Working on the 28,000,000-30,000,000 range
 

Just to let know to other people who are doing non server assigned work in this range.

Early November a lot of exponents lagging at the Double Check wavefront were released back into the pool. Unfortunatly it looks like many of them they were picked up again by another client that does not actually do any work. These exponents were reserved but never updated, are registered to ANONYMOUS, with no cpu name, no work recorded and with 'days to go' gone to a negative value.

The ones marked with an asterisk are seven exponents that I have started working on (extra P-1 and LL) and expect to finish before the 60 days period is over.

28258819 * Tha
28262609 * Tha
28339513 * Tha
28351957 * Tha
28404611 * Tha
28425883 * Tha
28452059 * Tha

28465331
28471337
28474087
28476733
28485169
28489207
28491019
28491101
28497499
28513531
28514449
28514693
28519753
28531051
28531057
28533929
28535261
28539479
28544231
28546901
28550267
28550311
28550909
28563097
28566569
28573081
28574713
28579189
28579757
28588337
28589321
28592209
28598201
28602817
28611707
28612691
28613119
28617217
28622617
28627297
28655009
28658687
28663183
28663433
28668589
28679789
28693109
28730941
28751323
28757419
28759363
28759477
28779329
28784731
28786301
28809983
28813847
28818913
28818919
28819093
28819289
28821313
28824689
28842977
28861241
28864109
28869107
28875697
28875751
28876157
28876307
28876597
28877843
28879159
28881109
28887407
28888129
28888261
28890131
28890751
28891537
28892641
28894681
28897207
28898743
28899917
28900217
28900997
28939003
28944551
28968389
28970779
28975501
28976737
28977737
28980199
28980229
28981999
28986851
28990187
28995443
29029769
29031329
29031503
29031553
29126737
29127017
29127349
29204239
29206651

My guess is that it was CKDO that released them...he used to have lots in that range.
Not sure if it was on purpose though or due to a PC not reporting in for 60 days.

[QUOTE=petrw1;362621]My guess is that it was CKDO that released them...he used to have lots in that range.
Not sure if it was on purpose though or due to a PC not reporting in for 60 days.[/QUOTE]

He released them on purpose. The range 26M to 28M has since been progressing fast. By then the unknown client that apparently was registered as having enough confidence and reliability to be assigned preferred exponents kicked in and seemingly abandonded them directly after.

[QUOTE=tha;362617]Just to let know to other people who are doing non server assigned work in this range.

Early November a lot of exponents lagging at the Double Check wavefront were released back into the pool. Unfortunatly it looks like many of them they were picked up again by another client that does not actually do any work. These exponents were reserved but never updated, are registered to ANONYMOUS, with no cpu name, no work recorded and with 'days to go' gone to a negative value.

The ones marked with an asterisk are seven exponents that I have started working on (extra P-1 and LL) and expect to finish before the 60 days period is over.

28258819 * Tha
28262609 * Tha
28339513 * Tha
28351957 * Tha
28404611 * Tha
28425883 * Tha
28452059 * Tha
(...)
[/QUOTE]
How to start working P-1 for example 28550909?

[QUOTE=Miszka;362695]How to start working P-1 for example 28550909?[/QUOTE]

First you look up this exponent at the [URL="http://mersenne.org/report_exponent/"]report exponent page[/URL]. If you want to do significant more P-1 work on the exponent you add the folling line to your worktodo.txt file

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,28550909,-1,600000,12000000

The last two values are B1 and B2. The values 1,2 and -1 must remain. You can omit this entire step if you are satisfied with the P-1 done on this exponent.

Next, look up the [URL="http://mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=28550909&exp_hi=&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]assignments page[/URL]. It is here that you can see on which day the exponent was assigned, that it has never been updated and that as of today "the days to go" is at -21. When that value reaches -60 it will be reassigned by the server. So any work you do on that exponent has to be finished by then.

If you find a factor in the P-1 stage your work on this exponent is done. If not (most likely) and if you can complete the work in time add the following line to your worktodo.txt file

DoubleCheck=N/A,28550909,71,1

N/A means you assigned yourself this exponent, and the server did not. The value 71 is from the reported trial factoring done and the 1 means that P-1 has been done on this exponent already.

As you can see on the report a user by the name of Jerry Hallett did the factoring up to 71 only two days ago.

Your worktodo.txt file has an entry for each core of your processor. So if you have a four core machine, you can work on four exponents at the same time, just add the lines under each entry [Worker #1] up to [Worker #4]

[QUOTE=tha;362700]First you look up this exponent at the [URL="http://mersenne.org/report_exponent/"]report exponent page[/URL]. If you want to do significant more P-1 work on the exponent you add the folling line to your worktodo.txt file

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,28550909,-1,600000,12000000

The last two values are B1 and B2. The values 1,2 and -1 must remain. You can omit this entire step if you are satisfied with the P-1 done on this exponent.

Next, look up the [URL="http://mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=28550909&exp_hi=&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]assignments page[/URL]. It is here that you can see on which day the exponent was assigned, that it has never been updated and that as of today "the days to go" is at -21. When that value reaches -60 it will be reassigned by the server. So any work you do on that exponent has to be finished by then.

If you find a factor in the P-1 stage your work on this exponent is done. If not (most likely) and if you can complete the work in time add the following line to your worktodo.txt file

DoubleCheck=N/A,28550909,71,1

N/A means you assigned yourself this exponent, and the server did not. The value 71 is from the reported trial factoring done and the 1 means that P-1 has been done on this exponent already.

As you can see on the report a user by the name of Jerry Hallett did the factoring up to 71 only two days ago.

Your worktodo.txt file has an entry for each core of your processor. So if you have a four core machine, you can work on four exponents at the same time, just add the lines under each entry [Worker #1] up to [Worker #4][/QUOTE]

I have started working M28550909 (P-1 and next LL-D)

[QUOTE=Miszka;362710]I have started working M28550909 (P-1 and next LL-D)[/QUOTE]
M28550909 completed P-1. Double-checking now

[QUOTE=Miszka;362725]M28550909 completed P-1. Double-checking now[/QUOTE]

Technically, DCing a candidate already assigned for DCing (or LLing similarly) is considered "poaching" by "the community" (or, at least, some of it; definitely those who are not lactose intolerant...).

