Assignments Completed by Another User - Page 4

LaurV · 2015-01-28, 02:15

Quote:

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!

It is not silly, the "wait for me" rule was much abused in the past by guys hoarding exponents. We are still in arguments with the gods that be, to allow extension of the term if a "steady" progress is registered, but there is still difficult to define "steady progress" without leaving (too much) room for the "bad guys"

Quote:

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!"...

Actually, this is already as you say, and it was like that in the past. If your assignment key is wrong, the server replies you that the assignment key is wrong. However, your client will not abandon the work if it is started and some time and resources were invested in it. Anyhow the work "is needed", we will have to do DC in the future (and TC in the far future), so your work will be recorded and credit will be given (as DC credit). If you continue your work, and if really is "almost done", then you still can finish before the new assignee, and get "first LL" credit with a high probability. Nothing is lost, we are good as we are.

TObject · 2015-01-28, 03:45

Similar thing happened to a number of my machines that I pause during hot months. When the cold weather came, and the machines were powered back on, I discovered that the assignments were given to somebody else.

The reverse thing also happened.

Overall, this is probably not a big deal, and is needed to combat hoarding.

It could become a problem when one of the contested exponents turns up to be a newly discovered Mersenne prime. Maybe we need a legal disclaimer that reservation system is provided for members' convenience and is not a guarantee that the exponent will not be tested by somebody else.

petrw1 · 2015-01-28, 04:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

If your assignment key is wrong, ...

And if the assignment is still not assigned to anyone else just delete the assignment key in worktodo.txt and you will get a new valid one.

guido72 · 2015-01-28, 07:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

It is not silly, the "wait for me" rule was much abused in the past by guys hoarding exponents. We are still in arguments with the gods that be, to allow extension of the term if a "steady" progress is registered, but there is still difficult to define "steady progress" without leaving (too much) room for the "bad guys"

Actually, this is already as you say, and it was like that in the past. If your assignment key is wrong, the server replies you that the assignment key is wrong. However, your client will not abandon the work if it is started and some time and resources were invested in it. Anyhow the work "is needed", we will have to do DC in the future (and TC in the far future), so your work will be recorded and credit will be given (as DC credit). If you continue your work, and if really is "almost done", then you still can finish before the new assignee, and get "first LL" credit with a high probability. Nothing is lost, we are good as we are.

I really need an "italian-romulan interpreter"... I'm not concerned about grace, goodness or whatelse about credits and I do am about bad guys and a faster advancement of GIMPS project. I know that no job will get lost too. I'm just saying: you, Primenet, are informed about what I'm doing and at what pace and you may decide if I'm fair, good, reliable etc enough. Why don't you use these infos? And this approach is far from arguing for longer deadlines...

guido72 · 2015-01-28, 08:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

And if the assignment is still not assigned to anyone else just delete the assignment key in worktodo.txt and you will get a new valid one.

Been there, done it... Do not bought the T-Shirt... Nothing changed, as far as I understand...
What is Primenet error 33: cpu mismatch?

snme2pm1 · 2015-01-28, 09:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by TObject

... contested exponents turns up to be a newly discovered Mersenne prime. Maybe we need a legal disclaimer that reservation system is provided for members' convenience and is not a guarantee that the exponent will not be tested by somebody else.

I didn't spend the time to specifically check, but from old reading, I reckon that it is entirely likely that your concerns of this nature have already been encountered, many times.
I suspect that you'll find that there are no guarantees offered by anybody about anything.
Reserve as you feel comfortable to consume, and enjoy; does that help, at all?

sdbardwick · 2015-01-29, 09:28

Dammit, I just got "poached". Kinda.
One of my Haswell boxes double checked M33885989.
It didn't match the previous result, so it was immediately reassigned for triple checking. As luck would have it, one of my Sandy Bridge boxes picked it up. The SB got over 42% through the triple-check when the exponent was reassigned to For Research (Chris Halsall).
Annoying waste of $0.68

TObject · 2015-01-29, 20:13

Something is wrong with dates on that exponent... Or maybe not... :)

chalsall · 2015-01-30, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdbardwick

The SB got over 42% through the triple-check when the exponent was reassigned to For Research (Chris Halsall). Annoying waste of $0.68

If it helps at all, rechecking is not /suppost/ to be done by the original particiapant. My triple check matched your double check. I didn't intentionall "poach" you; this was entirely under Primenet's control and direction.

sdbardwick · 2015-01-31, 00:37

Chris, I didn't think you took any action. I'm just irked that (1) the server assigned me my own doublecheck, and (2) revoked the assignment after significant work performed. I'm moderately concerned that it might be using the public name as the basis for that reassignment, given that I have over the years been assigned my own doublechecks (years later) like here.
Normally if I notice such assignments I release them back to PrimeNet.

chalsall · 2015-01-31, 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdbardwick

Chris, I didn't think you took any action. I'm just irked that (1) the server assigned me my own doublecheck, and (2) revoked the assignment after significant work performed.

You have a ligitmate reason for being irked.

I'm also concerned that what has been promised is not actually delivered.

2015-01-29, 09:28	#40
sdbardwick Aug 2002 North San Diego County 5·137 Posts	Dammit, I just got "poached". Kinda. One of my Haswell boxes double checked M33885989. It didn't match the previous result, so it was immediately reassigned for triple checking. As luck would have it, one of my Sandy Bridge boxes picked it up. The SB got over 42% through the triple-check when the exponent was reassigned to For Research (Chris Halsall). Annoying waste of $0.68 Last fiddled with by sdbardwick on 2015-01-29 at 09:33

2015-01-29, 20:13	#41
TObject Feb 2012 3⁴·5 Posts	Something is wrong with dates on that exponent... Or maybe not... :) Last fiddled with by TObject on 2015-01-29 at 20:14

2015-01-31, 00:37	#43
sdbardwick Aug 2002 North San Diego County 5·137 Posts	Chris, I didn't think you took any action. I'm just irked that (1) the server assigned me my own doublecheck, and (2) revoked the assignment after significant work performed. I'm moderately concerned that it might be using the public name as the basis for that reassignment, given that I have over the years been assigned my own doublechecks (years later) like here. Normally if I notice such assignments I release them back to PrimeNet. Last fiddled with by sdbardwick on 2015-01-31 at 00:40

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stuck Completed Assignments	NickOfTime	GPU to 72	8	2014-11-25 19:14
Completed 29M work not showing as completed in GPU72	Chuck	GPU to 72	2	2013-02-02 03:25
GPU to 72 assignments completed prematurely?	ixfd64	GPU to 72	33	2012-12-09 07:43
passing on partially completed exponent to another user	PLeopard	Data	9	2003-10-28 17:06
30M to 30.1M Completed	Axel Fox	Lone Mersenne Hunters	0	2003-06-09 13:13

2015-01-28, 03:45	#35
TObject Feb 2012 3⁴×5 Posts	Similar thing happened to a number of my machines that I pause during hot months. When the cold weather came, and the machines were powered back on, I discovered that the assignments were given to somebody else. The reverse thing also happened. Overall, this is probably not a big deal, and is needed to combat hoarding. It could become a problem when one of the contested exponents turns up to be a newly discovered Mersenne prime. Maybe we need a legal disclaimer that reservation system is provided for members' convenience and is not a guarantee that the exponent will not be tested by somebody else.