[quote=henryzz;224141]In the 13 days since I posted this the count upto 22M has decreased from 69-66.
We are slowly getting there.[/quote]

But I'm wondering why so slowly. My last eleven assignments have been in the 22m to 24m range. If my machine is to do work in this range why are the smallest numbers that are still outstanding not assigned rather than ones that are a few places higher in the sequence?

G

[QUOTE=GARYP166;226518]But I'm wondering why so slowly. My last eleven assignments have been in the 22m to 24m range. If my machine is to do work in this range why are the smallest numbers that are still outstanding not assigned rather than ones that are a few places higher in the sequence?
[/QUOTE]
Because the report shows exponents that are assigned to someone. One of them can become available to be assigned to someone else (eg, you) if the present assignee releases it, or if it expires because the computer is 60 days past due in updating the server.

The tail is mostly made up of machines making slower progress, that's just how it works.

After another 17 days we are down to 56.

Very close to two more milestones:

-Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 3

-Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 13

Both prime! :smile:

[quote=Primeinator;226781]Very close to two more milestones:

-Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 3

-Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 13

Both prime! :smile:[/quote]
I was just looking at the "Active Assignments" page to see the status of the remaining tests below them, and noticed that there are a handful of tests in the vicinity of 30M-32582657 that are all assigned as LLs (not DCs)--despite the fact that there should only be 3 untested assignments in this range.

An example of this is 30133123: it is assigned as an LL to an ANONYMOUS v4 client, yet the [url=http://mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=30133123&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status]exponent status[/url] query reveals it to have an unverified LL sitting in the database. At first I thought that it was a manually assigned DC that was registered as an LL because the user typed that into his worktodo.ini file, but it's unlikely that someone running as ANONYMOUS with a v4 client is going to care to select a particular DC exponent by hand. My second theory was that it was poached, but I see that the first pass residual was submitted by "C. Cooper / S. Boone"--surely those guys wouldn't have poached it.

Anyone know how something like this happens?

[QUOTE=chalsall;221625]This statement confuses me a bit.

I have two "borged" machines which are still running V4 (doing DC work), and yet I can unassign their assignments through the V5 web interface just like I can for any other machine running V5.[/QUOTE]

So... I tried to do so; unassign all but the currently active assignment from my V4 PC....and as of today all these very same assignments are back again; mind you still incorrectly reported as LL even though they are doing TF. And because of that others are getting assigned the TF and when this PC eventually finished the actual TF it is rejected as NOT needed.

I know it is assigned TF (and NOT LL) for three reasons:
1. That is what I set it to when I set it up and still had access
2. The assignents are in the 53-63M range. PrimeNet is NOT assigning anyone LL in that range.
3. Even though it a 2.0 Ghz P4 and runs very sproadically the estimated completing times are less than a week.

[QUOTE=petrw1;226965]So... I tried to do so...[/QUOTE]

I'm sure George and Scott will be appropriately interested.

After all, it has been said that advancement in science is not generally the "eureka moment", but instead is when one is presented with things which makes one think "hmmm... that's strange".

[quote=petrw1;226965]So... I tried to do so; unassign all but the currently active assignment from my V4 PC....and as of today all these very same assignments are back again[/quote]

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13761[/URL]

Maybe a similar issue to mine - I had an exponent against my name that I did not reserve and which appeared when I was in the middle of another test rather than near the end.

G

[quote=henryzz;226538]After another 17 days we are down to 56.[/quote]
There are now 51 exponents remaining less than 22M,
A speadsheet regression line seems to suggest mid 2012 but need more data to be accurate.

[LIST][*][SIZE=2]All exponents below 31,494,937 have been tested at least once.[/SIZE][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 1[/SIZE][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 3[/SIZE][/LIST][SIZE=2]:spot:
[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=ckdo;237913][LIST][*][SIZE=2]All exponents below 31,494,937 have been tested at least once.[/SIZE][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(32582657) once: 1[/SIZE][*][SIZE=2]Countdown to testing all exponents below M(37156667) once: 3[/SIZE][/LIST][SIZE=2]:spot:
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]I was checking earlier today and it was 2 and 4