On the other hand... A regular and dependable participant might wonder why [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=44230973"]the lowest untested candidate (once, without being suspect)[/URL] has been allowed to linger for 1,144 days?

[QUOTE=Miszka;362725]M28550909 completed P-1.[/QUOTE]
My four years old machine suddenly feels a lot older now. It does that assignment in 26 hours.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362728]Technically, DCing a candidate already assigned for DCing (or LLing similarly) is considered "poaching" by "the community"?[/QUOTE]

To avoid poaching I waited until the "days to go" went well into the negative. Together with all the other indicators it is reasonable safe to assume these assignments have been abandonded.

People who reserve exponents as "ANONYMOUS" and want to distinguish themselves could enhance the profile of their assignments by at least filling in a computername. That would keep me from considering an exponent.

When an assignment becomes the tail of DC or LL and indicates to need a lot more time to complete or give no reliable indication it is not unreasonable to have another computer doubling the work.

That does not guarantee 100% that he/she will not pick it up again.

[QUOTE=tha;362734]People who reserve exponents as "ANONYMOUS" and want to distinguish themselves could enhance the profile of their assignments by at least filling in a computername. That would keep me from considering an exponent.[/QUOTE]

I don't entirely disagree.

For the record, 28550909 was "captured" by GPU72, and then made available to our authorized workers. A certain someone then reserved it via the GPU72 manual assignment page, but didn't "claim it".

This actually causes some time consumption for us to clean up 60 days later...

I've recently been thinking of removing DC and LL assignments from availability from the Manual Assignment pages (on GPU72), and only allowing such assignments via the Proxy to ensure the candidate will be immediately "claimed" by the user, and said user's machine, so we all know who we're dealing with.

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=kracker;362736]That does not guarantee 100% that he/she will not pick it up again.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't.

But if the work is done (e.g. DC), it won't be picked up again; the work will be done.

Another example... look at "CaptainEntropy"; [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=58239631&exp_hi=58239631&execm=1&exdchk=1&exfirst=1&exp1=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]58239631 being held-up by "Mommy's Laptop"[/URL], even though this TFing work has long since been done....

[QUOTE=kracker;362736]That does not guarantee 100% that he/she will not pick it up again.[/QUOTE]

Correct. Not 100%, but reasonable close in my opinion.

Unfortunately there are still clients around that request assignments and abandon them directly after. The server is mostly able to steer them away from the sensitive ranges, but apparently these assignments slipped through or at least were not able to distinguish themselves from abandonded assignments in any of the many ways.

Another user (JH) made a lot of similar assignments in the 26M range except that they were worked on, and the "days to go" value of the about 40 assignments never became very negative. So I was able to avoid wasting resources on them. A computer (or deamon) name registered with an assignment would immediately identify an assignment as likely to be completed.

[QUOTE=tha;362742]So I was able to avoid wasting resources on them. A computer (or deamon) name registered with an assignment would immediately identify an assignment as likely to be completed.[/QUOTE]

If I may then ask you, what exactly is your personal criteria for what some call "poaching"?

[QUOTE=chalsall;362737]
Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I do not have a GPU so I am not familiar with the difference between reserving and claiming an exponent for assignment using that form. Whatever change to the procedures is needed to prevent this ambiguity will be appreciated.

It now looks as if someone who reserved them might be working on them off line and thinking he has done what is needed to claim them. That would make my resources wasting their time. I still consider that unlikely though since it would be a terrible slow GPU doing this. Or someone is saving up results and plans to upload them as a bunch, unaware or insufficiently aware of the time limit.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362743]If I may then ask you, what exactly is your personal criteria for what some call "poaching"?[/QUOTE]

In the old v4 era abandonded assignments from mostly overclockers were a plague. In that time I tried to filter out the worst to keep the trailing assignments going.

Since the v5 server came online I stopped doing that since the preferred assignment rules recycle them automatically.

Two months ago I spotted some leftovers and started to ring some bells and pull some strings to get things going again.

Poaching in my opinion is taking and finishing an assignment that someone else is still working on in a reasonable way.

The wiggling room is therefore in what is reasonable. What I consider unreasonable is not distinguishing the assignment from abandonded assignments through reports to the server, or claiming so much more time that major milestones are going to depend upon their completion.

@tha:
The way to "claim" such an assignment is simply to connect to the server to update the "Days to go" (the GPU72 server has already provided us with the key)- Then the exponent starts appearing in the Primenet server pages as being assigned to us
Also note that exponents obtained via GPU72 to be LL/DCed are not necessarily done on a GPU.

[QUOTE=tha;362747]The wiggling room is therefore in what is reasonable. What I consider unreasonable is not distinguishing the assignment from abandonded assignments through reports to the server, or claiming so much more time that major milestones are going to depend upon their completion.[/QUOTE]

And you get to decide this, instead of the community, why exactly?

[QUOTE=chalsall;362749]And you get to decide this, instead of the community, why exactly?[/QUOTE]

I feel the community has approved this by faciltating and endorsing this through feedback. The only other way to ensure progress on the mentioned fronts is by enforcing more strict communication between the server and all clients, which would limit some users in their specific usage of the software.

It is a matter of balancing the risk of an exponent being done twice which would waste resources and the risk of an exponent not being done at all or desired results arriving undesirable late.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362749]And you get to decide this, instead of the community, why exactly?[/QUOTE]
Because the community is overly conservative in its methodology for recycling exponents that are not being worked on. (and this is coming from what some would consider an extreme conservative)...

[QUOTE=tha;362759]I feel the community has approved this by faciltating and endorsing this through feedback. The only other way to ensure progress on the mentioned fronts is by enforcing more strict communication between the server and all clients, which would limit some users in their specific usage of the software.

It is a matter of balancing the risk of an exponent being done twice which would waste resources and the risk of an exponent not being done at all or desired results arriving undesirable late.[/QUOTE]

OK. A very fair and reasoned argument. Thank you for that. :sincerely:

I recently spent over two hours in a church where it was said "If anyone knows any reason why this [marriage] cannot lawfully be fulfilled, speak now, or forever hold your silence".

