When did PrimeNet begin rubberstamping results? - Page 3

NBtarheel_33 · 2013-12-31, 04:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

It is fine if someone chooses to spend the money/energy. But, at the same time, someone who hasn't updated their client in over five years is probably no longer "in the game".

Be careful. One of the advertised features of GIMPS over the years has been the fact that a user can "set it and forget it".

NBtarheel_33 · 2013-12-31, 05:11

OK, so this might not even be as much of an issue as I thought.

As of 2013-12-31 0500 GMT, looking at the "Last 1000 Most Recent Cleared Not Prime" report, I see 7, count 'em, 7 results attributed to v4_computers.

In three cases, there are user names associated with the v4 submissions. A couple of these users are bigger players, IIRC:

Jacques X. Charles
Lawrence V. Castiglione III
ahmerali

These users could probably be contacted and encouraged to switch to v5.

ANONYMOUS is responsible for four of the seven v4 submissions, or 0.4% of the last 1000. These submissions are all DCs, done in 34-87 days, longer than we might like, yes, but by no means egregiously long.

Let's try to keep an eye on this metric over the next few weeks. It might be that v4 submissions actually are below 1% of all GIMPS throughput.

chalsall · 2013-12-31, 05:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

Let's try to keep an eye on this metric over the next few weeks. It might be that v4 submissions actually are below 1% of all GIMPS throughput.

But it does appear that v4_computers, even "ANONYMOUS" still get preferred DC assignments. Here is a sample from Christmas day (not all of these are still actual DC candidates, of course, but I think there's still an issue here worth discussing).

Code:

29600353 D  72.10%     404     55 2014-02-18 2013-12-26 2013-12-25 2012-11-16 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
29776603 D  87.10%      26    -18 2013-12-07 2014-01-01 2013-12-04 2013-11-29 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
29785159 D  54.60%     438     5   2013-12-30 2014-01-18 2013-12-21 2012-10-13 matt_joe  v4_computers
29897899 D  21.40%     450     1   2013-12-26 2013-12-05 2013-12-04 2012-10-01 matt_joe     v4_computers
29897909 D  20.40%     450     1   2013-12-26 2013-12-05 2013-12-04 2012-10-01 matt_joe     v4_computers
29934283 D  72.80%     415     2   2013-12-27 2013-12-20 2013-12-18 2012-11-05 ANONYMOUS   v4_computers
29979119 D  16.60%     469     20  2014-01-14 2014-01-21 2013-12-24 2012-09-12 blackivory  v4_computers
30154493 D  22.90%     308     78 2014-03-13 2013-12-27 2013-11-29 2013-02-20 blackivory v4_computers
30233131 D  14.70%     278     67 2014-03-02 2014-01-05 2013-12-08 2013-03-22 ANONYMOUS    v4_computers
30274883 D  13.50%     480     91  2014-03-26 2014-01-11 2013-12-14 2012-09-01 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30324521 D  12.40%     290     143 2014-05-17 2013-12-26 2013-11-28 2013-03-10 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30385903 D  42.20%     289     127 2014-05-01 2013-12-26 2013-12-25 2013-03-11 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30436723 D  34.90%     276     -2  2013-12-23 2014-01-05 2013-12-08 2013-03-24 ANONYMOUS   v4_computers
30533161 D             182     36 2014-01-30 2014-01-15 2013-12-18 2013-06-26 ANONYMOUS   v4_computers
30544097 LL 74.10%     190     69 2014-03-04 2014-01-07 2013-12-10 2013-06-18 sahnow    v4_computers
30563009 D  81.90%     252     -9  2013-12-16 2014-01-08 2013-12-11 2013-04-17 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30596771 D  45.70%     312     120 2014-04-24 2013-12-26 2013-12-25 2013-02-16 ANONYMOUS      v4_computers
30610337 D  10.20%     307     44  2014-02-07 2014-01-08 2013-12-11 2013-02-21 blackivory v4_computers
30647233 D  74.50%     301     -1  2013-12-24 2014-01-14 2013-12-17 2013-02-27 dec       v4_computers
30722479 D             160     -20 2013-12-05 2013-12-15 2013-11-17 2013-07-18 vecer     v4_computers
30758719 D  70.30%     138     -1  2013-12-24 2014-01-11 2013-12-14 2013-08-09 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30777889 D  6.60%      200     4  2013-12-29 2013-12-02 2013-12-01 2013-06-08 ANONYMOUS  v4_computers
30792341 D  83.40%     212     17  2014-01-11 2013-12-22 2013-12-21 2013-05-27 matt_joe    v4_computers
30794627 D             278     254 2014-09-05 2014-01-17 2013-12-20 2013-03-22 ANONYMOUS   v4_computers
30836369 D  9.40%      312     369 2014-12-29 2013-11-16 2013-11-15 2013-02-16 matt_joe  v4_computers
30839579 D  43.20%     216     165 2014-06-08 2013-12-13 2013-12-12 2013-05-23 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30851669 D  44.00%     216     163 2014-06-06 2013-12-13 2013-12-12 2013-05-23 ANONYMOUS         v4_computers
30852923 D  84.70%     249     7   2014-01-01 2013-12-21 2013-12-19 2013-04-20 westbye           v4_computers
30855977 D  74.10%     182     8   2014-01-02 2014-01-20 2013-12-23 2013-06-26 ANONYMOUS         v4_computers
30869819 D             127     10  2014-01-04 2014-01-01 2013-12-04 2013-08-20 ANONYMOUS      v4_computers
30883681 D  16.80%     132     279 2014-09-30 2013-11-24 2013-10-27 2013-08-15 danielblair v4_computers
30887893 D  38.60%     172     13  2014-01-07 2014-01-07 2013-12-10 2013-07-06 matt_joe    v4_computers
30896273 D             115     34  2014-01-28 2014-01-19 2013-12-22 2013-09-01 psteger           v4_computers
30907601 D  47.60%     220     0   2013-12-25 2013-12-14 2013-12-13 2013-05-19 matt_joe   v4_computers
30915881 D  0.90%      106     4   2013-12-29 2013-12-29 2013-12-01 2013-09-10 matt_joe          v4_computers
30919891 D  51.70%     283     -13 2013-12-12 2013-12-28 2013-11-30 2013-03-17 matt_joe          v4_computers
30921053 D  74.00%     162     10  2014-01-04 2013-12-28 2013-12-23 2013-07-16 Marekb    v4_computers
30926629 D  28.80%     212     56  2014-02-19 2014-01-16 2013-12-19 2013-05-27 ANONYMOUS v4_computers
30939463 D  2.20%      216     151 2014-05-25 2013-12-03 2013-12-02 2013-05-23 matt_joe       v4_computers
30952793 D  49.00%     153     10  2014-01-04 2014-01-19 2013-12-22 2013-07-25 psteger    v4_computers
30977993 D              93     16  2014-01-10 2014-01-08 2013-12-11 2013-09-23 ANONYMOUS   v4_computers
30979303 D  94.30%     156     7   2014-01-01 2013-12-25 2013-12-23 2013-07-22 hoannis     v4_computers
30984361 D  75.00%     154     22  2014-01-16 2013-12-21 2013-12-20 2013-07-24 matt_joe          v4_computers

