Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > per second. Lets get with it! My model predicts
> > we will hit 2^40 in May. {8-] spike
>
> What's this number "40"? Shouldn't it be 2^(2^6-1) ? :)
ummm, no. but i would buy 2^(2^(2^2+1)+2^(2^1+2^0))
{8^D spike
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
> Yes, so the *real* milestone is less than 10% away.
> The real milestone is not 10^12 but rather 2^40 ops
> per second. Lets get with it! My model predicts
> we will hit 2^40 in May. {8-] spike
What's this number "40"? Shouldn't it be 2^(2^6-1) ? :)
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Vincent J. Mooney Jr. Wrote: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 04 February 2000 22:48 Subject: Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching? >A good sensible posting. I concur and thank Jeff Woods for writing it. But did you have to repeat his whole message to tell us? Steve _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
No particular quotes - lots have people have had interesting and relevant things to say. 1) I have no problem with the likes of David Campeau (aka diamonddave) as, whatever systems he is using, the exponents seem to get cleared in a reasonable time (_much_ faster than the reports indicate) - and he does appear to be acquiring exponents in a way which is not only accessible to everyone, but which he has even gone to the trouble of documenting. This is _not_ "poaching", which is the quite different activity of working on exponents assigned to someone else. 2) There is no doubt that a certain amount of "poaching" is going on. Will the offenders (they know who they are) please desist. Poaching often results in early triple-checks being done, at this stage this is a waste of resources. 3) Cutting the 60-day exipry date may well have unwanted consequences. During the last week I obtained an assignment (for a double check in the 4 million range) which disappeared from my status report after a couple of days. I guess whoever had the exponent before finally returned the result - deliberate poaching does not seem likely in this case, and it's very doubtful that anyone would have a system powerful enough to start & finish the job in the time I had the assignment. If anything, we ought to be increasing the figure, as assignments take longer to complete these days. Perhaps we could/should have different expiry dates for different assignment types, but this would probably involve changes to PrimeNet which aren't strictly neccessary. 4) Please don't forget the many people using manual assignments for one reason or another. Often non-Intel systems which can't use PrimeNet because of the hangups over the security code. Shortening expiry times or the maximum amount of work queued makes it more of an effort to keep these systems contributing. (Of course, if you want an all-Intel project...) 5) Finally, a couple of suggestions. a) I agree with the correspondent that said that everyone should have an equal chance of picking up recycled small exponents. A practical way of achieving this would be to run the job which recycles expired/returned exponents at a random time each day instead of a fixed time. (Start the job at 0600 GMT but have it immediately sleep for a number of seconds picked from a uniform random distribution minimum 0, maximum 86399). b) As a deterrent to poachers, could I suggest that any results submitted by anyone working on exponents assigned to someone else be credited to the "poachee" rather than the poacher. c) I would suggest that v20 sorts assignments so that they are executed in order of increasing exponent (once trial factoring prior to LL testing has been completed) rather than being executed in the order they were assigned. Regards Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Luke Welsh wrote:
> BTW, PrimeNet has reached a sustained teraflop! Are we gaining
> members, are we upgrading our hardware, is it George's
> faster v19 code, is it people running Ernst's code, or some/all
> of the above?
Yes, so the *real* milestone is less than 10% away. The real
milestone is not 10^12 but rather 2^40 ops per second. Lets
get with it! My model predicts we will hit 2^40 in May. {8-] spike
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 11:12:09 -0500 Jeff Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to > see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want > to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime". > > We don't want to wait a YEAR for this milestone, just because you and a > handful of others want to test all the little exponents. For heavens sakes ! Suppose that I get struck by lightning next month. Will my life have been in vain because such_and_such a GIMPS milestone had not yet been reached by next month ? This __used__ to be a fun project. People who contributed their time and resources were appreciated. Now it's results, Results, RESULTS ... mikus There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you -- who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:12) _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching? (or lets all blast dave)
Hi all, Before I start, I was poached more than my share and I poached 1 number. Ok, here we go, in chronological order... Gordon Bower writes: > A quick look in the cleared exponents file reveals many recent results > reported by a user "rick" who apparently has several fast Pentium IIs > doing double-checks. A look in the the assignments file reveals not a > single small exponent reserved by this user. It's a sad state of things. But since it was brought to light, no action were taken to prevent it, only to reduce it's occurence by putting the 60 days hard cap. > > Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but frustrating to people > like diamonddave and myself who make an effort to seek out the smaller > exponents and reserve them. > I feel sad for people who have been poached. It does not have anything to do with me being poached. > I don't know exactly what our policy is on this matter, or what we can do > about it the the facts are as they seem to be. But it seemed worth > bringing the matter up. > Sadly we don't have any. Well if you are not on the list that is... (People like to point finger and stuff) Jeff Woods write: > I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not > a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why > I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe > about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching > them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways, > and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group. > I didn't know there was any place that changed the official number of days to queue. Back before PrimeNet, George Woltman was asking people to take about 2-3 month of work! I might have missed the newsletter changing the rules. > > Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and > 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a > certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or > later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking > singlehandedly. > taken from my status report (work done since Dec 7): Factored composite: 0 Lucas-Lehmer composite: 0 Double-checked LL : 98 -- --- TOTAL : 98 I guess those 80 number should be done before April Fools days! I wont comment on the rest. [snip] *comment on how I am a Pig, selfish and some other false assumption* Then, after some post explaining my ways by Alexander Kruppa and Sander Hoogendoorn. Jeff Woods writes: > In other words, David is "pre-emptively poaching" these numbers, to prevent > them from getting taken by quitters, in thinking he can clear them before > others So, he's a poacher himself, it stands to reason on this side > of the aisle... Poaching was attributed to people who grabbed an exponent without it being assigned to them. There is no poaching what so ever in what I do. What can I say, it's not the 100,000$ that interest me, what I want to see is more Milestone achieved with the least time possible between them. [snip] *idea with some merits.* Aaron Blosser writes: > One thing I *do* enjoy about GIMPS are those milestones. Being able to look > back and say that we've proven that M37 actually is M37 (and we didn't miss > any prime numbers in between). That means we need to finish double-checking > all those smaller exponents. But we can't do that efficiently when a select > few are hogging all those exponents for themselves, purely for the > satisfaction of watching their stats go up on a day by day basis. > Did you know that for about 6-8 hours _each_ days, it's only expired exponent that are distributed. So about 20 exponent re-released by PrimeNet will in there own time expire again (and the cycle begin anew). > I don't buy the argument that they reserve those smaller exponents simply to > keep them out of the hands of others who might not have computers diligently > working on them. That's why exponents expire after 60 days and are > reassigned. We don't need these folks subverting that. Maybe that's why I don't keep more than 60 days per computer. [snip] > So, my opinion comes down to this: People who reserve ONLY small exponents > are doing the project a disservice by not allowing the distributed nature of > the project to work. They use a fallacious argument about "keeping them out > of the hands of the infidels" as justification for it. Fallacious because > that's the job of Primenet's expiration policy. What is the difference between keeping only small exponent and keeping only big exponent (going for 100,000$), we will reach that plateau eventually? Why did this tread went from exposing a poacher to accusing a sensible PrimeNet user of poaching? Everyone seemed to have forgotten are mutual friend "Rick", why? David Campeau a.k.a. DiamondDave __
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
At 12:39 PM 2/5/00 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote: [snip] I respectfully disagree. If I had the time and machines, I'd be cleaning up the smaller exponents. I am not interested in my ranking. I appreciate people diligently "mopping up". I do not presume to know what their motives are but I would like to assume that their motives are the same as mine. There are over 2000 p < 4,ooo,ooo being double checked on PrimeNet. It will probably take until sometime in 2001 to polish them off unless somebody mops up. That is my opinion and my 2 cents. BTW, PrimeNet has reached a sustained teraflop! Are we gaining members, are we upgrading our hardware, is it George's faster v19 code, is it people running Ernst's code, or some/all of the above? --Luke _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
> Here I thought I was part of some great cause and we were only here for > the common good. Little did I know there really is a dark side to the > force and behind the scenes GIMPS is really Peyton Place. > > I'm not even sure WHY anyone wants to go to the trouble of filtering out > high exponents. Will this result in more LL hours worked and a higher > position on the performers lists? > > Also, what's this about poaching? Sounds like stealing; what is there > to steal in GIMPS? > > The biggest downside to this thread is that it exists at all. It's hard > to attract new believers to a cause once they hear about the associated > corruption. It's true, all of that. :-( People like getting small exponents not for any tangible advantage, but just because their machines finish them faster than a longer one, and they can watch their "numbers" climb in the stats. Certainly, they could test a larger exponent, it would take longer to do, but in the end, 2 weeks of work is 2 weeks of work, whether you do 2 small exponents or one larger one. There is thus no advantage to testing only smaller numbers which is what riles up folks (including myself) when you get a handful of people who selectively reject any assigned exponents above some arbitrary threshold. One thing I *do* enjoy about GIMPS are those milestones. Being able to look back and say that we've proven that M37 actually is M37 (and we didn't miss any prime numbers in between). That means we need to finish double-checking all those smaller exponents. But we can't do that efficiently when a select few are hogging all those exponents for themselves, purely for the satisfaction of watching their stats go up on a day by day basis. I don't buy the argument that they reserve those smaller exponents simply to keep them out of the hands of others who might not have computers diligently working on them. That's why exponents expire after 60 days and are reassigned. We don't need these folks subverting that. I must confess that I was a poacher for a while (and I'll take credit for inventing the usage of the term "poach" in the first place :-) because the PrimeNet server, for a while, was not expiring exponents after 60 days. I think the 60 day expiration was a direct result of our previous poaching discussion, so in that sense, we came away with a positive innovation. For a while though, some exponents had not been checked in for months, sometimes even years, and because of an initial VERY long expected completion date, they would not have been reassigned for months or even years. So I began taking those exponents that still had over 200 or so days to completion and just whipped them out really quick on a PII. I think in that sense, poaching made excellent sense. But with the current method of expiring all exponents that haven't been checked in for 60 days or so, we don't need to be worried about it so much. I'd rather expire them after 45 days, but I won't lose sleep over it either. :-) So, my opinion comes down to this: People who reserve ONLY small exponents are doing the project a disservice by not allowing the distributed nature of the project to work. They use a fallacious argument about "keeping them out of the hands of the infidels" as justification for it. Fallacious because that's the job of Primenet's expiration policy. My 2 cents worth. Aaron _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, John R Pierce wrote: > > ... I think the 10 intervals might be a bit too draconian... I agree, 30 days should be considered a minimum. I don't know it if could be put into the primenet server, but could a 'trust' setting be put in? Maybe for the first 15 days a new person has an exponent, they should be limited to a max of 30 days with it. This could be set into the software, just so any people who join then immediatly quit don't chug up the system. Also, maybe the smallest components could be given to people with a high 'trust' rating, so we think they will get done. Obviously, anyone could fiddle their trust rating, I don't think it is worth getting too advanced, just stick in the first started date in the .ini file, don't put too much into it... Chris _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
> George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to > keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents > queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional > exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' > work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it > keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten > days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents > just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals > (milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. I think the 10 intervals might be a bit too draconian. I have most of my systems set to check in every two days, its a quick and easy way to keep track of the servers I don't directly monitor. A half dozen of my machines are various lab computers which sit around idle 99% of the time, and don't even have their consoles turned on. By your standards, 20 days would be a cutoff... Well, many of these machines are pentium 120s and stuff that take a bit over 20 days to do a LL test. Sure, they are slow. But they are steady. Of the 13 machines I have running currently, only 3 or 4 of them are faster than 200MHz. -jrp _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
A good sensible posting. I concur and thank Jeff Woods for writing it. At 11:12 AM 2/4/00 -0500, you wrote: >I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not >a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why >I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe >about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching >them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways, >and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group. > >My conclusion at the end of this message is for George's consideration, and >the rest of this message defends this conclusion: > >George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to >keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents >queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional >exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' >work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it >keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten >days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents >just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals >(milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. > >-- > >Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and >3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a >certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or >later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking >singlehandedly. > >I cannot stress this part enough: This is why we have thousands of >participants in GIMPS! It is our PRIMARY raison d'etre! To spread >around the workload to get things done faster! By trying to take 80 of >the 280 or so exponents left for doublechecking up to M37 (nearly 30% to >ONE participant!), Dave is intentionally thwarting the very purpose of >GIMPS: distributed mathematical research. DISTRIBUTED computing is key! > >Each of Dave's 80 exponents will take a P-II/400 0.09 seconds per >iteration. If the average exponent is closer to 2.8M, here's how much time >Dave has set aside: > >2.8M x 80 x 0.09 = 20,160,000 seconds DIV 86,400 = 233 days. > >That's if Dave uses P-II 400's, on PRIMARY tests. Double-checks use a >different LL code, and take longer. I doubt Dave is using P-II's for this >purpose, too. If it's P-90's, that's 233 x 4.5 (times slower) x 1.2 >(times slower to double check, a guess), or 1574 days of work queued up for >Dave. > >I can only find six named machines of Dave's in the work list. 1574 days >of work over 6 machines is an AVERAGE of 262 days of work queued up per >machine. > >What a PIG. Why does ANYONE need nine months of work queued up, >especially for machines that seem to report back to GIMPS on a daily >basis? Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to >see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want >to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime". > >Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. > >We don't want to wait a YEAR for this milestone, just because you and a >handful of others want to test all the little exponents. > >Your machines are useful to us, don't get me wrong. Nobody here wants you >and Dave (and other exponent hogs) to quit GIMPS. We just want you to >reserve a reasonable number of exponents, and take what comes to >you. These machines will be equally useful to us whether double-checking >2916117 or 4717123 and we'll get where we're going faster that way! > >Dave's machines are permanently connected (or frequently connected) -- they >have reported progress nearly daily -- slow, steady progress, but they >report. > >Thus, IMO, Dave should not have his clients set to queue up more than TWO >DAYS of work. I set mine at ONE day, so that I don't even get a new >assignment until the machine is less than a day away from finishing its >exponent and being left with NO work. And that's the way it ought to be >-- nobody ought to even be ABLE to hold up the progress of the group in >reaching milestones for this long. When your machine is ALMOST out of >work, THAT is the time to request the smallest available exponent OF THAT >MOMENT. > >So, to your paragraph below, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the >smallest available exponents but there *is* something wrong with >seeking out nine months' worth of them, and holding up the very purpose of >the group. > >If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. > >I'd have done a similar analysis on your assignments, but didn't know your >ID. You're probably not as heinous as Dave is, since he appears to be the >worst of the lot on cursory inspection, but ANYONE holding more work than >necessary is on the list of "wo
RE: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Let me give you the 'newbie' point of view to all this. I've only been part of GIMPS for a couple of months. It looked like something fun to do, useful for science, etc. and a good way to burn off those spare cycles that keep building up. :-) Here I thought I was part of some great cause and we were only here for the common good. Little did I know there really is a dark side to the force and behind the scenes GIMPS is really Peyton Place. I'm not even sure WHY anyone wants to go to the trouble of filtering out high exponents. Will this result in more LL hours worked and a higher position on the performers lists? Also, what's this about poaching? Sounds like stealing; what is there to steal in GIMPS? The biggest downside to this thread is that it exists at all. It's hard to attract new believers to a cause once they hear about the associated corruption. Cheers... Russ _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
>Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and >3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a >certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or >later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking >singlehandedly. Not so long ago David send a mail to this list on how he's doing this. He said: And now the hard and real important part: monitor your Account report EVERY DAY (I can't stress this enough, because EVERY DAY 4-5 new exponent are going to be assigned to you, if you are only able to monitor your account on the weekend modify the part* schedule and Time setting, to fit your need) and keep ONLY 60 days of work for your computer, use the release form on PrimeNet to release high exponent that you can't complete in 60 Days. and reorder your assignment so that the smallest exponent are finished first. So he takes only 60 days of work for each pc. >Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. That those exponents have gone untouched is because he is scheduling the lowest exponents first and they are finished within 3 or 4 while a lot of other exponents take months. I saw some exponents that would expire in a few days and then the data gets updated and it takes another 60 days before the exponents expire while the LL test wasn't even started on those exponents. I think David is doing a good job in completing the milestones MUCH faster. He never poaches an exponent but lets the exponents asing by the server. Although i agree with you that he could release some of the higher exponents for so that others could test them. >If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. Nobody should poach PERIOD >Any defense you'd like to offer for holding 9 months' work, I'll listen to, >but I doubt you'll come up with anything convincing. Like he said befor No more than 60 thays for each machine Sander _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Jeff Woods wrote: > > Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and > 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a > certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or > later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking > singlehandedly. > > [alot more] Some time ago I used to poach, too, taking exponents that were due to expire within 3-5 days and finish them with some leftover PII-400 power, but I stopped when the "evil, evil poaching thread" arose (lets not revive it). Back in those days, I too noticed this "diamonddave" hogging dozens of exponents (I think I even poached one or two) but as I watched him over a longer period of time, I noticed that he actually finished his assigned work quickly and effectively, much more so than the heap of assigned exponents and the number of machines we see lead to believe. He (I believe his real name is David Campeau (sp?)) seems to have enough horsepower to finish the reserved exponents in time, and what I remember from an old posting of his, he actually does it to avoid those small exponents again getting assigned to users who won't finish them, or only very slowly. I stopped worrying about diamonddave, its assignments like 2569667 D 60 52.6 105.2 105.2 20-Jan-00 21:28 14-Dec-99 03:00 Z 2593697 D 60 1482152 322.6 -35.7 24.3 19-Dec-99 01:17 19-Mar-99 03:23 philboy 2593793 D 60 322.6 -8.7 40.3 19-Dec-99 01:17 19-Mar-99 03:23 philboy 2861897 D 60446026 293.5 -21.0 39.0 05-Jan-00 16:32 17-Apr-99 05:22 SW 2941837 D 60 45517 133.5 -58.3 1.7 26-Nov-99 10:20 24-Sep-99 06:47 gallina that bother me. I actually hope diamonddave will grab them when they expire, and not an user who will again take >300 days for a exponent (and possibly not even finish it). Ciao, Alex. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: The return of poaching?