[QUOTE=chalsall;362737]I've recently been thinking of removing DC and LL assignments from availability from the Manual Assignment pages (on GPU72), and only allowing such assignments via the Proxy to ensure the candidate will be immediately "claimed" by the user, and said user's machine, so we all know who we're dealing with.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
I don't think that the overall system impact will be huge, for me. I can use a slaved Prime95 to get assignments. Now that GPU72 hands out assignments for DC/LL, I rarely use the manual assignments anyway (though I've been using it lately to test the newest CUDALucas). I guess you'll need to let us know how many people are using the manual assignments now.

However, if I use Prime95 to claim them and switch to CUDALucas, they're still not going to get updated in the system and others may think they're abandoned. That is if I let them go too long or until CUDALucas can communicate with PrimeNet on it's own.

With the technology of today, I think that it's time to set some reasonable guidelines and expire any exponent that is over 180 days old OR without any activity within 60 days. Can anyone say where the tail end of the DCs would be if these really old exponents had been expired and reassigned? Either way, there has to be some common-sense here. I can run all my old systems and 'contribute' to the effort as 'any' work done can't be replaced. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But, how much 'energy and time' is spent running these old systems when newer ones can do the same assignment in a few days with much less energy usage? I know someone with the analytic ability can do the calculus on which systems can still contribute and which ones should be shut down. All I'm saying is that people who care will follow the new guidelines and finish assignments sooner.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362737]

I've recently been thinking of removing DC and LL assignments from availability from the Manual Assignment pages (on GPU72), and only allowing such assignments via the Proxy to ensure the candidate will be immediately "claimed" by the user, and said user's machine, so we all know who we're dealing with.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

My computer at work has a spam filter that I cannot get to communicate with the Prime95 server no matter what I try. So I manually reserve DC assignments from GPU92, and they are never claimed since my computer cannot communicate with Prime95. But I am very careful not to over-reserve so they are not held for very long periods. So, Chris, please do not remove the ability to manually reserve DC assignments that are not immediately claimed. Thanks!

[QUOTE=chalsall;362737]I don't entirely disagree.

For the record, 28550909 was "captured" by GPU72, and then made available to our authorized workers. A certain someone then reserved it via the GPU72 manual assignment page, but didn't "claim it".
[/QUOTE]
A bit commotion came into being.
I done 15% test at present LL-D for 28550909
Do I not know if to execute farther?

[QUOTE=richs;362781]...from GPU92...[/QUOTE]
Cool! When do we start? :razz:

[QUOTE=Miszka;362787]A bit commotion came into being.
I done 15% test at present LL-D for 28550909
Do I not know if to execute farther?[/QUOTE]

All I can say is that I continue doing the exponents I started working on, unless the one who made the reservations communicates progress made on his assignments. It still looks unlikely to me as only 117 slow cpu cores could explain these reservations.

The good effect of this commotion is that the whole process of reserving assignments through all kinds of software packages that have been developed by many people is reviewed for unintended effects.

I decided to test one exponent yet - 28900997 ( P-1 and LL)

[QUOTE=flashjh;362778]I don't think that the overall system impact will be huge, for me. I can use a slaved Prime95 to get assignments. Now that GPU72 hands out assignments for DC/LL, I rarely use the manual assignments anyway (though I've been using it lately to test the newest CUDALucas). I guess you'll need to let us know how many people are using the manual assignments now.[/QUOTE]

Well, clearly there's at least one (I copy you Rich).

Perhaps what I'll do is increase the privilege level for those two forms, with a notice to use the Proxy or ask for permission for the manual access.

[QUOTE=flashjh;362778]However, if I use Prime95 to claim them and switch to CUDALucas, they're still not going to get updated in the system and others may think they're abandoned. That is if I let them go too long or until CUDALucas can communicate with PrimeNet on it's own.[/QUOTE]

I think an important part of tha's proposal is he's only going to process candidates which have clearly truly been abandoned, by someone who didn't bother to claim the assignments. I'm sure he'll take into consideration the "weight" of someone's production history -- thus "claiming" the assignment is important in this.

[QUOTE=flashjh;362778]I can run all my old systems and 'contribute' to the effort as 'any' work done can't be replaced. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But, how much 'energy and time' is spent running these old systems when newer ones can do the same assignment in a few days with much less energy usage?[/QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree!

I have access to several older machines upon which I could produce a small amount of work. But I've decided not to because of the power usage. We still mostly burn oil here in Barbados... :sad:

[QUOTE=flashjh;362778]I know someone with the analytic ability can do the calculus on which systems can still contribute and which ones should be shut down. All I'm saying is that people who care will follow the new guidelines and finish assignments sooner.[/QUOTE]

James??? :smile:

[QUOTE=LaurV;362792]Cool! When do we start? :razz:[/QUOTE]

Lol, a Freudian slip!

Is anyone officially tracking the ownership here...other than checking all the posts above. If required I could probably complete about 5 a week.

Not really wanting to argue with anyone, and this will likely be my only post in this thread, but I'd like it on record that I feel quite threatened in my continuing tiny contribution to GIMPS by this sort of poaching. By the criteria indicated by a few in this thread, my slow but reliable DC work could easily be pinched from me before it reports.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362870]Not really wanting to argue with anyone, and this will likely be my only post in this thread, but I'd like it on record that I feel quite threatened in my continuing tiny contribution to GIMPS by this sort of poaching. By the criteria indicated by a few in this thread, my slow but reliable DC work could easily be pinched from me before it reports.[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

I am not so sure you would need to worry.

First these four assignments. They are likely to become the lowest exponents in the weeks to come.

27897511
27906397
27988427
27988483

They have been worked on for a long time, more than a year. They are 90-95% done and move up by a few tenth of a percent per month. But they do report reliable progress. So almost all indicators make these assignments a no-no for taking since it really would be poaching.

I tried to find another assignment below 30,000,000 that would meet the criteria spelled out in this thread but they all have already been poached or taken long time ago by others.

CaptainEntropy is still working on some exponents in this range with no progress reported in the last 4 years. They would meet the criteria if they would become a block to a major milestone, but other GIMPS participants have completed them already.

I agree that poaching should be prevented as much as possible, but I also think the criteria spelled out here make poaching very unlikely, definitely less likely than criteria actively used by others.

I'll take these next 8 ummm 10?.