garo · 2013-12-31, 06:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

Yes, that's about the time the v5 server went alpha. The October 2008 date is associated with the crash of the v4 server, and the subsequent forced early upgrade to v5. That is why most people would see their first date-stamped results around that time.

Correct. October 2008 was the Big Bang! The alpha testing with TF-LMH exponents started late -2007 or early 2008. So petrw1 was right in his first answer.

LaurV · 2013-12-31, 08:09

I'm in the party of the people saying that "every bit helps". Personally I have few Pentium D computers running at 2G8 to 3G4 which are very good doing DC. Well, they are not very power-efficient, and (by cost-related reasons) only one is running currently now, and that is feeding a GPU for mfakto, but that may not be the case for other users. As someone pointed already, a lot of small business computers still run win xp, therefore disqualifying them would be very bad for gimps. Continue to give them P-1 and DC assignments, or even ECM, would be perfect.

TL;DR: if my vote counts, let them play, at lest on DC market, they can help enough!

I still dream that someone finds a missed prime, that would really be a hit!

lycorn · 2013-12-31, 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

I guess my vote would be every little bit helps ... so if they are still requesting but more importantly "completing" work I'd say let them play.

+1.

ET_ · 2013-12-31, 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycorn

+1.

My team still has a couple v4 machines slowly and steadily proceeding, so I agree with Lycorn...

Luigi

Mini-Geek · 2013-12-31, 13:15

Note that we're talking about disqualifying old software that hasn't been updated, not old hardware.

I think that v4 should continue to be supported, to keep the idea that you can "set it and forget it" if you like.

It'd be good if we could get people to be better about updating their software, but there's no surefire way to do that, especially for unattended machines, so there might always be that small portion of people using terribly out of date software.

ET_ · 2013-12-31, 13:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

Note that we're talking about disqualifying old software that hasn't been updated, not old hardware.

I think that v4 should continue to be supported, to keep the idea that you can "set it and forget it" if you like.

It'd be good if we could get people to be better about updating their software, but there's no surefire way to do that, especially for unattended machines, so there might always be that small portion of people using terribly out of date software.

