Actually as long as you have not started you assignment and you do
intermediairy check ins of status, and the assignment is finished before you
started working on it, it will be dropped from your assignment list, it only
stays if you are already working on it.
Martijn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Mersenne: hah
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Brian J. Beesley
> <snip>
> >However I do wonder how much of the recycling of expired exponents is
> >due to people picking up Prime95 just to run a hardware test. The
> >proportion of LL test assignments which complete seems to be dropping
> >recently. I wonder if there is some problem where the program goes &
> >picks up an assignment straight away on installation - would it be
> >too much of a deterrent to normal users if it asked a straightforward
> >question "Do you want to run a full self-test?" before anything else,
> >& if so leave the setup of PrimeNet username etc. till later?
>
> I agree with Brian how that would help to cut down on abandoned
assignments,
> but as we know, some of those are not abandoned but just late reporting
in.
> Which brings up a situation I've just come across which I believe could be
> easily fixed.
>
> A couple of weeks ago one of our PCs (14 days before completing current
job)
> was assigned an exponent in the 10M range which obviously had been
assigned
> to someone else earlier. No problem, that happens all the time. A few days
> later the original assignee finished the exponent and it dropped off our
> account report. Again no problem, that happens sometimes too. Then a
couple
> of days ago our PC finished its exponent and reported it in. Since it
hadn't
> been 28 days since last checkin, it just went ahead and started on the
> exponent which someone else had already finished. This PC dropped off our
> account report altogether, reducing the number of "machines assigned to
> primenet". Now it has happened before that a reassigned exponent was
> finished by the original owner AFTER one of our machines started testing
it
> and I realize there's not much that can be done about that. However, how
> much trouble would it be to have it check with the server before starting
on
> a new exponent to make sure it hadn't already been finished by someone
else?
> It had to communicate with the server anyway at that point to report the
> completed assignment.
>
> Yeah I know, no big deal, it will be recorded as a double-check when ours
> finishes. (At least I think it will.) Just seems like it would have been
> easy enough to prevent happening in the first place.
>
> Steve Harris
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
> Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