[CODE]
28465331 - Woody
28471337 - Woody
28474087 - Hand_In_The_Box
28476733 - Hand_In_The_Box
28485169 - Hand_In_The_Box
28489207 - Hand_In_The_Box
28491019 - CKDO still has this one
28491101 - CKDO still has this one
28497499 - Speck
28513531 - Speck
[/CODE]

"Sid & Andy" will be the owner

New overview of the taken assignments:

[CODE]
28258819 * Tha 28759477
28262609 * Tha 28779329
28339513 * Tha 28784731
28351957 * Tha 28786301
28404611 * Tha 28809983
28425883 * Tha 28813847
28452059 * Tha 28818913
28818919
28465331 * Sid & Andy 28819093
28471337 * Sid & Andy 28819289
28474087 * Sid & Andy 28821313
28476733 * Sid & Andy 28824689
28485169 * Sid & Andy 28842977
28489207 * Sid & Andy 28861241
28491019 * Sid & Andy 28864109
28491101 * Sid & Andy 28869107
28497499 * Sid & Andy 28875697
28513531 * Sid & Andy 28875751
28514449 28876157
28514693 28876307
28519753 28876597
28531051 28877843
28531057 28879159
28533929 28881109
28535261 28887407
28539479 28888129
28544231 28888261
28546901 28890131
28550267 28890751
28550311 28891537
28550909 * Miszka 28892641
28563097 28894681
28566569 28897207
28573081 28898743
28574713 28899917
28579189 28900217
28579757 28900997 * Miszka
28588337 28939003
28589321 28944551
28592209 28968389
28598201 28970779
28602817 28975501
28611707 28976737
28612691 28977737
28613119 28980199
28617217 28980229
28622617 28981999
28627297 28986851
28655009 28990187
28658687 28995443
28663183 29029769
28663433 29031329
28668589 29031503
28679789 29031553
28693109 29126737
28730941 29127017
28751323 29127349
28757419 29204239
28759363 29206651
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;362870]Not really wanting to argue with anyone, and this will likely be my only post in this thread, but I'd like it on record that I feel quite threatened in my continuing tiny contribution to GIMPS by this sort of poaching. By the criteria indicated by a few in this thread, my slow but reliable DC work could easily be pinched from me before it reports.[/QUOTE]

I hear what you are saying.

But, at the same time, I think tha has brought into "the crucible" an important issue. And I believe he is trying to be fair in his approach, unlike several other active "poachers" who still submit results to GIMPS.

Every participant's cycles can important and useful, and no-one should feel that just because they don't have a lot of "fire-power" that they cannot contribute to GIMPS.

On the other hand, there are a few people who "don't play nice with others". Some reserve way more "preferred" candidates than they can process in a reasonable time. Other's reserve candidates in the middle of the "wave", and then "sit" on them for (literally) years until they become "milestone" blocking.

I would argue this is actually a "meta-bug" of GIMPS. As an example, why should "Captain Entropy" be able to hold up an assignment for TFing for more than three years?

Why should a Prime95 participant's machine be considered "trusted" and given the lowest available candidate at the moment of request just because it has "high confidence" -- shouldn't the historical through-put of the particular machine in relation to the candidate also enter the heuristics?

For the record:

1. I've spent the last three hours cleaning up the mess in the GPU72 database this causes by those who get such assignments from GPU72, since it warns users if the work they've been assigned has been completed, and suggests they stop the said work and unassign it from the GPU72 personal assignment report.

1.1. At least one user ignores this notice, and just keeps reserving new assignments. This causes work for me, personally.

1.2. This user is no longer able to reserve LL or DC work from GPU72.

2. GPU72 used to re-capture work which was assigned by it to one of our users but abandoned, and hold it for reassignment back to said user.

2.1. This will no longer be done. If a preferred LL or DC assignment is abandoned and recaptured, I personally will complete the assignment (and thus personally take the risk that my work will be useless if the user magically completes the work in the time it takes me to do it).

2.2. For those who get their LL or DC assignments through the GPU72 manual assignment page, please *ensure* you formally "claim it".

2.2.1. This ensures everyone knows who has ownership, and that you'll have 60 days to complete the assignment before it is recycled.

2.2.2. Rich et al... For your situation (not being able to have Prime95 talk to Primenet or the Proxy from work), simply copy your worktodo.txt file onto a memory stick or e-mail it yourself. Then when you're home place the assignments into a "slaved" Prime95 instance with your Primenet credentials and have it "call home".

Thoughts, comments, complaints, etc?

P.S. We all *really* need to get out more.... :smile:

LL test successfully completes double-check of [B]M28550909[/B]

I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693

[QUOTE=Miszka;363039]I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693[/QUOTE]

I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363040]I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.[/QUOTE]
O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057

because
28514449
28519753
28531051
are assigned to "Carsten Kossendey"

[QUOTE=Miszka;363042]O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057[/QUOTE]

These two candidates satisfy the proposal's selection criteria.

Hmm, I get a very uneasy feeling about this. The user that originally had all these assignments and did nothing with them for an extreme long time was asked to give up the assignments. The exponents were put back into the pool. Then we find out that he has taken them again, but now as ANONYMOUS. He also has not logged into this forum, at least not using his own account, since the exponents were released back into the pool.
Again we see nothing happening to these exponents. Then we spell out some criteria in the forum. The next thing that happens, said user makes a minimal change to a bunch of these assignments (adding his old username again and posting a CPU name), even going as far as having one exponent reporting 0.1% of the work done.

Weird, if that CPU can do 0.1% of the work on one exponent in so much time, then why have so many exponents reserved? Why does he not want to communicate, why does he suddenly shy away from contact in lieu of many previous postings?

The list I posted was carefully composed and the actions taken since by said user are (very) suspect to me and look like they are designed to obstruct rather than contribute. I stick to the assignments I have taken, and I consider all the exponents on the list to be kosher.

The machine "tycho" appears to be a dual core machine that claims to do a single exponent in 11 days. I stick to the work I've started and have progressed on.

But since there are still enough assignments available that meet the original criteria I'll add a mark to those exponents that are claimed by "tycho". And we will keep a watch on them.

[QUOTE=tha;363050]The machine "tycho" appears to be a dual core machine that claims to do a single exponent in 11 days. I stick to the work I've started and have progressed on.

