I request that anyone running exponents that are not assigned to them by either the IPS or George Woltman pause, and ask George for a nonoverlapping assignment. Do not assume that simply because an exponent has been assigned for a lengthy time, that it is being hoarded and not worked on for no good reason, or is on a terribly slow single system. I run several dozen cpus in parallel, but am not currently using IPS. I just emailed George a report of 24 LLtests, 9 of which are below 3960,000, and at least 2 of which were already reported in by a poacher. No doubt I will discover more poached ones soon, since I had exponents assigned to me and still running that are lower than the status page lists as fully tested once: "All exponents below 3,774,100 have been tested at least once". At least some of the untested exponents below 3,960,000 were assigned to me in email by George Woltman. George has been good enough to give me assignments regularly that are below 5,260,000, because I am set up with V2.6 primenet and V14.4 prime95, and neither will handle exponents above 5,260,000. For reasons I won't go into right now, I feel bound legally to not move to the IPS for many cpus. Both the reclaiming of exponents due to the intervention of USWest and the FBI in Aaron Blosser's prime95 effort, and the v17 shift count bug, have extended the supply of exponents I can run. Now my choice is to switch to double checking, manual operation above 5,260,000, code my own primenet server, or turn the cpu farm to other tasks when the assignments below 5,260,000 are exhausted. (In my darker moments, it occurs to me that this cpu farm would be powerful for factoring more fully, the LLtests of someone who's been poaching numbers assigned to others.) I anticipate running out of exponents to test, this calendar year. ALL exponents below 3,960,000 that I have been assigned have now issued from the separate primenet server I run, each to one of my many client systems, which range from P5-120 to PII-400. The last time I ran a 386 on any LLtest was a double check in the 1.2M range. When I discover that a straggler is on a slow box, I move it to one of the fastest to move the milestones more quickly. Rarely, due to a system upgrade, an exponent gets lost. George periodically reminds me of ranges I have that are old and have not completed and have escaped my detection of that. Sometimes I manage to find and recover work in progress on backups. If needed I restart the exponent from the first iteration. Never have I returned an exponent to George untested, in 3+ years and 3900+ exponents assigned & 3820+ completed to date. If George prompts me that an assignment is late I run it. I think George was referring to me when he mentioned a reliable V14 user recently. I occasionally run exponents out of numerical order, to clean up small ranges that George assigns to me, and ensure that my clients do not run idle on a weekend or when I go on vacation. (I was on vacation June 7 when the poaching thread was in full flower.) For a time this spring I launched exponents in reverse order, since doing so would let the bank of clients hit the 5M+ exponents for a longer time and finish up on the quicker lower exponents at about the same time as the bigger slower ones. When it became apparent that continuing to do so would hold back the conclusion of the run length and reaching the 4M-tested milestone, I queued up the smallest exponents first. These are now completing. So, just in case I was not clear enough for you above: "POACHERS KEEP OUT!" Ken >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: woltman@dual400 (Unverified) >Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:19:04 -0500 >To: Ken Kriesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: mers: range requests > >At 04:04 PM 1/24/99 -0600, you wrote: ... >>I'll need exponents below 5,260,000 for the foreseeable future. >>I can delay but not prevent the exhaustion of available exponents. >>Have you any more to give, that will keep me going while I look at >>alternatives? > >You already have these: > >4191000,4192000,T,1/17/98,7/11/98,KK >5258000,5259130,T,3/12/98,5/23/98,KK > >You can also have these: > >3494300,3498500,T,1/29/99 >3581700,3582000,T,1/29/99,,KK >3584600,3585600,T,1/29/99,,KK >3618100,3618300,T,1/29/99,,KK >3640290,3640650,T,1/29/99,,KK >3644000,3644500,T,1/29/99,,KK >3678850,3679850,T,1/29/99,,KK >3681850,3682100,T,1/29/99,,KK >3878000,3879400,T,1/29/99,,KK >3890000,3892380,T,1/29/99,,KK >3977050,3977170,T,1/29/99,,KK >3983000,3984600,T,1/29/99,,KK >3991000,3991350,T,1/29/99,,KK > >Is that enough?? > >Best regards, >George At 10:58 AM 1999/06/14 -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote: >My thought is that I don't really mind someone sitting on an exponent, but >if you have some 386 doing a primary LL test on a number and its going to >take over a year to accomplish, and its not connected to the internet but >once a year... then maybe you should assign it a double check or a factoring >test. It is the most *considerate* thing to do as far as the whole team >approach is concerned. > >Really, the thought that someone wants to sit on an exponent for over a year >because "I've checked it out, and I'm running it on my 386 that is connected >to the internet once a year" is more inconsiderate than someone poaching >your exponent. > >As far as poaching is concerned, I unlike my brother Aaron, think that >George and Scott need to release whatever exponents, since there are only a >dozen or so that have seemed to have slipped thru the cracks... > >I guess I'm just annoyed at the "?" next to M37... > >Lastly, I think that threatening to falsify primenet reports, or report >someone to the FBI for "stealing" is really sophomoric. And I've noticed >this has come from the anti-poaching camp... I suggest Aaron stop his >poaching, that Scott and George work on getting all the exponents up to M37 >at least have a primary LL check, and for those who are whining about >someone poaching your exponents, try and think beyond the scope of yourself >and think about the GIMPS effort as a whole. Try putting the machine to its >best use (Factoring as opposed to LL testing). > >If you are so concerned about becoming "famous" for finding a new Mersenne >Prime, spend the extra $200 or so and get a P233 which at least would finish >its testing in 4 days (in the 3-4M range). > >Otherwise I suppose that it would be okay for me to run my GIMPS client on >my toaster oven, in which case, I think it might finish its 700,000 range LL >test in 2103... :) > >Later, >Jeremy Blosser > >(Note: I am Aaron's BROTHER, not Aaron. Please try not to get confused by >the fact that we have the same last name (I know thats a foriegn concept to >some people) and send me nasty e-mails, it just makes you look stupid, and >annoys me...) >________________________________________________________________ >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
