![]() |
|
|
#1904 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
When I've done it before, I tried to be judicious and pick ones that seemed abandoned, but I've been wrong before.That's why I setup a little thing to keep track of *actual* progress of these grandfathered things and try to guesstimate if it would expire before being done or not. There were just these last 3 (2 in the 55M and one in the 58M range) that were iffy and I thought would probably make it, so I was happy to let it play out. Anyway, I wasn't really going to name and shame anyone since that's a little too "pot calling the kettle black" for me, I just wanted to make sure I encouraged the person to hold off on doing that other one if they had similar intentions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1905 | |
|
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands
CC516 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1906 |
|
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
622410 Posts |
I think the best way to discourage the rogue "perpetrator" from doing another wasted test is to report your result. Then there is no incentive to [dup|trip]licate the work.
Last fiddled with by retina on 2015-07-20 at 05:58 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1907 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
That way if anyone gets wee-wee'd up about it they can take it out on mean Mr. Retina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1908 | |
|
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
185016 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1909 |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Seems like that user has stalled on their work. Nothing reported in for 2 weeks now on that last <57M assignment, and same on their (now) double check that got poached. Nothing heard since July 26.
At this rate, the first time check will expire in 8 more days based on the current % done. The double-check would expire in 11 days, although it wouldn't really expire then since double checks in the 55M range are a long ways out, so it would get some grace on that. I'm thinking it might be time to call this and check in my result now. If the original user does check in again, I didn't have great confidence it was going to finish in time anyway... if it did it was going to be a squeaker for sure. Sep 7 was my last best estimate which put it very close to the max 665 days for the assignment age (about a day past). I'd be tempted to wait until the day before it expires just to give them every possible chance but I'll actually be away from my computer then. So... here goes. I'm going to check in my double-check for that other one while I'm at it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1911 |
|
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
2×5×293 Posts |
It would be awesome if the linked page showed the percentage completed and last check in of assigned work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1912 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
Right now it's "as easy as" going to a URL like: http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=55079077 Maybe a shortcut like /A55079077 that redirects to that would be handy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1913 | |
|
Aug 2012
Mass., USA
2·3·53 Posts |
Quote:
While the top 2 of the 8 haven't checked in since mid-July, I would hope people will lay off from poaching any of these or working on them without being assigned to them. The existing assignments are actual cat 1 assignments, and should be completed or recycled soon enough. I am curious that there always seems to be at least one exponent < 59M that remains unassigned. I would have to guess there is a single exponent that is in some sort of funny state that is preventing it from getting handed out. I don't know of any way to efficiently figure out which exponent that is from the public interfaces. I am wondering if anyone knows which exponent is unassigned, and why it remains unassigned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1914 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
There's an exponent in the 58M range that, for some reason, is marked in the database as needing a double-check even though no first time check exists. I think it got tagged wrong for some old reason, like maybe a result did come in for it but was bogus or something, but meanwhile it never got set back to an exponent needing a first time check. I'm waiting on George for confirmation or approval before setting it back to the "first time checks needed" category, just in case there was something else bizarre going on. I'm guessing just a weird data error. As soon as it's fixed it should get assigned out pretty quick. For now I didn't think there was any big hurry so there's no real rush to do anything before George weighs in. He does sometimes get results emailed to him and checks those in manually, and for all I know something like that happened and it just hasn't been entered in yet.
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Newer X64 build needed | Googulator | Msieve | 73 | 2020-08-30 07:47 |
| Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware? | fivemack | GMP-ECM | 14 | 2015-02-12 20:10 |
| Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread | bcp19 | Data | 30 | 2012-09-08 15:09 |
| Newer msieves are slow on Core i7 | mklasson | Msieve | 9 | 2009-02-18 12:58 |
| Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels | Dresdenboy | Software | 3 | 2003-12-08 14:47 |