But since there are still enough assignments available that meet the original criteria I'll add a mark to those exponents that are claimed by "tycho". And we will keep a watch on them.[/QUOTE]

I suggest there are enough on your list that we leave tycho's alone at least until and if we finish the rest.

[QUOTE=tha;363050]But since there are still enough assignments available that meet the original criteria I'll add a mark to those exponents that are claimed by "tycho". And we will keep a watch on them.[/QUOTE]

I don't yet see said mark.

New overview of the taken assignments:

- reserved
* manual reservation / in progress
+ completed

[CODE]
28258819 * Tha 28759477
28262609 * Tha 28779329
28339513 * Tha 28784731 - tycho
28351957 * Tha 28786301
28404611 * Tha 28809983 - tycho
28425883 * Tha 28813847 - tycho
28452059 - tycho 28818913
28818919
28465331 * Sid & Andy 28819093
28471337 * Sid & Andy 28819289
28474087 * Sid & Andy 28821313
28476733 * Sid & Andy 28824689
28485169 * Sid & Andy 28842977
28489207 * Sid & Andy 28861241
28491019 - tycho 28864109
28491101 - tycho 28869107
28497499 * Sid & Andy 28875697
28513531 * Sid & Andy 28875751
28514449 - tycho 28876157
28514693 * Miszka 28876307
28519753 - tycho 28876597
28531051 - tycho 28877843
28531057 * Miszka 28879159
28533929 * Tha 28881109
28535261 28887407
28539479 28888129
28544231 - tycho 28888261
28546901 28890131 - tycho
28550267 28890751 - tycho
28550311 28891537
28550909 * Miszka 28892641
28563097 28894681
28566569 28897207 - tycho
28573081 28898743
28574713 28899917 - tycho
28579189 28900217 - tycho
28579757 28900997 + Miszka
28588337 28939003
28589321 28944551 - tycho
28592209 28968389
28598201 28970779
28602817 28975501
28611707 28976737
28612691 28977737
28613119 28980199
28617217 28980229
28622617 28981999 - tycho
28627297 28986851
28655009 28990187
28658687 - tycho 28995443
28663183 - tycho 29029769
28663433 29031329
28668589 29031503 - tycho
28679789 29031553
28693109 29126737
28730941 29127017
28751323 29127349
28757419 29204239
28759363 29206651
[/CODE]

My pc is doing P-1 on the exponent 28452059. No DC LL-test had yet started so I took 28533929 instead.

7 More for S&A
 

28535261 - Needs P1
28539479 - Needs P1
28546901
28550267 - Needs P1
28550311 - Needs P1
28563097 - Needs P1
28566569 - Needs P1

These and the 8 already taken should all be done before mid Jan.

[QUOTE=tha;363083]New overview of the taken assignments:

- reserved
* manual reservation / in progress
+ completed


[B]28550909[/B] * Miszka
28900997 + Miszka

[/QUOTE]

28550909 is completed, no 28900997

My best computer has broken down :davieddy:
There will be the delay in testing

[QUOTE=Miszka;363104]My best computer has broken down :davieddy:
There will be the delay in testing[/QUOTE]
The curse from the poached... :razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;363123]The curse from the poached... :razz:[/QUOTE]
:ignore:

[QUOTE=LaurV;363123]The curse from the poached... :razz:[/QUOTE]

:clap smilie: :razz:

Joking aside, I really hope you know what you are doing.

I know what I am doing, and I am aware of most discussions that took place on this subject.

As I see it, contributing to this project is on a voluntary basis, but like all volunteering, not without obligations. One obligation is to either do reserved work within a reasonable amount of time or to let go the reservations. There is an unlimited reserve of work, there is more than enough work to be done for everyone. But if people rather carelessly keep reservations, do not indicate any progress, and do not communicate about these reservations there is a limit to the patience of others.

Through technical failures or by way of poaching some exponents are taken by others. Usually without any notice. I don't do that. But I have no problems doing it out in the open and taking responsibility for it.

As long as I get cheers as well as occasional boohs I know I am not too far off course in a minefield. That does not make me feel uncomfortable.

What about computers with only occasional internet access? I had one like that not too long ago, I only connected it only once every month or so (slow computer)

[QUOTE=tha;363151]That does not make me feel uncomfortable.[/QUOTE]

To put on the table, from what I can observe tha knows what he is doing.

And I'll be watching him very carefully, and will point out for public discussion if he steps outside of his proposal.

[QUOTE=kracker;363153]What about computers with only occasional internet access? I had one like that not too long ago, I only connected it only once every month or so (slow computer)[/QUOTE]

Such candidates / computers would not be "exposed" to poaching based on tha's proposal.

Just have your off-line computers "claim" the candidate initially after reservation (through another computer if needed), and every 45 days or so until completion, and you'll be fine.

Really, this is a bit of a mountain being made out of a mole-hill. Most assignments are in no risk of being "poached" by tha and his crew.

(Poaching of low candidates by less thoughtful poachers, on the other hand, cannot be managed by this discussion.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;363044]These two candidates
[B]28514693[/B]
28531057
satisfy the proposal's selection criteria.[/QUOTE]

Now 28514693 is assigned to "Carsten Kossendey"
I done P-1 for 28514693
I don't know, do or not to do DC for 28514693?

[QUOTE=tha;363151]

As I see it, contributing to this project is on a voluntary basis, but like all volunteering, not without obligations. One obligation is to either do reserved work within a reasonable amount of time or to let go the reservations.

[/QUOTE]

+1 for tha.
I´ve been advocating this for a long time.
And as I see it, the proposal he put forward in this thread is not only perfectly reasonable, but it also helps "keeping the pressure lower" and will certainly avoid many uncontrolled poaching actions.

[QUOTE=Miszka;363171]Now 28514693 is assigned to "Carsten Kossendey"
I done P-1 for 28514693
I don't know, do or not to do DC for 28514693?[/QUOTE]

Well, this is hard to say. CDKO had all these exponents originally and assigned to his machine 'leela'. After they were all returned to the pool following action of other GIMPS participants and leadership he has retaken them again.

There is a weird thing about the machine 'leela', that machine is also still doing doublecheck work on a substantial number of other exponents that have already been doublechecked. The amount of reported progress is little if anything at all.