I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poaching them. I write this in the hopes that you'll see the error of your ways, and work not just for yourself, but for the good of the group. My conclusion at the end of this message is for George's consideration, and the rest of this message defends this conclusion: George: v20, *and* the PrimeNet server, ought not allow any one machine to keep more than ten times its average communication frequency in exponents queued, and no more than 60 days no matter what -- requests for additional exponents when the server knows that that machine already has two months' work ought to be denied. If a machine reports in every 3 days, let it keep no more than 30 days. If it reports in daily, let it keep ten days. By stopping exponent hogs from locking up hundreds of exponents just because they like the small ones, GIMPS will reach its goals (milestones, proving M37, etc), much faster. -- Dave has at least 80 exponents reserved between 2.4M and 3.99M. Eighty. Almost all are less than suspected M37. It is a certainty that without poaching, we will have to wait until late 2000 or later to prove M37, because Dave is trying to do all the double-checking singlehandedly. I cannot stress this part enough: This is why we have thousands of participants in GIMPS! It is our PRIMARY raison d'etre! To spread around the workload to get things done faster! By trying to take 80 of the 280 or so exponents left for doublechecking up to M37 (nearly 30% to ONE participant!), Dave is intentionally thwarting the very purpose of GIMPS: distributed mathematical research. DISTRIBUTED computing is key! Each of Dave's 80 exponents will take a P-II/400 0.09 seconds per iteration. If the average exponent is closer to 2.8M, here's how much time Dave has set aside: 2.8M x 80 x 0.09 = 20,160,000 seconds DIV 86,400 = 233 days. That's if Dave uses P-II 400's, on PRIMARY tests. Double-checks use a different LL code, and take longer. I doubt Dave is using P-II's for this purpose, too. If it's P-90's, that's 233 x 4.5 (times slower) x 1.2 (times slower to double check, a guess), or 1574 days of work queued up for Dave. I can only find six named machines of Dave's in the work list. 1574 days of work over 6 machines is an AVERAGE of 262 days of work queued up per machine. What a PIG. Why does ANYONE need nine months of work queued up, especially for machines that seem to report back to GIMPS on a daily basis? Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime". Most of Dave's assignments have gone untouched for 30 - 90 days. We don't want to wait a YEAR for this milestone, just because you and a handful of others want to test all the little exponents. Your machines are useful to us, don't get me wrong. Nobody here wants you and Dave (and other exponent hogs) to quit GIMPS. We just want you to reserve a reasonable number of exponents, and take what comes to you. These machines will be equally useful to us whether double-checking 2916117 or 4717123 and we'll get where we're going faster that way! Dave's machines are permanently connected (or frequently connected) -- they have reported progress nearly daily -- slow, steady progress, but they report. Thus, IMO, Dave should not have his clients set to queue up more than TWO DAYS of work. I set mine at ONE day, so that I don't even get a new assignment until the machine is less than a day away from finishing its exponent and being left with NO work. And that's the way it ought to be -- nobody ought to even be ABLE to hold up the progress of the group in reaching milestones for this long. When your machine is ALMOST out of work, THAT is the time to request the smallest available exponent OF THAT MOMENT. So, to your paragraph below, there's nothing wrong with seeking out the smallest available exponents but there *is* something wrong with seeking out nine months' worth of them, and holding up the very purpose of the group. If Dave gets poached, I won't shed a tear. I'd have done a similar analysis on your assignments, but didn't know your ID. You're probably not as heinous as Dave is, since he appears to be the worst of the lot on cursory inspection, but ANYONE holding more work than necessary is on the list of "won't cry for you, Argentina" folks. MOST folks understand this. There are 26,600 machines right now, and 44,200 exponents assigned -- 1.66 exponents assigned per machine. Since the software default
Mersenne: The return of poaching?
Some of you may have noticed, as I have, that the incomplete double-checks in the 2-2.5M range have been being finished up very quickly the past few weeks, much more so than the past several months. A quick look in the cleared exponents file reveals many recent results reported by a user "rick" who apparently has several fast Pentium IIs doing double-checks. A look in the the assignments file reveals not a single small exponent reserved by this user. Not a big deal in the greater scheme of things, but frustrating to people like diamonddave and myself who make an effort to seek out the smaller exponents and reserve them. I don't know exactly what our policy is on this matter, or what we can do about it the the facts are as they seem to be. But it seemed worth bringing the matter up. Gordon Bower _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
