Newer milestone thread

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

I will be curious to see how many of these are abandoned by the users (if any). Some of them did not check in at their last expected date but there are a hundred reasons for this.

This most recently completed double check (toward the milestone) was completed in "only" 427.5 days. Good job, ANONYMOUS, for sticking with it and completing it!

Some of the recently completed long-held assignments (exponents below 32582657) are:

Name         Exponent Result  When received   Days    GHz-days  Residue

john_s       31518659   C     10/22/14 17:10  324.5   35.8087   0B5B59FC94E5BF__
tysydenham   32057407   C     10/22/14 13:37  295.4   37.9346   295D9542927A1C__								
RMAC9.5      32412767   C     10/23/14 5:42   295.9   36.8245   99881640A41F00__	
ANONYMOUS    32444567   C     10/24/14 17:41  350.8   35.7116   586D5BE48336D3__								
ANONYMOUS    31242383   C     10/26/14 18:28  427.5   36.9702   BA41052A2E8B1A__

I think the remaining 14 exponents can be completed by the current assignment holders assuming they make an effort to do so, and report progress often enough (and people continue to hold off from poaching). I'm considering five of them to be rather questionable at this point. If the assignment holders show consistent progress, they should be less likely to be poached upon when the countdown winds down.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

But generally I'd assume that over time the ETA will self-adjust and it's "good enough for government work" as the saying goes.

Let me please expand on my statement, and thinking...

1. The "self-reported" estimates can be wildly off.

1.1. This is less of an issue for current Cat1 and Cat2 qualified workers.

2. For those candidates not yet assigned to a milestone, a very rough estimate can be derived based on historical performance meta-data.

2.1. This is what I do on GPU72 for the Estimated Completion reports, for example.

2.1.1. Note that I only have to take into account the overall LL to TF performance to (try to) keep a balance for the TF'ing.

3. Estimating particular milestones with more accuracy would need to take into consideration particular Category performance and rules, and the range of each Category at the time of assignment.

Clearly, a non-trivial problem space. But doable.

[TheMawn]

Yes we're approaching this point where the poaching becomes tempting. I could finish them all off in a week by myself if I wanted.

Considering the rate of progress though, I don't think it will be very long.


Really, we should be looking at the next significant milestone after this one, because the new rules will be kicking in by the time we're there and the progress should be almost constant in terms of # of results per week.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

Yes we're approaching this point where the poaching becomes tempting. I could finish them all off in a week by myself if I wanted.

Considering the rate of progress though, I don't think it will be very long.


Really, we should be looking at the next significant milestone after this one, because the new rules will be kicking in by the time we're there and the progress should be almost constant in terms of # of results per week.

It looks like several are definitely on track to finish in the next couple of days:

31938679 D LL, 98.50% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
31989091 D LL, 98.60% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
32273279 D LL, 96.60% 324 1 2013-12-07 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 Kankabar

Or... at least they have checked in recently and aren't overdue despite their age.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

Or... at least they have checked in recently and aren't overdue despite their age.

Thank you. At least one of your examples demonstrates the issue wonderfully (didn't bother to drill down on the other two):