Personally I cannot give him the benefit of doubt. Someone who reclaims over a hundred of exponents in such a delicate range may be held to higher standards than ordinary contributors. With a very high number of postings in this forum, why be so low key all at a sudden?

If you haven't started DC'íng on this exponent there is no price to pay by switching to another exponent as they are still available. I switched an exponent that I had not started on. But I will continue to work on the ones that I have started to work on regardless of future reclaims. And I will continue to work on the compiled list if there is insignificant progress by machines that have the profile of errant machines.

For the record, "leela" is now claimed to be a four core machine processing 4 exponents in each period of 14 days time, AND to continue working on a bunch of already DC'ed exponents afterwards, which would be in half a year of time.

I will finish the begun work (DC 28900997).
I'll not participate in "rats race" farther.
There are the thousands of different exponents.

[QUOTE=tha;363174]For the record, "leela" is now claimed to be a four core machine processing 4 exponents in each period of 14 days time, AND to continue working on a bunch of already DC'ed exponents afterwards, which would be in half a year of time.[/QUOTE]

SO I am confused...how did CKDO get them back from ANONYMOUS?
Or are they one in the same?
Has anyone been able to contact him to see if
A. He released them by accident and meant to keep them?
B. He meant to release them and "leela" took them back by accident?
C. Other

I do NOT want to be a poacher either. I think I will back off until we get this cleared up with CKDO.

Look at this one:

27389441 D LL, 21.20% 948 1624 [B]2018-06-10[/B] 2013-12-22 2013-12-15 [B]2011-05-26[/B] mspettel C616D7B73

Been running for 2+ years, not going to complete until 2018. How much electricity is this system wasting on an exponent that is done? I thought when Prime95 checked the exponent in and the assigned work was already completed that it would drop the assignment?

IMHO, Carsten could help us all a great deal by being a little more transparent as to his intentions, and perhaps even discussing his plans here on the forum. He is a known big player, and he is fully aware of the status and importance of these low exponents. He is certainly aware of this forum as a medium of discussion for the GIMPS project. It therefore is difficult not to view his hoarding of hundreds of preferred exponents and similar hijinks as unsportsmanlike conduct.

The only possible benefit of the doubt one could grant is that he flushed the exponents from his assignments list, but failed to remove them from his worktodo files, and the computer(s) bearing these worktodo files therefore re-registered all of these assignments again. But again, this scenario seems highly unlikely for a known power-user who would most assuredly be intimately familiar with the workings of the assignment system.

So, with apologies to Bugs Bunny, I ask the question: What's up, Carsten?

[QUOTE=petrw1;363191]SO I am confused...how did CKDO get them back from ANONYMOUS?
...
C. Other[/QUOTE]

Other...

He was asked to release these (and other's) by George a few weeks back, which he did. Then "Spidy" picked them up via a trusted Primenet account, and transferred them to an ANON account. These were then made available to GPU72 users, and he picked them up again but didn't "claim" them (at least, not until recently).

[QUOTE=petrw1;363191]I do NOT want to be a poacher either. I think I will back off until we get this cleared up with CKDO.[/QUOTE]

Considering his [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/89edb735f68ff3faa688634ac776d5f8/"]production history[/URL], I don't think this effort would be considered poaching by most participants...

And, to be explicit, Carsten is not able to reserve LL nor DC candidates from GPU72 any longer.

A PM would probably be best/quickest.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363195]Other...
These were then made available to GPU72 users, and he picked them up again but didn't "claim" them (at least, not until recently).
[/QUOTE]

How is that he could "claim" them from ANON and they show up in Prime95 as valid assignments for him.......but us "helpers of the cause" were asked to process them as "N/A"? If we could have legitimately "claimed" them would this have made it impossible for him to do so; at least for those we are working on?

[QUOTE=chalsall;363195]
Considering his [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/89edb735f68ff3faa688634ac776d5f8/"]production history[/URL], I don't think this effort would be considered poaching by most participants...
[/QUOTE]

To me the graph looks like he is contributing a decent amount ... so how again would doing his assignments for him NOT be poaching?

Or could I assume that since he was asked to release them that common sense would say he should NOT immediately reclaim them?

[QUOTE=petrw1;363200]Or could I assume that since he was asked to release them that common sense would say he should NOT immediately reclaim them?[/QUOTE]

That would be my take on the situation. Especially considering it was George himself who asked him, after he'd been sitting on them for almost a year.

[QUOTE=petrw1;363200]How is that he could "claim" them from ANON and they show up in Prime95 as valid assignments for him.......but us "helpers of the cause" were asked to process them as "N/A"? If we could have legitimately "claimed" them would this have made it impossible for him to do so; at least for those we are working on?[/QUOTE]

Because you didn't have the Primenet assignment key (AID); he did.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;363194]It therefore is difficult not to view his hoarding of hundreds of preferred exponents and similar hijinks as unsportsmanlike conduct.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

For the record, I have not been directly involved with this "sub-project", and in fact hadn't noticed that Carsten had reclaimed the preferred candidates he had been asked to release until tha brought it to everyone's attention.

Further, I have never "poached" a DC or a LL assignment before in my over ten years with GIMPS. This is about to change...

I've put the following 24 candidates onto my R720s; they'll all be done in less than a week.

[CODE]28679789
28693109
28751323
28759363
28818913
28819289
28821313
28864109
28869107
28875751
28877843
28888129
28888261
28892641
28894681
28968389
28970779
28980199
28986851
28990187
29029769
29126737
29127017
29206651[/CODE]

Looks like he had dropped 9K GHz days of DC on gpu72.

[QUOTE=kracker;363210]Looks like he had dropped 9K GHz days of DC on gpu72.[/QUOTE]

4.1K -- 168 candidates total.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363211]4.1K -- 168 candidates total.[/QUOTE]

Total?