I think 24.1x software is not outdated for 5 yeass ago hardware---

Luigi

Aramis Wyler · 2013-12-31, 14:10

I wonder if my cpu is more than 5 years old. Since it's an AMD, I didn't have to replace it last time I replaced my motherboard, and that was a long time ago. It's a phenom II x4, black box edition, but not overclocked (I don't think). But the point is not whether or not my cpu is 5 years old, it's that it really doesn't matter. Sure, I'd love to see a message pop up in the response to all v4 clients to upgrade their software to v5, but really, this is a non problem. There probably is not a solution that's better than the one George already implemented.

petrw1 · 2013-12-31, 14:41

Certainly we would like to encourage all to upgrade....even Bill and Steve would agree

Anyone on V4 (or any version for that matter) that is not completing assignments won't get more. But if they are it still helps. Heck I still am running 2 PIV's close to 10 years old. Elec is cheap where I live. They each contribute close to 2 GhzDays per day. Granted a GPU might do that in minutes .... but if there are 100 like mine it adds up. Wasn't it Cheesehead who used to talk about 100.01 mph is faster than 100?

2013-12-31, 14:10	#32
Aramis Wyler "Bill Staffen" Jan 2013 Pittsburgh, PA, USA 2³×53 Posts	I wonder if my cpu is more than 5 years old. Since it's an AMD, I didn't have to replace it last time I replaced my motherboard, and that was a long time ago. It's a phenom II x4, black box edition, but not overclocked (I don't think). But the point is not whether or not my cpu is 5 years old, it's that it really doesn't matter. Sure, I'd love to see a message pop up in the response to all v4 clients to upgrade their software to v5, but really, this is a non problem. There probably is not a solution that's better than the one George already implemented. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2013-12-31 at 14:10

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Primenet Recent Results Request	garo	PrimeNet	7	2014-02-03 02:53
making PrimeNet accept duplicate TF results?	ixfd64	PrimeNet	5	2012-12-08 07:04
In which country do you suggest me to begin my act	Unregistered	Information & Answers	0	2010-11-30 23:34
V5 not reporting results to PrimeNet	edron1011	Software	8	2009-01-26 16:59
Problem with Reporting Results to Primenet	RMAC9.5	Software	3	2003-11-02 23:06

2013-12-31, 05:11	#24
NBtarheel_33 "Nathan" Jul 2008 Maryland, USA 5·223 Posts	OK, so this might not even be as much of an issue as I thought. As of 2013-12-31 0500 GMT, looking at the "Last 1000 Most Recent Cleared Not Prime" report, I see 7, count 'em, 7 results attributed to v4_computers. In three cases, there are user names associated with the v4 submissions. A couple of these users are bigger players, IIRC: Jacques X. Charles Lawrence V. Castiglione III ahmerali These users could probably be contacted and encouraged to switch to v5. ANONYMOUS is responsible for four of the seven v4 submissions, or 0.4% of the last 1000. These submissions are all DCs, done in 34-87 days, longer than we might like, yes, but by no means egregiously long. Let's try to keep an eye on this metric over the next few weeks. It might be that v4 submissions actually are below 1% of all GIMPS throughput.

2013-12-31, 08:09	#27
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 2×5×31² Posts	I'm in the party of the people saying that "every bit helps". Personally I have few Pentium D computers running at 2G8 to 3G4 which are very good doing DC. Well, they are not very power-efficient, and (by cost-related reasons) only one is running currently now, and that is feeding a GPU for mfakto, but that may not be the case for other users. As someone pointed already, a lot of small business computers still run win xp, therefore disqualifying them would be very bad for gimps. Continue to give them P-1 and DC assignments, or even ECM, would be perfect. TL;DR: if my vote counts, let them play, at lest on DC market, they can help enough! I still dream that someone finds a missed prime, that would really be a hit!

2013-12-31, 13:15	#30
Mini-Geek Account Deleted "Tim Sorbera" Aug 2006 San Antonio, TX USA 17·251 Posts	Note that we're talking about disqualifying old software that hasn't been updated, not old hardware. I think that v4 should continue to be supported, to keep the idea that you can "set it and forget it" if you like. It'd be good if we could get people to be better about updating their software, but there's no surefire way to do that, especially for unattended machines, so there might always be that small portion of people using terribly out of date software.

2013-12-31, 14:41	#33
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 2²×7×167 Posts	Certainly we would like to encourage all to upgrade....even Bill and Steve would agree Anyone on V4 (or any version for that matter) that is not completing assignments won't get more. But if they are it still helps. Heck I still am running 2 PIV's close to 10 years old. Elec is cheap where I live. They each contribute close to 2 GhzDays per day. Granted a GPU might do that in minutes .... but if there are 100 like mine it adds up. Wasn't it Cheesehead who used to talk about 100.01 mph is faster than 100?