32273279 D L, 61.70% 42   7  2014-01-25 2014-01-18 2014-01-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 61.70% 43   7  2014-01-26 2014-01-19 2014-01-18 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 82.70% 57   3  2014-02-05 2014-02-03 2014-02-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 82.80% 69   3  2014-02-17 2014-02-14 2014-02-13 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 71   3  2014-02-19 2014-02-17 2014-02-16 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 78   3  2014-02-26 2014-02-24 2014-02-23 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.20% 85   3  2014-03-05 2014-03-03 2014-03-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.30% 94   3  2014-03-14 2014-03-12 2014-03-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 83.40% 98   2  2014-03-17 2014-03-15 2014-03-14 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 101  2  2014-03-20 2014-03-18 2014-03-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 104     2014-03-21 2014-03-19 2014-03-18 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 108  2  2014-03-27 2014-03-25 2014-03-24 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 115  2  2014-04-03 2014-04-01 2014-03-31 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 85.70% 119  2  2014-04-07 2014-04-05 2014-04-04 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 126  1  2014-04-13 2014-04-12 2014-04-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 130  1  2014-04-17 2014-04-16 2014-04-15 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 90.00% 134 -1  2014-04-19 2014-04-18 2014-04-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.50% 141  2  2014-04-29 2014-04-28 2014-04-27 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.50% 144  1  2014-05-01 2014-04-30 2014-04-29 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 146  2  2014-05-04 2014-05-03 2014-05-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 150  9  2014-05-15 2014-05-07 2014-05-06 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 92.60% 155  9  2014-05-20 2014-05-12 2014-05-11 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 161  8  2014-05-25 2014-05-18 2014-05-17 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 169  8  2014-06-02 2014-05-26 2014-05-25 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 93.50% 179  7  2014-06-11 2014-06-04 2014-06-03 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 188  7  2014-06-20 2014-06-14 2014-06-13 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 198  4  2014-06-27 2014-06-23 2014-06-22 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.20% 207  5  2014-07-07 2014-07-03 2014-07-02 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.40% 222  5  2014-07-22 2014-07-17 2014-07-16 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 94.40% 240  5  2014-08-09 2014-08-04 2014-08-03 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 95.00% 249  6  2014-08-19 2014-08-13 2014-08-12 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 95.90% 264  3  2014-08-31 2014-08-29 2014-08-28 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2
32273279 D L, 96.30% 291  1  2014-09-25 2014-09-25 2014-09-24 2013-12-07 Kankabar Goldi2

Kankabar's Goldi2 machine has been promising to have this candidate done within a week since the beginning of this year (probably longer).

Read: serious analysis cannot be based on the "estimated completion date" from the client.

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

It looks like several are definitely on track to finish in the next couple of days:

31938679 D LL, 98.50% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
31989091 D LL, 98.60% 269 1 2014-01-31 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 ANONYMOUS
32273279 D LL, 96.60% 324 1 2013-12-07 2014-10-26 2014-10-27 2014-10-28 Kankabar

Or... at least they have checked in recently and aren't overdue despite their age.

M32273279 has only progressed 0.3 percentage points in the last month. For that reason, it's one of the 5 I consider questionable for finishing. At that pace, it will take months, but obviously it has made faster progress in the past, so maybe it will be much sooner. I'm very doubtful about it finishing in the next couple days, though.

EDIT: I didn't see Chris's post before posting...

[TheMawn]

I feel like the way "progress" and estimated times are calculated need to be reworked. The client has that option that says how many hours the program runs, but that's probably left at the default 24 hours 90% of the time because people just don't know it's there. I hope Primenet uses something a bit more sophisticated than that.

Would the simple solution not be to use a rolling average based on a lengthy amount of time like the last six months? In the end it really doesn't matter what the ETA is because they're either done or not when the one-year time frame is up. On the other hand, a column of data that says "ETA" should not exist unless it's actually telling us something useful.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

I feel like the way "progress" and estimated times are calculated need to be reworked. The client has that option that says how many hours the program runs, but that's probably left at the default 24 hours 90% of the time because people just don't know it's there. I hope Primenet uses something a bit more sophisticated than that.

Would the simple solution not be to use a rolling average based on a lengthy amount of time like the last six months? In the end it really doesn't matter what the ETA is because they're either done or not when the one-year time frame is up. On the other hand, a column of data that says "ETA" should not exist unless it's actually telling us something useful.

The "eta" or estimated completion data being presented comes from the estimate provided by the client machine itself.

How the client comes up with that time, I'm not sure. Prime95 does have the concept of the rolling average, and despite what the user sets the "time on per day" to, the rolling average is an up to date reflection of how the machine is doing. I would guess it's using that in it's estimating... George would know, or if someone went through the code they could figure it out, or even suggest changes.

[Primeinator]

Interesting. I did not know you could look up an exponent's history like that, Chalsall. That paints things in a slightly different light.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

Interesting. I did not know you could look up an exponent's history like that, Chalsall. That paints things in a slightly different light.

I have spiders. It's a bit like having crabs, but different....

[ET_]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I have spiders. It's a bit like having crabs, but different....

Yeah, the crabs walk backwards...