[QUOTE=kracker;363213]Total?[/QUOTE]

168 DCs, 103 LLs.

New overview of the taken assignments:

- reserved (suspect until proven completed)
* manual reservation / in progress
+ completed

[CODE]
28258819 * Tha 28759477 - leela
28262609 * Tha 28779329 - leela
28339513 * Tha 28784731 - tycho
28351957 * Tha / - leela 28786301 - leela
28404611 * Tha 28809983 - tycho
28425883 * Tha / - leela 28813847 - tycho
28452059 - tycho 28818913 * R720s
28818919 - leela
28465331 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28819093 - leela
28471337 * Sid & Andy 28819289 * R720s
28474087 * Sid & Andy 28821313 * R720s
28476733 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28824689 - leela
28485169 * Sid & Andy 28842977 - leela
28489207 * Sid & Andy 28861241 - leela
28491019 - tycho 28864109 * R720s
28491101 - tycho 28869107 * R720s
28497499 * Sid & Andy 28875697 - leela
28513531 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28875751 * R720s
28514449 - tycho 28876157 - leela
28514693 * Miszka / - leela 28876307 - leela
28519753 - tycho 28876597 - leela
28531051 - tycho 28877843 * R720s
28531057 * Miszka 28879159 - leela
28533929 * Tha / - leela 28881109 - leela
28535261 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28887407 - leela
28539479 * Sid & Andy 28888129 * R720s
28544231 - tycho 28888261 * R720s
28546901 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28890131 - tycho
28550267 * Sid & Andy 28890751 - tycho
28550311 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28891537 - leela
28550909 + Miszka 28892641 * R720s
28563097 * Sid & Andy 28894681 * R720s
28566569 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28897207 - tycho
28573081 - leela 28898743 - leela
28574713 28899917 - tycho
28579189 - leela 28900217 - tycho
28579757 - leela 28900997 * Miszka
28588337 - leela 28939003 - leela
28589321 - leela 28944551 - tycho
28592209 - leela 28968389 * R720s
28598201 - leela 28970779 * R720s
28602817 28975501 - leela
28611707 28976737 - leela
28612691 28977737 - leela
28613119 - leela 28980199 * R720s
28617217 - leela 28980229 - leela
28622617 28981999 - tycho
28627297 - leela 28986851 * R720s
28655009 - leela 28990187 * R720s
28658687 - tycho 28995443 - leela
28663183 - tycho 29029769 * R720s
28663433 - leela 29031329 - leela
28668589 - leela 29031503 - tycho
28679789 * R720s 29031553 - leela
28693109 * R720s 29126737 * R720s
28730941 29127017 * R720s
28751323 * R720s 29127349 - leela
28757419 - leela 29204239 - leela
28759363 * R720s 29206651 * R720s
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=tha;363256]New overview of the taken assignments:[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update. Worth noting that 28730941 has been factored, and thus does not require a DC run.

I'm also going to take 28622617, 28612691, 28611707, 28602817, 28574713 and put them on two of my other servers (R320s). Will be done in four days.

I felt the explanations in this thread were a bit cryptic initially to protect the identity of those involved. Now that what really transpired has become clear I do not consider what tha has done as poaching at all. In fact, I'd like to lend a hand. So if there are any more exponents available I will take 4!

There is another bunch of ANON in that range at about -8 days...anything we might want to know?

[QUOTE=garo;363281]I felt the explanations in this thread were a bit cryptic initially to protect the identity of those involved. Now that what really transpired has become clear I do not consider what tha has done as poaching at all. In fact, I'd like to lend a hand. So if there are any more exponents available I will take 4![/QUOTE]

Garo: I think any assigned to leela only and none of us are free.

[QUOTE=petrw1;363284]There is another bunch of ANON in that range at about -8 days...anything we might want to know?[/QUOTE]

The 5 lowest exponents that need to complete their DC are
26813491
26816641
26849083
27897511
27906397
I've watched them the last two months along with others and they are progressing as expected from the initial claims, although they appear to have mostly not been worked on during the december holidays. All of them will be completed in or before January.

Then there are 27988427 and 27988483 which are about to reach 90% done and seem to continue to run at a pace of 0,3% - 0,5% a month. I am not going to burn my hands by touching them, but my gut feeling says that if and when they are the last remaining obstacles to promote M30402457 to its definite rank they will be taken by a rogue poacher. How rogue that is is what seems to divide the community.

The assignments from 29213851 upwards seem to be mostly slow but steady progressing workers. I want to wait until at least February before analysing them in detail.

There are also quite some assignments in this range to exponents that have been DC'ed already and are not worth following.

[QUOTE=petrw1;363284]There is another bunch of ANON in that range at about -8 days...anything we might want to know?[/QUOTE]

These may be reserved by Rich, who hasn't in the past "claimed" his assignments.

He's away from his machine for about another week, but has told me via PM that he'll do so as soon as he has access again.

So, I'd suggest we just work on tha's list for the moment, and then take a look at the situation then.

I would just like to comment that it is great to finally see a reasonable discussion of this issue and a fair attempt to achieve a solution that facilitates GIMPS progress while avoiding as much toe-stepping as is reasonably possible.

I don't think even Lord Limburger could argue with the discussion and protocol being implemented here.

As I posted upthread, it would help an even greater deal if Carsten would perhaps contribute to this discussion. His contributions are numerous and valuable, so I have a hard time believing that he would purposefully hinder progress. But it would be nice to have some kind of explanation if this is a glitch, error, what have you.

Anyway, way to go, guys! I remember testing a bunch of these 28M and 29M exponents when they were hindering progress on the "first-time" milestones list way back in 2008-2009. It is time for these exponents to rest in peace! :smile:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;363292]But it would be nice to have some kind of explanation if this is a glitch, error, what have you.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, it would be nice to have an explanation.

But I don't see how it could be a "glitch", since these were reserved via the GPU72 manual assignment page over several days using a web-browser....

[QUOTE=chalsall;363295]Agreed, it would be nice to have an explanation.

But I don't see how it could be a "glitch", since these were reserved via the GPU72 manual assignment page over several days using a web-browser....[/QUOTE]

So...just to get this straight:

Carsten was asked by the Powers-that-Be(TM) to release his hoard of preferred exponents, which he did. GPU72 then picked them up for distribution to known, trusted users. Then Carsten comes along and makes use of the GPU72 mechanism to re-assign to himself that same hoard of exponents?

If that accounting of events is correct, then, yes, I call shenanigans.

