David