mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Lone Mersenne Hunters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-12-25, 12:58   #34
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

5·173 Posts
Default

I am not so sure you would need to worry.

First these four assignments. They are likely to become the lowest exponents in the weeks to come.

27897511
27906397
27988427
27988483

They have been worked on for a long time, more than a year. They are 90-95% done and move up by a few tenth of a percent per month. But they do report reliable progress. So almost all indicators make these assignments a no-no for taking since it really would be poaching.

I tried to find another assignment below 30,000,000 that would meet the criteria spelled out in this thread but they all have already been poached or taken long time ago by others.

CaptainEntropy is still working on some exponents in this range with no progress reported in the last 4 years. They would meet the criteria if they would become a block to a major milestone, but other GIMPS participants have completed them already.

I agree that poaching should be prevented as much as possible, but I also think the criteria spelled out here make poaching very unlikely, definitely less likely than criteria actively used by others.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-26, 03:59   #35
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10100100111012 Posts
Default

I'll take these next 8 ummm 10?.

Code:
28465331 - Woody
28471337 - Woody
28474087 - Hand_In_The_Box
28476733 - Hand_In_The_Box
28485169 - Hand_In_The_Box
28489207 - Hand_In_The_Box
28491019 - CKDO still has this one
28491101 - CKDO still has this one
28497499 - Speck
28513531 - Speck
"Sid & Andy" will be the owner

Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2013-12-26 at 04:41 Reason: Added Computer Names for my reference
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-26, 11:10   #36
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

5×173 Posts
Default

New overview of the taken assignments:

Code:
28258819   * Tha               28759477
28262609   * Tha               28779329
28339513   * Tha               28784731
28351957   * Tha               28786301
28404611   * Tha               28809983
28425883   * Tha               28813847
28452059   * Tha               28818913
                               28818919
28465331   * Sid & Andy        28819093
28471337   * Sid & Andy        28819289
28474087   * Sid & Andy        28821313
28476733   * Sid & Andy        28824689
28485169   * Sid & Andy        28842977
28489207   * Sid & Andy        28861241
28491019   * Sid & Andy        28864109
28491101   * Sid & Andy        28869107
28497499   * Sid & Andy        28875697
28513531   * Sid & Andy        28875751
28514449		       28876157
28514693		       28876307
28519753		       28876597
28531051		       28877843
28531057		       28879159
28533929		       28881109
28535261		       28887407
28539479		       28888129
28544231		       28888261
28546901		       28890131
28550267		       28890751
28550311		       28891537
28550909   * Miszka	       28892641
28563097		       28894681
28566569		       28897207
28573081		       28898743
28574713		       28899917
28579189		       28900217
28579757		       28900997   * Miszka
28588337		       28939003
28589321		       28944551
28592209		       28968389
28598201		       28970779
28602817		       28975501
28611707		       28976737
28612691		       28977737
28613119		       28980199
28617217		       28980229
28622617		       28981999
28627297		       28986851
28655009		       28990187
28658687		       28995443
28663183		       29029769
28663433		       29031329
28668589		       29031503
28679789		       29031553
28693109		       29126737
28730941		       29127017
28751323		       29127349
28757419		       29204239
28759363		       29206651
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-26, 18:59   #37
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

11,087 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Not really wanting to argue with anyone, and this will likely be my only post in this thread, but I'd like it on record that I feel quite threatened in my continuing tiny contribution to GIMPS by this sort of poaching. By the criteria indicated by a few in this thread, my slow but reliable DC work could easily be pinched from me before it reports.
I hear what you are saying.

But, at the same time, I think tha has brought into "the crucible" an important issue. And I believe he is trying to be fair in his approach, unlike several other active "poachers" who still submit results to GIMPS.

Every participant's cycles can important and useful, and no-one should feel that just because they don't have a lot of "fire-power" that they cannot contribute to GIMPS.

On the other hand, there are a few people who "don't play nice with others". Some reserve way more "preferred" candidates than they can process in a reasonable time. Other's reserve candidates in the middle of the "wave", and then "sit" on them for (literally) years until they become "milestone" blocking.

I would argue this is actually a "meta-bug" of GIMPS. As an example, why should "Captain Entropy" be able to hold up an assignment for TFing for more than three years?

Why should a Prime95 participant's machine be considered "trusted" and given the lowest available candidate at the moment of request just because it has "high confidence" -- shouldn't the historical through-put of the particular machine in relation to the candidate also enter the heuristics?