I have just PMed Carsten asking for his comments in this thread.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;363299]Carsten was asked by the Powers-that-Be(TM) to release his hoard of preferred exponents, which he did. GPU72 then picked them up for distribution to known, trusted users. Then Carsten comes along and makes use of the GPU72 mechanism to re-assign to himself that same hoard of exponents?[/QUOTE]

Not all of them he released were picked up by him again; some of them got an extra bit of TFing, and were given to other GPU72 "trusted" users. It was a function of when they were available for DC assignment and when they were asked for.

But, effectively, yes. What you've summarized is what went down.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;363299]So...just to get this straight:[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking what could be his reason. It will of course be guessing. We can safely assume he is trying to do his part to contribute to the project. A scenario I've come up with is that he has some offline computers under a rather limited control that need more time to complete. That still leaves a number of questions open.

Anyway, we have to go forward with the limited and reliable information we have. I am glad that the community expressed support for a set of rules that seem to give everyone most of what he/she expects from the GIMPS project.

[QUOTE=tha;363290]The 5 lowest exponents that need to complete their DC are
26813491
26816641
26849083 [COLOR="Magenta"].... That's mine.... Jan 8th done.... [/COLOR]
27897511
27906397
I've watched them the last two months along with others and they are progressing as expected from the initial claims, although they appear to have mostly not been worked on during the december holidays. All of them will be completed in or before January.

Then there are 27988427 and 27988483 which are about to reach 90% done and seem to continue to run at a pace of 0,3% - 0,5% a month. I am not going to burn my hands by touching them, but my gut feeling says that if and when they are the last remaining obstacles to promote M30402457 to its definite rank they will be taken by a rogue poacher. How rogue that is is what seems to divide the community.

The assignments from 29213851 upwards seem to be mostly slow but steady progressing workers. I want to wait until at least February before analysing them in detail.

There are also quite some assignments in this range to exponents that have been DC'ed already and are not worth following.[/QUOTE]
.

I "claimed" my current 6 manual assignments from GPU72 via my home computer to avoid the unbreakable spam filter at work. I will "claim" future manual assignments within 24 hours of taking the new assignments.

[QUOTE=tha;363290]The 5 lowest exponents that need to complete their DC are
26813491
[B]26816641[/B]
26849083
27897511
27906397
I've watched them the last two months along with others and they are progressing as expected from the initial claims, although they appear to have mostly not been worked on during the december holidays. All of them will be completed in or before January.
[/QUOTE]

That one is mine from gpu72. (in queue, checked now)

DC for 28900997 is done.
Happy New Year!

2 done
 

28513531
28497499

New overview of the taken assignments:

- reserved (suspect until proven completed)
* manual reservation / in progress
+ completed

[CODE]
28258819 * Tha / – mother 28759477 - leela
28262609 * Tha / – mother 28779329 - leela
28339513 * Tha / – mother 28784731 - tycho
28351957 * Tha / - leela 28786301 - leela
28404611 * Tha / – mother 28809983 - tycho
28425883 * Tha / - leela 28813847 - tycho
28452059 - tycho 28818913 * R720s
28818919 - leela
28465331 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28819093 - leela
28471337 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28819289 * R720s
28474087 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28821313 * R720s
28476733 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28824689 - leela
28485169 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28842977 - leela
28489207 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28861241 - leela
28491019 - tycho 28864109 * R720s
28491101 - tycho 28869107 * R720s
28497499 + Sid & Andy / – mother 28875697 - leela
28513531 + Sid & Andy / - leela 28875751 * R720s
28514449 - tycho 28876157 - leela
28514693 * Miszka / - leela 28876307 - leela
28519753 - tycho 28876597 - leela
28531051 - tycho 28877843 * R720s
28531057 – mother 28879159 - leela
28533929 * Tha / - leela 28881109 - leela
28535261 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28887407 - leela
28539479 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28888129 * R720s
28544231 - tycho 28888261 * R720s
28546901 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28890131 - tycho
28550267 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28890751 - tycho
28550311 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28891537 - leela
28550909 + Miszka / – mother 28892641 * R720s
28563097 * Sid & Andy / – mother 28894681 * R720s
28566569 * Sid & Andy / - leela 28897207 - tycho
28573081 - leela 28898743 - leela
28574713 * R320s 28899917 - tycho
28579189 - leela 28900217 - tycho
28579757 - leela 28900997 + Miszka / – mother
28588337 - leela 28939003 - leela
28589321 - leela 28944551 - tycho
28592209 - leela 28968389 * R720s
28598201 - leela 28970779 * R720s
28602817 * R320s 28975501 - leela
28611707 * R320s 28976737 - leela
28612691 * R320s 28977737 - leela
28613119 - leela 28980199 * R720s
28617217 - leela 28980229 - leela
28622617 * R320s 28981999 - tycho
28627297 - leela 28986851 * R720s
28655009 - leela 28990187 * R720s
28658687 - tycho 28995443 - leela
28663183 - tycho 29029769 * R720s
28663433 - leela 29031329 - leela
28668589 - leela 29031503 - tycho
28679789 * R720s 29031553 - leela
28693109 * R720s 29126737 * R720s
28730941 + factored 29127017 * R720s
28751323 * R720s 29127349 - leela
28757419 - leela 29204239 - leela
28759363 * R720s 29206651 * R720s
[/CODE]

Probably the exponents listed as Rx20s are also assigned to "mother" but I can not be certain of that.

[QUOTE=petrw1;363379]28513531, 28497499[/QUOTE]

28611707 and 28622617 also now successfully DCed.

Also, tha, it appears you didn't notice that [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=28531057&exp_hi=&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]28531057[/URL] is now owned by Carsten's Mother's machine. As [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=26000000&exp_hi=30000000&execm=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"] are 15 others[/URL]....

Edit: Oh, we cross posted/edited. You *did* notice about Carsten moving some candidates to mommy.... :sad:

ROFL...

Not sure if they will ever complete, if.... I really wish he would say what he is doing/trying to do.

[QUOTE=kracker;363421]ROFL...

Not sure if they will ever complete, if.... I really wish he would say what he is doing/trying to do.[/QUOTE]

Is he taking on any other work besides these DCs? If not, I'd venture to say that for whatever reason, he has jumped the broom to the Dark Side(TM) and has chosen to sabotage the successful progress and administration of the project.