[QUOTE=Prime95;222110]Only I can do it. You need to know the database layout, PHP, and have server access.

[/QUOTE]

I kind of thought so; such information is probably best left only in your hands (for the most part). Out of curiosity, what prompted you/what for reason did you decide to share this info?

[QUOTE=Primeinator;222139]Out of curiosity, what prompted you/what for reason did you decide to share this info?[/QUOTE]

I trust you guys to not abuse the server too badly. There won't be a link to this report from the main web page

Yes, the current server is not enforcing the one-year assignment rule.

My new ideas for recycling assignments:

For LL tests on exponents < 80M and not manual testing:

If assignment is one year old and < 50% complete it is recycled.
If assignment is one-and-one-half years old it is recycled.

For non-LLs:

If assignment is 180 days old and < 50% complete it is recycled
If assignment is 270 days old it is recycled

I've coded up a sample query already. 3113 assignments are affected.

Comments?

[QUOTE=Prime95;222164]I've coded up a sample query already. 3113 assignments are affected.

Comments?[/QUOTE]

Please, please, PLEASE!!! Do not allow these to be reassigned to slow machines.

I would, personally, be willing to take 150 of these and assign them to semi-fast machines immediately which would complete within 10 days.

I have reason to believe that others similarly enabled might be willing to do so as well...

Apparently there is a bug that is allowing v4 computers to get preferred assignments. Witness: 35000923.

Hopefully I've coded up a workaround but cannot test it. Please keep an eye out for whether this problem continues.

[QUOTE=chalsall;222167]Please, please, PLEASE!!! Do not allow these to be reassigned to slow machines.[/QUOTE]

Standard preferred assignment rules will apply. There are many TF assignments in the 3113 - they aren't all LL and DCHKs.

I second chalsall´s request. It´s a good occasion to put some power where it is needed.
But I think the new assignment rules are already in place (are they?...) and that most of the recycled exponents will be reassigned under these rules, which will partially solve the issue.
Anyway, George, will you let us know when they will be up for grabs so we can do something about it ?... :whistle:

[QUOTE=Prime95;222164]Comments?[/QUOTE]

1. If steady progress is being made, however slow, let it be (for exceptions, see 2)
2. Exceptions
a) Doublecheck -- If the exponent is holding up a milestone (< 100 tests to prove a Mxx status), and doesn't look like finishing in 180 days, reassign.
b) ???

My $0.02

It is all well and good to reassign an exponent that is overdue; however, provisions must be made (as others have pointed out) to do the following:

1) Slow machines are not preferred.

2) How do we prevent the exponent from being assigned to these users that are not contributing (i.e. taking 2 years to DC an exponent in the 21M range). Will not some exponents be reassigned to these individuals (albeit a different non-contributing user than the DC was originally given to)? Should we, in effect, have a GIMPS 'naughty list?' I understand there is only one real benefit to this and several major cons (which should be quite deducible to any knowledgeable participant on this thread).

I've lost track of just what, specifically, defines "confidence" and "preferred" in PrimeNet nowadays. May we have the formulas or algorithms posted again?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;222191]I've lost track of just what, specifically, defines "confidence" and "preferred" in PrimeNet nowadays. May we have the formulas or algorithms posted again?[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=177548&postcount=502[/url]