For the record:

1. I've spent the last three hours cleaning up the mess in the GPU72 database this causes by those who get such assignments from GPU72, since it warns users if the work they've been assigned has been completed, and suggests they stop the said work and unassign it from the GPU72 personal assignment report.

1.1. At least one user ignores this notice, and just keeps reserving new assignments. This causes work for me, personally.

1.2. This user is no longer able to reserve LL or DC work from GPU72.

2. GPU72 used to re-capture work which was assigned by it to one of our users but abandoned, and hold it for reassignment back to said user.

2.1. This will no longer be done. If a preferred LL or DC assignment is abandoned and recaptured, I personally will complete the assignment (and thus personally take the risk that my work will be useless if the user magically completes the work in the time it takes me to do it).

2.2. For those who get their LL or DC assignments through the GPU72 manual assignment page, please *ensure* you formally "claim it".

2.2.1. This ensures everyone knows who has ownership, and that you'll have 60 days to complete the assignment before it is recycled.

2.2.2. Rich et al... For your situation (not being able to have Prime95 talk to Primenet or the Proxy from work), simply copy your worktodo.txt file onto a memory stick or e-mail it yourself. Then when you're home place the assignments into a "slaved" Prime95 instance with your Primenet credentials and have it "call home".

Thoughts, comments, complaints, etc?

P.S. We all *really* need to get out more....
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 12:12   #38
Miszka
 
Miszka's Avatar
 
May 2013
Poland

10610 Posts
Default

LL test successfully completes double-check of M28550909
Miszka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 17:32   #39
Miszka
 
Miszka's Avatar
 
May 2013
Poland

2×53 Posts
Default

I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693
Miszka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 17:36   #40
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

255178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miszka View Post
I'll take these two exponents:
28514449
28514693
I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 17:54   #41
Miszka
 
Miszka's Avatar
 
May 2013
Poland

2×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
I would argue that, based on tha's proposed criteria above, the latter is reasonable, but the former isn't.
O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057

because
28514449
28519753
28531051
are assigned to "Carsten Kossendey"

Last fiddled with by Miszka on 2013-12-27 at 18:01
Miszka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 18:03   #42
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

11,087 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miszka View Post
O.K. I'll take these two exponents (assigned to ANONYMOUS):
28514693
28531057
These two candidates satisfy the proposal's selection criteria.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 18:13   #43
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

5×173 Posts
Default

Hmm, I get a very uneasy feeling about this. The user that originally had all these assignments and did nothing with them for an extreme long time was asked to give up the assignments. The exponents were put back into the pool. Then we find out that he has taken them again, but now as ANONYMOUS. He also has not logged into this forum, at least not using his own account, since the exponents were released back into the pool.
Again we see nothing happening to these exponents. Then we spell out some criteria in the forum. The next thing that happens, said user makes a minimal change to a bunch of these assignments (adding his old username again and posting a CPU name), even going as far as having one exponent reporting 0.1% of the work done.

Weird, if that CPU can do 0.1% of the work on one exponent in so much time, then why have so many exponents reserved? Why does he not want to communicate, why does he suddenly shy away from contact in lieu of many previous postings?

The list I posted was carefully composed and the actions taken since by said user are (very) suspect to me and look like they are designed to obstruct rather than contribute. I stick to the assignments I have taken, and I consider all the exponents on the list to be kosher.

Last fiddled with by tha on 2013-12-27 at 18:40 Reason: grammar
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-12-27, 18:59   #44
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

5×173 Posts
Default

The machine "tycho" appears to be a dual core machine that claims to do a single exponent in 11 days. I stick to the work I've started and have progressed on.

But since there are still enough assignments available that meet the original criteria I'll add a mark to those exponents that are claimed by "tycho". And we will keep a watch on them.

Last fiddled with by tha on 2013-12-27 at 19:00
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ssh -X not working? Dubslow Linux 3 2012-05-11 14:44
Log Out not working? cheesehead Forum Feedback 1 2012-03-19 17:13
DST not working? Dubslow Forum Feedback 2 2012-03-19 06:53
Working on 525 for P-1 delta_t Marin's Mersenne-aries 15 2004-09-13 15:27
Someone's been working on the 28-28.2M range!!! garo Lone Mersenne Hunters 2 2003-03-28 11:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:08.


Sun Feb 5 11:08:37 UTC 2023 up 171 days, 8:37, 1 user, load averages: 1.14, 0.95, 0.90

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