On 20 Jul 2000 00:09:20 -0400 "Robert Deininger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have saved some of the hourly status and cleared reports, and I think
> I see what happened.
>
> On 13-May-2000:
> 8277083 64 4126527 105.0 -12.1 42.9
> 16-Apr-00 19:40 29-Jan-00 22:24 floris Vincent
>
> This exponent was assigned to floris on 29-Jan-2000.
>
> On 25-Jun-2000:
> 8277083 64 4126527 148.0 -55.1 -0.1
> 16-Apr-00 19:40 29-Jan-00 22:24 floris Vincent
>
> The exponent had just expired, but is still assigned to floris.
I realize there are participants who will undergo "agonies similar
to giving birth" unless ALL exponents through xxxxxxx are checked
by such-and-such a date. Nevertheless, as the exponents being
worked on start taking longer and longer on any given machine,
could we PLEASE refocus GIMPS recordkeeping on the 'humane' aspect
of the effort, rather than on the 'treadmill' aspect ?
Because the GIMPS expiration limit has stayed at 60 days (rather
than increasing with the exponents) I no longer try to run LL tests
with my K6-III machine. [I run offline. If I am forced to "check
in" by a given date even though I have not finished, for me it is
simpler to just decline to participate.]
The material I quoted from Robert Deininger appears to me to indicate
that somebody who was working on an exponent failed to "check in" for
at least 70 days. The exponent got assigned to a second person, who
got upset when the original person suddenly completed his LL test.
Wouldn't it be more 'humane' to wait a bit (i.e., to not 'expire'
assignments after 70 days) ? Will the project truly suffer if
"seemingly abandoned" exponents are NOT reassigned on a 'treadmill'
schedule ?
mikus
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
