Assignment died of dysentery

[diamonddave]

Originally Posted by flashjh

Everything I load into the worktodo files comes from the GPU-to-72 request pages (except a few LL tests in Prime95 that I'm finishing). I searched for M50361253 in my records and found my results files matched PrimeNet, though I can only find my P-1 assignment on GPU-to-72. The TF 70-71 is old, but I don't know where the 71-72 came from? Again, I appologize for the poached TF . (you want one of mine to make up for it?)

I just re-downloaded my entire TF assignments today so I could get them into date order, so there is nothing in those files that was not on my assignments page.

Quick question,

I assume you are Jerry H. on G272?

I see you have 1043 exponent reserved for P-1. You must have a huge computer farm? The next one with as much exponent checked out is monst with only 419 and it doesn't look like you outpace him in the graphs?

I was wandering, could it be that you are loosing exponent thru unreservation by Prime95?

I am switching to full time P-1 in 2012, but I still have a couple of LL test to finish first. With my 2 i5, 250 exponents bring me to almost March.

[flashjh]

Originally Posted by diamonddave

Quick question,

I assume you are Jerry H. on G272?.

Yes

I see you have 1043 exponent reserved for P-1. You must have a huge computer farm? The next one with as much exponent checked out is monst with only 419 and it doesn't look like you outpace him in the graphs?

I was wandering, could it be that you are loosing exponent thru unreservation by Prime95?

I keep ~1-2 months of P-1 (or so) because I don't have time to request and load work files. As for all TF, etc. I like to set it and forget it (especially now with the submission spider).

I have, in the past, had LL/DC exponent unreserved without me knowing. I still don't know if it was because Prime95 unreserved them or if PrimeNet did something to cause Prime95 to unreserve the exponent. Either way, I did have a couple LLs that finished that I no longer owned. I cleared that issue up but I had to manually unreserve them from G272.

As for the TF exponent, I don't think what you're asking is possible in the case of P-1 or TF. I reserve everything through G272, and then manually load the worktodo files. I have my prime.txt file set with:

UnreserveDays=365
MaxExponents=400

If Prime95 unreserved a P-1 exponent, it wouldn't get finished by me, and therefore, wouldn't be a problem. In this case of this TF:

Processing result: no factor for M50361253 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32]
Error code: 40, error text: TF result for M50361253 was not needed

I have no idea how I ended up with an *extra* assignment.

I am switching to full time P-1 in 2012, but I still have a couple of LL test to finish first. With my 2 i5, 250 exponents bring me to almost March

I do have several systems running. You can see everything on the PrimeNet G272 team CPUs page (I think you have to join the team to see the CPUs). I have one system that produces ~12 P-1 a day when I'm not working on it (maybe one more when I get my RMA'd ram back), along with some other systems running a P-1 or two a day. By late summer I am hoping to add some more P-1 capacity. We'll see.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by flashjh

I have no idea how I ended up with an *extra* assignment.

Nor do I.

And I am continuing with the assumption that it is my fault; not yours.

Please continue bringing to my attention "data-points" (read: empirical examples of duplicate work assigned) which I can analyse.

[KyleAskine]

Processing result: no factor for M53056669 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfakto 0.09 mfakto_cl_barrett79]
Error code: 40, error text: TF result for M53056669 was not needed

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by KyleAskine

Processing result: no factor for M53056669 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfakto 0.09 mfakto_cl_barrett79]
Error code: 40, error text: TF result for M53056669 was not needed

This was assigned to you twice for TF work. Once from 69 to 70; then again from 70 to 71.

Here are the records:

+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+
| FactFrom | FactTo | Assigned            | Completed           | GHzDays      |
+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+
|       69 |     70 | 2011-12-26 19:12:05 | 2011-12-28 00:33:59 | 2.2535119057 | 
|       70 |     71 | 2012-01-01 00:46:36 | 2012-01-07 05:14:30 | 4.5070238113 | 
+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+

Is there a chance you cut-and-pasted the results.txt from 70 to 71 into PrimeNet twice?

What is the datestamp for the above error message?

[KyleAskine]

Originally Posted by chalsall

This was assigned to you twice for TF work. Once from 69 to 70; then again from 70 to 71.

Here are the records:

+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+
| FactFrom | FactTo | Assigned            | Completed           | GHzDays      |
+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+
|       69 |     70 | 2011-12-26 19:12:05 | 2011-12-28 00:33:59 | 2.2535119057 | 
|       70 |     71 | 2012-01-01 00:46:36 | 2012-01-07 05:14:30 | 4.5070238113 | 
+----------+--------+---------------------+---------------------+--------------+

Is there a chance you cut-and-pasted the results.txt from 70 to 71 into PrimeNet twice?

What is the datestamp for the above error message?

I just got it today. So it was me that did it the first time as well?

It definitely could have been my fault, though if it was it was pasted into a worktodo.txt twice, definitely not primenet.

[Dubslow]

Uhoh.

History	no factor for M53056669 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfakto 0.10-Win mfakto_cl_71_4] by "Kyle Askine" on 2011-12-28
History	no factor for M53056669 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] by "ktony" on 2012-01-07
History	no factor for M53056669 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] by "ktony" on 2012-01-07

ktony =/= KyleAskine last time I checked.

Questions are then:
How was KA assigned 70 - 71?
Edit: Not only does it show assigned to KA, but completion by him.
Did kladner go 71-72 when he wasn't supposed to?
How was KA assigned 70-71 again?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chalsall

And I am continuing with the assumption that it is my fault; not yours.

Sorry. This was my fault...

This is the result of Spidy not checking in with PrimeNet within 59 days, and PrimeNet reissuing the candidates...

Empirically, some TF work assignments leaked out as well as P-1 work over the New Year.

My apologies everyone.

This "bug" was fixed then, but a few duplicate TF assignments were given out; we are now seeing the results being reported in which were assigned at that time.

[KyleAskine]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Sorry. This was my fault...

This is the result of Spidy not checking in with PrimeNet within 59 days, and PrimeNet reissuing the candidates...

Empirically, some TF work assignments leaked out as well as P-1 work over the New Year.

My apologies everyone.

This "bug" was fixed then, but a few duplicate TF assignments were given out; we are now seeing the results being reported in which were assigned at that time.

No worries! With all the good you have done, I am willing to sacrifice the occasional 4 GHZ-days for a bug!

[flashjh]

Originally Posted by chalsall

but a few duplicate TF assignments were given out; we are now seeing the results being reported in which were assigned at that time.

So it's a race to see who can finish first... The one who got it 1st or 2nd. That would explain why I've had a few assignments returned as not needed. I haven't tracked them down to see what happened, but I see it in my archived results file once in a while lately.

Seriously, I know you're busy... no worries here.

Two requests/suggestions for further mitigation of any problems:

1) When I need to regenerate my assignments from your page it would be nice to be able to select only TF or P-1, etc. all at the same time (individual checking takes a really long time)

2) After #1, then I need to be able to export to several workers with the oldest assignments at the top of each worker. I don't even know if you can implement that?

For TF I only need to break them into 4 assignments at a time, but for P-1 I need 8.

I have a way to do this manually with Excel, so no rush, just a request. Thanks again.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by KyleAskine

No worries! With all the good you have done, I am willing to sacrifice the occasional 4 GHZ-days for a bug!

Great.
!00,000 LL assigments, hardly any of which are
TFed to 72.

Broken Record