[quote=Prime95;222240]
It seems like the suggested policy needs to be tweaked somewhat. Perhaps, it should only apply to exponents in or near the "preferred" ranges. That is, something like DC's under 24M, first LLs under 42M, P-1 under 50M, and TF under 60M.

I don't know if we need any LMH rules. Are there any LMH assignments that look abandoned? Probably best to worry about it in a few years -- plenty of exponents to go around.[/quote]
Excellent idea. Since all the heartburn is being caused by lagging exponents - i.e. those in the preferred ranges, applying the policy only to the preferred ranges - and updating the preferred ranges on a six-monthly basis - would ease most of the trouble.

[quote=Prime95;222240]Is there some reason this computer is not set up in a normal manner - to get first-time LL tests in a 90 day queue.
[/quote]

I was speaking of a theoretical machine, although I'm still coping with 2 computers I lost in December. I moved their work to a third machine which had 4 cores, but enough work for 10 cores, in effect - a rather bad idea, in hindsight. In reality, I'll probably get everything done before the one year mark. We'll see.

As long as the new expiration policies only affect, say, LL tests below 60M and DCs below 30M, I'm fine. I'd vote to leave TF, P-1 and ECM alone, though. Long term assignments are not likely to cause any holdup in milestone achieval - present or future - in these categories.

[quote=Primeinator;222197]Although I sense this is a sarcastic question,[/quote]Not at all!

It was just that I wanted to inject those definitions into this discussion, but was short of time; else I'd have looked them up and posted them myself.

I'm genuinely interested in how the current measurements (and possible supplemental measures) can be applied to the proposed ethical methods for dealing with the poaching problem. This is an exciting discussion, going farther in that direction (ethical methods ...) than any I recall from the past.

- - -

[quote=Brian-E;222217]how do you justify reserving many exponents in advance when you are not yet in a position to work on them?[/quote]He doesn't want a system with infrequent access to run dry -- I think.

Shall we lower the upper limits on values of parameters DaysOfWork=, MaxExponents= and/or UnreserveDays= to curb that?

How about introducing different allowable DaysOfWork=, MaxExponents= and/or UnreserveDays= values for different types of work?

DaysOfTFWork=
DaysOfP-1Work=
DaysOfDCWork=
DaysOfFirst-timeLLWork=

(similar for Max[i]Type[/i]Exponents= and Unreserve[i]Type[/i]Days=)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;222359]He doesn't want a system with infrequent access to run dry -- I think.[/QUOTE]Would not ECM on low level expos be a good choice for a 'backstop' assignment? One could let it run on and on with virtually no chance of it going idle. With the right bounds set it should work nice.

[QUOTE=Prime95;222164] 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]

I like the idea of setting term limits with some adjustments for those that continually progress along at a reasonable pace (what justifies that is arguable but looking at the assignment reports and sorting them in various ways, 30% after 500 days is much too long with progress under 30% - there are four such assignments under 22,000).

Cutting off a slow(er) machine that is making regular progress by setting the cutoff bar too high is wasteful. It is not easy finding a middle ground. Also, giving preference to trusted or reliable computers in the lower ranges is a great idea and those not to higher ranges. It has a good incentive/disincentive balance.

I would prefer that if progress is <50% and >400 days that it be recycled (of those assignments over 400 days, 5 tests are with no progress, 2 tests that are at .9% and 11 under 33%).

A quick look at the first 1,000 test sequentially from smallest assignment:

Those over 365 days there are 68:

3 have not started
17 are under 33% complete
28 are under 50% complete
39 are under 66% complete
67 are under 95% complete

1 is over 95% complete.

I guess I could have found better stats quicker but I was too lazy to separate the data, format cells to number, etc., so I used the manual count method.

This is a very small sample and subject to change and error. It does not say anything about the periodicity or amount of progress and thus the probability of abandonment so does not help in directing cutoff limits. It is obvious though that those not started within the 1 year mark should have been reassigned.

Correct me if I'm wrong on my anything here.

I have attached the current Active assignments webpage so that we can compare in a few days.

Casual observation - DCs are being assigned more rapidly than before and the proportion of Anonymous assignees in the DC leading edge has also increased significantly.

[LIST][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(30402457) once: 0[/SIZE][/LIST]

After a few months of virtually no progress in the first time tests between 28-37M they have been systematically dropping at the rate of 1 every few days.

Three possibilities:
- These slow assignments are coincidentally all starting to finish
- They have been declared too slow and too old and been released to reliable PCs
- Someone is doing some house cleaning

[quote=petrw1;223249]After a few months of virtually no progress in the first time tests between 28-37M they have been systematically dropping at the rate of 1 every few days.

Three possibilities:
- These slow assignments are coincidentally all starting to finish
- They have been declared too slow and too old and been released to reliable PCs
- Someone is doing some house cleaning[/quote]

I choose door number three.

It appears that the first-time LL for 29057299 is still assigned to someone who has had that assignment since 2009-02-08.

[quote=Prime95;222053]I know I shouldn't do this:

[link removed] is a grossly inefficient (you'll have to ask SQLServer programmers why) report. DO NOT use this during the first 10 minutes of the hour. DO NOT use this for a large number of assignments. Acceptable ranges are 21 to 23 million or a range of a few thousand in the first LL or TF areas.[/quote]

Pardon my ignorance, but how could an assignment possibly have an Estimated Completion prior to the last time it was Updated, like [URL="http://mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=34744883&exp_hi=38569603&execm=1&exdchk=1&exfirst=1&extf=1&B1=Get+Assignments"]these[/URL]? :confused: