Newer milestone thread

[retina]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Anyway, if you want to see how those look, I didn't make them live on the normal page, but you can check 'em out here:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_miles...fault.mock.php

Yeah, that is good. I still question the point of the ETA, it is completely meaningless. The statement about the number of unassigned exponents is good.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by retina

I think that "first time checks" are a non-issue with regards to "poaching" because there is no loss in productivity.

+1. Either the assignee or the poacher, whoever finishes last, will be credited with DC, and the exponent clear faster. There could be some arguing if a prime turns out... but doh...

[cuBerBruce]

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 49,999

Less than 50,000 to go. Hurray! (Still a long way to go, I know.)

Originally Posted by flagrantflowers

Unless the code for extended time changes there are a number of exponents that will be around for another 3-4 months if you do the math. M55861261 is a good example that could sit around for a long time if it is not finished.

The owner of this assignment has finished a different LL assignment, M55738409. That assignment took him/her 423.7 days. Hopefully, this is a sign that his/her other assignments will not take too much longer.

[flagrantflowers]

Originally Posted by cuBerBruce

…That assignment took him/her 423.7 days. Hopefully, this is a sign that his/her other assignments will not take too much longer.

That's great, hopefully the rest of the grandfathered assignments will go as quickly but I have my reservations.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by retina

Yeah, that is good. I still question the point of the ETA, it is completely meaningless. The statement about the number of unassigned exponents is good.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 56M: 18 (Estimated completion : 2015-05-24)

Can't believe we can't clear 18 tests in less than 2 months.

Don't get all his fuss about "poaching" anyway, for those who were around in the late 90's we just smile at this talk.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 56M: 18 (Estimated completion : 2015-05-24)

Can't believe we can't clear 18 tests in less than 2 months.

Don't get all his fuss about "poaching" anyway, for those who were around in the late 90's we just smile at this talk.

Yeah...there's 3 pesky <55M exponents in there too. Just those 3. Truth be told, I already tested them (spoiler alert: they weren't primes). I'm just waiting to check mine in until after the original assignee so mine will be double-checks.

I also already ran 4 of the 55-56M numbers in there that haven't checked in for a while...again, just holding on to the results (and again, no primes, sorry).

These were some stress tests for new hardware so I wanted to to knock out a few interesting ones. I also periodically do a triple-check of strange results I come across in the database like triple-checking some false positives or other weird things.

I suppose once I run out of those oddities I'll probably just do regular double-checks or something for these stress tests...things that can finish in a few hours on a dual E5-2690 server with all 20 physical cores working on one exponent. :) 13.5 hours for a 33.9M exponent to be precise.

The 18-core CPU's are still super expensive so we couldn't get those for our recent orders. Bummer.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

...things that can finish in a few hours on a dual E5-2690 server with all 20 physical cores working on one exponent. :) 13.5 hours for a 33.9M exponent to be precise.

What is the efficiency like for that? I would have expected that after about the first 4 cores the remainder add very little. Perhaps you should be running 5 tests of 4 cores each instead of 1 test on 20 cores?

[kladner]

How much power does this baby consume, running all out?

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

[...]All of the ideas I can think of though are kind of a bummer and fudge the reports a bit, just in an attempt to stop a few people, but maybe it's better to just suffer the occasional bad poaching job so we still have accurate reports?

After all, poaching happens, but it's not *that* big a deal in the grand scheme of things, and nothing would stop it entirely unless we just started rejecting results that don't have a valid assignment ID. And that runs a little counter to the openness of the project too. And that's above my pay grade anyway. I just tinker with the website and look at a few stats in the data at George's discretion. :)

I agree with people who have suggested we should now just see if poaching is a thing of the past with the "favoured" work now governed by strict time limits, and I don't advocate doing anything against poaching right now either, but:

1. Poaching has caused significant annoyance to participants in the past and its damaging effects should not be understated.
2. It's not accurate to state that rejecting poachers' results entirely would be the only possible measure against them. The results could be accepted on a delayed basis, waiting first for the assigned work to complete or expire.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

It's not accurate to state that rejecting poachers' results entirely would be the only possible measure against them. The results could be accepted on a delayed basis, waiting first for the assigned work to complete or expire.

This may backfire (as I already stated in another thread) as many people submit results for the same exponent not aware that others before them have also done the same.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by retina

This may backfire (as I already stated in another thread) as many people submit results for the same exponent not aware that others before them have also done the same.

That seems likely to happen, at least initially, yes. Whether that would be offset in the long run by the increase of productivity due to (1) poachers later cottoning on to the new situation and only doing assigned work (thereby not duplicating anything), and (2) a reduction in people leaving in frustration after having their assignments poached, is an open question to me.

But your word "backfire" implies that the motivation for such a measure would be purely an increase in productivity across the project. I had other issues in mind, centering around the idea that everyone who wants to take part in the project should be guaranteed, as far as possible, that they will be assigned unique work which will be theirs to do and to contribute.