results not needed - Page 7

Dubslow · 2015-11-24, 03:44

Such as these seven:

Code:

Guilty-Spark	34568419	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	79.3	6B4A1F93BE4EF0__	40.9060
Guilty-Spark	34564379	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	80.7	77A3E5018FF35C__	40.9012
Guilty-Spark	34564399	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	80.7	C518088875C47A__	40.9012
Guilty-Spark	34543867	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	89.0	06C1EED10BDC1C__	40.8769
Guilty-Spark	34541833	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	89.5	D7504BD8F7BA5E__	40.8745
Guilty-Spark	34539227	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	90.7	93B5328A78F157__	40.8714
Guilty-Spark	34538591	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	91.0	7E5331E8F3A4C9__	40.8707

My Cat I DC computer was offline but crunching for several weeks. I "extended" the reservations via the manual reservation form, but apparently the 60 day deadline overrode those extensions.

Madpoo · 2015-11-24, 04:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Even with Primenet's LL / DC / P-1 efforts this happens. Someone makes a promise of completion but then doesn't deliver; the candidate is then reassigned and then the original assignee completes.

It is very difficult to manage independent actors....

Primenet *could* simply reject unassigned results coming in, but most of us probably agree with George that it would be weird to reject work just because it wasn't assigned (whether it was an expired one that just kept going, or was outright poached).

Madpoo · 2015-11-24, 04:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Such as these seven:

Code:

Guilty-Spark	34568419	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	79.3	6B4A1F93BE4EF0__	40.9060
Guilty-Spark	34564379	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	80.7	77A3E5018FF35C__	40.9012
Guilty-Spark	34564399	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	80.7	C518088875C47A__	40.9012
Guilty-Spark	34543867	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	89.0	06C1EED10BDC1C__	40.8769
Guilty-Spark	34541833	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	89.5	D7504BD8F7BA5E__	40.8745
Guilty-Spark	34539227	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	90.7	93B5328A78F157__	40.8714
Guilty-Spark	34538591	C - Verified	2015-09-09 11:16	91.0	7E5331E8F3A4C9__	40.8707

My Cat I DC computer was offline but crunching for several weeks. I "extended" the reservations via the manual reservation form, but apparently the 60 day deadline overrode those extensions.

Yeah, the cat 1 stuff in the bleeding-edge have more aggressive expiration dates. But that's by design. My suggestion would be that if you have a machine that doesn't check in regularly and provide updates (not merely extending them from the website), uncheck the box saying you want those preferred assignments. Otherwise it's likely to happen again.

Might not have been the case for you... maybe you had those assignments for a really long time and the leading edge caught up with you?

Dubslow · 2015-11-24, 05:50

The offline but crunching was a one-off thing. You can see that the machine has turned in several results since then, and continues to crunch Cat I DCs.

chalsall · 2015-11-24, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

The offline but crunching was a one-off thing. You can see that the machine has turned in several results since then, and continues to crunch Cat I DCs.

Let's be honest here... If one makes a promise, that's a contract.

If one doesn't do what they promise, then they've broken the contract.

I myself have done this; one of my stacks lost its' UPS and then came back online three weeks later. Unfortunately candidates were reassigned in the interim and my machines competed the work thus wasting work.

Dubslow · 2015-11-25, 03:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Let's be honest here... If one makes a promise, that's a contract.

If one doesn't do what they promise, then they've broken the contract.

I myself have done this; one of my stacks lost its' UPS and then came back online three weeks later. Unfortunately candidates were reassigned in the interim and my machines competed the work thus wasting work.

Yeah... at least now I know I must ask for a manual intervention, or share the work in progress.

kladner · 2016-12-08, 15:31

It seems that monst has taken 2 TF assignments which I had for about 3 weeks, but which had not expired. I discovered it this morning when one of them came up "Not Needed." I hope jumping the gun does not become a habit. That was about 7 hours work, for me.
Manual
81929833LL TF73752016-11-15 05:11:572016-12-08 09:20:2070.048
81929773LL TF73752016-11-15 05:11:572016-12-08 05:20:2370.048

ixfd64 · 2016-12-08, 22:38

Is there any good reason to not accept already-completed ranges?

Given than PrimeNet already accepts LL results beyond double checks, I don't see any reason to reject duplicate TF results. If anything, having someone independently verify a range isn't a bad idea anyway.

apocalypse · 2017-02-22, 05:41

FWIW, I just discovered that monst submitted TF results for these exponents which I had reserved through GPU72 and which were a few days from expiry (incl. 2 with factors).

Computer Exponent WorkType From To Assigned * Completed GHz Days
Manual ‡ 83871163 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 21:15:13 39.915
Manual . 83870947 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:42 85.534
Manual . 83871079 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:42 85.534
Manual ‡ 83870923 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:22 85.534

kladner · 2017-02-22, 05:43

I sympathize..

0PolarBearsHere · 2017-02-22, 11:08

.

2017-02-22, 05:43	#76
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 10011110101110₂ Posts	I sympathize.. Last fiddled with by kladner on 2017-02-22 at 05:46

2017-02-22, 11:08	#77
0PolarBearsHere Oct 2015 2×7×19 Posts	. Last fiddled with by 0PolarBearsHere on 2017-02-22 at 11:35

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
tf results not needed	MatWur-S530113	GPU to 72	10	2017-12-09 15:36
Results not Needed	RMAC9.5	PrimeNet	3	2013-06-26 13:16
not needed	zeit	PrimeNet	3	2008-04-25 08:03
Help needed	AntonVrba	Math	3	2007-03-06 10:55
V24.12 QA help needed	Prime95	Software	5	2005-06-17 15:54

2015-11-24, 05:50	#70
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3×29×83 Posts	The offline but crunching was a one-off thing. You can see that the machine has turned in several results since then, and continues to crunch Cat I DCs.

2016-12-08, 15:31	#73
kladner "Kieren" Jul 2011 In My Own Galaxy! 2×3×1,693 Posts	It seems that monst has taken 2 TF assignments which I had for about 3 weeks, but which had not expired. I discovered it this morning when one of them came up "Not Needed." I hope jumping the gun does not become a habit. That was about 7 hours work, for me. Manual 81929833LL TF73752016-11-15 05:11:572016-12-08 09:20:2070.048 81929773LL TF73752016-11-15 05:11:572016-12-08 05:20:2370.048

2016-12-08, 22:38	#74
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 2395₁₀ Posts	Is there any good reason to not accept already-completed ranges? Given than PrimeNet already accepts LL results beyond double checks, I don't see any reason to reject duplicate TF results. If anything, having someone independently verify a range isn't a bad idea anyway.

2017-02-22, 05:41	#75
apocalypse Feb 2003 2·3·29 Posts	FWIW, I just discovered that monst submitted TF results for these exponents which I had reserved through GPU72 and which were a few days from expiry (incl. 2 with factors). Computer Exponent WorkType From To Assigned * Completed GHz Days Manual ‡ 83871163 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 21:15:13 39.915 Manual . 83870947 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:42 85.534 Manual . 83871079 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:42 85.534 Manual ‡ 83870923 LL TF 71 75 2017-01-25 04:50:40 2017-02-21 18:04:22 85.534