Assignments Completed by Another User

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Oh, I'll answer my own question now that I thought about it. IIS logs the request URL which would include a check-in for an exponent, but it wouldn't record the server's response that includes an exponent being assigned.

Grep through the logs for "t=ga". Then subgrep for the CID in question.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

- 32295581 was assigned to an anon user on 2013-12-27 and that was actually the last time the client reported anything for that exponent.

- User "spradlin" was assigned the exponent (or started work on it at any rate) on 2014-06-04 @ 1:46 UTC

- User "linament" was assigned the exponent (or started work on it) on 2014-08-04 @ 2:52 UTC

- User "spradlin" checked in a DC result at 2014-08-07 @ 14:10 UTC

Looks normal.

Anonymous was assigned under (modified) old rules -- given 6 months to start the assignment and one year to complete it. At 6 months, exponent recycled.

Spradlin assigned under new rules, given 60 days to complete. He failed, assignment recycled.

Linament gets the assignment.

Spradlin, unfortunately completes exponent on day 63.

This kind of thing will be more common under the new assignment rules.

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Looks normal.

Anonymous was assigned under (modified) old rules -- given 6 months to start the assignment and one year to complete it. At 6 months, exponent recycled.

Spradlin assigned under new rules, given 60 days to complete. He failed, assignment recycled.

Linament gets the assignment.

Spradlin, unfortunately completes exponent on day 63.

This kind of thing will be more common under the new assignment rules.

ANONYMOUS was assigned this exponent in late December, yet it was reassigned in early June. That is less than six months, or am I missing something?

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Spradlin assigned under new rules, given 60 days to complete. He failed, assignment recycled.

This assumes that this exponent was, in fact, a Cat 1 exponent at the time. It appears to me that the Cat 1/Cat 2 boundary was somewhere between 32.06M and 32.56M at that time. That leads me to think perhaps it (and the other 2 exponents mentioned) was a borderline Cat 2 at the time and should have had 100 days to complete it, rather than only 60. This would at least explain why an apparently not-so-fast machine was processing these DC assignments.

This assignment happens to have been made around the same time I had an assignment that got recycled on me. I believed my exponent was a Cat 2, but it got recycled after 60 days. Several days later George said he thought he fixed the problem, but this is now making me wonder.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by cuBerBruce

This assumes that this exponent was, in fact, a Cat 1 exponent at the time. It appears to me that the Cat 1/Cat 2 boundary was somewhere between 32.06M and 32.56M at that time.

On June 3rd, the cat 1 / cat 2 boundary was 32.35M. That makes the spradlin assignment a cat 1.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

ANONYMOUS was assigned this exponent in late December, yet it was reassigned in early June. That is less than six months, or am I missing something?

No, my bad. As a grandfathered assignment ANONYMOUS is allowed a year (or more). The only possible explanation is ANONYMOUS' computer did not report in for 60 days.

I have all this year's internet log files on my laptop if you think further investigation is warranted.

[guido72]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Looks normal.

Anonymous was assigned under (modified) old rules -- given 6 months to start the assignment and one year to complete it. At 6 months, exponent recycled.

Spradlin assigned under new rules, given 60 days to complete. He failed, assignment recycled.

Linament gets the assignment.

Spradlin, unfortunately completes exponent on day 63.

This kind of thing will be more common under the new assignment rules.

Hi everybody! Just come back after a long "vacation" from GIMPS... Many things had changed...
Minor question: in my cpu page personal page I may see an exponent (M63667837) that is expired few days ago. Recentely I've manually extended it since the job is almost done and manually update from the client the new ECD to the server but the exp above does not compare between my actual assignements yet... Am I wasting time with this job?
Kind regards from Italy
Guido

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by guido72

Hi everybody! Just come back after a long "vacation" from GIMPS... Many things had changed...
Minor question: in my cpu page personal page I may see an exponent (M63667837) that is expired few days ago. Recentely I've manually extended it since the job is almost done and manually update from the client the new ECD to the server but the exp above does not compare between my actual assignements yet... Am I wasting time with this job?
Kind regards from Italy
Guido

Welcome back...

PrimeNet has no record of your assignment...here:

http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...667837&exp_hi=

Once it is expired under the new rules you lose the assignment.
However since no one else seems to have it you could simply assign it again through normal (not Manual) channels.

[guido72]

I know.. The exponent is showed in my cpus list (http://www.mersenne.org/cpus/) but not in assignements one...
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...exp_hi=&full=1
As you may see it results expired 4 days ago... The client is regularly working on it and the goal is just 4 days far...

[guido72]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Welcome back...
Once it is expired under the new rules you lose the assignment.
However since no one else seems to have it you could simply assign it again through normal (not Manual) channels.

That sounds weird... Nothing to say about new rules, but what if a client is regularly communicating with the server telling it: "Hey Buddy, I'm just a bit late, not dead! Wait for me, OK?" ?
Nothin' can ovveride the rules? It does sound silly!
If it is like this, should be more efficient for the whole gimps project that Primenet told immediately the out of scheduling client: "that's it! Do something else, bud!"...

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by guido72

That sounds weird... Nothing to say about new rules, but what if a client is regularly communicating with the server telling it: "Hey Buddy, I'm just a bit late, not dead! Wait for me, OK?" ?
Nothin' can ovveride the rules? It does sound silly!
If it is like this, should be more efficient for the whole gimps project that Primenet told immediately the out of scheduling client: "that's it! Do something else, bud!"...

All the history and discussion is here
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19082

and here
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19081

"Preferred" Category 1 and 2 assignments have NO leeway. Cat 3 and 4 have some leeway as long as they are making good progress.