| Author |
Message |
|---|
 RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
                    
|
|
2018 is rushing towards its conclusion. Time to decide our Challenge projects for 2019.
Ideas for 2018 challenges:
1. ESP challenge - Lennart Honary Challenge
2. GCW LLR - we've done the sieving so lets find some primes
3. PPS is Primegrid's bread and butter, should definitely have a PPS challenge, (PPSE, PPS or PPS Mega)
4. PSP LLR - due for a Challenge, we just went through a DC, so time to move it forward
5. SoB LLR - you know it. Continuing DC effort.
6. TRP LLR - due for a Challenge
7. GFN-17 Low - crunchers want to start closing the gap to Mega. Maybe we'll get 20% of the way but it's a good incentive
Tour de Primes as usual
Sub-project - date of last challenge
321 - March 2018. Last prime n=11.8M, now up to 14.5M.
Cullen - September 2018. Last prime n=6.6M, now up to 17M.
ESP - April 2018. Last prime n=11.4M, now up to 12.4M.
GCW - August 2017. Last prime n=1.8M, now up to 3.07M.
PSP - April 2017. Last prime n=19.3M, now up to 20.1M.
PPS - August 2018.
SoB - January 2018. Last prime n=31.1M, now up to 28.2M with the DC.
SR5 - June 2018. Last prime n=2.6M, now up to 2.6M.
SGS - June 2017. 5K+
TRP - October 2017. Last prime n=8.9M, now up to 9.2M.
Woodall - October 2018. Last prime n=17.0M, now up to 17M.
GCW Sieve - January 2017.
PPS Sieve - December 2017.
GFN - Next in December 2018. Largest prime found at n=20.
AP27 - Starting November 2018.
We've already had a thread with comments: Suggestions for challenges 2019.
Each user can suggest 7 challenges, and I'll tally up the votes.
If you vote for PPS or GFN please specify a sub project.
PPS sub-projects and GFN sub-projects stand together in the first round. If selected, sub-project votes comes into play to determine which sub-project(s) in a second round. Combos are also considered, but only one vote per user in the first round. e.g. User votes for GFN-22 and PPS-MEGA, votes count GFN and PPS in the first round, then if these are selected a separate round selects which sub-project(s).
Admin group then get a say before I put together a suggested schedule for comment.
If you want you can also suggest durations, themes and start times.
Votes for PRPNet and Manual sieving will not be counted.
____________
 |
|
|
dukebgVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 17
Posts: 238
ID: 950482
Credit: 23,670,125
RAC: 0
               
|
|
ESP LLR
SOB LLR
PSP LLR
PPSE LLR
GFN-17 Low
TRP LLR
GCW Sieve (unless it finishes by then) |
|
|
Keith Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 13
Posts: 436
ID: 284516
Credit: 412,580,108
RAC: 0
                    
|
|
In no particular order:
SoB: Finish the DC
GFN17-low: Get that gap to MEGA closed so the processing power can be more concentrated
PPS: (not PPSE or MEGA) Get that gap to MEGA closed so the processing power can be more concentrated
TRP: It's been a while since the DC and the last prime
PSP: It's been a while since the last challenge
ESP: Lennart Honourary
GCW-SV: Going away party
____________
My Primes
Badge Score: 2*1 + 3*1 + 4*2 + 6*4 + 7*9 + 9*1 + 10*2 = 129
 |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
              
|
|
PPS Mega March
PSP April
SGS
SoB
TRP
65-day Lennart honorary in something fundamental
PSP sv |
|
|
axnVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 07
Posts: 285
ID: 16874
Credit: 28,027,106
RAC: 0
         
|
|
SoB
PSP
ESP
TRP
GFN17-MEGA
PPSE
GCW LLR |
|
|
dthononVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 17
Posts: 393
ID: 957147
Credit: 1,424,257,210
RAC: 0
                        
|
|
SoB
GFN17-Low
PPS (not PPSE or MEGA)
TRP
PSP
ESP
321 |
|
|
|
|
|
ESP
SoB
GCW LLR
PPS (not PPSE or MEGA)
TRP
GFN-17 Low
GFN-18
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cullen
GCW
PSP
PPS & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge)
SOB
SGS
TRP
If we're unwilling to do a combined score challenge (I'm sure we're able) then I'd drop SGS from the list. |
|
|
|
|
|
ESP - Honary Challenge starting on Lennarts Birthday and running 65 days
TRP
SOB
PSP
SR5
Proth Prime Search
Extended Proth Prime Search |
|
|
|
|
|
Cullen
GCW
PSP
GFN 17 Low
SOB
SGS
AP-26/27 |
|
|
|
|
|
SOB, GCW, PSP, ESP, TRP, 321, PPSE.
GCW (which I think is the second-most important after SOB) is better to be before the sieve shutdown. Or delay the suspension until the challenge goes. Who knows maybe many big fishes will be caught and larger bases begun ;-) . |
|
|
|
|
|
PSP
SoB
GFN-15
GFN-22
SGS
ESP
GCW-Sieve
____________
Eating more cheese on Thursdays. |
|
|
robishVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 12
Posts: 1774
ID: 126266
Credit: 5,066,569,935
RAC: 0
           
|
|
CUL
SOB
GCW
GFN22 perhaps the honorary challenge of 65 days. It would certainly suit a Long challenge.
____________
My lucky numbers 10590941048576+1 and 224584605939537911+81292139*23#*n for n=0..26 |
|
|
|
|
|
TRP
321
GCW
SR5
ESP
PPS MEGA
GFN21 / GFN20 (any Genefer)
SoB
CUL
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. ESP
2. PSP LLR
3. PPS (PPSE, PPS or PPS Mega)
4. SoB LLR
5. TRP LLR
6. GFN-17 Low
7. SGS (fast quick work units for everyone even with slow cpus) |
|
|
|
|
|
PPS, PPS Mega, 321, GFN19, SOB, CUL, WOO. /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
ESP challenge - Lennart Honary Challenge |
|
|
|
|
|
GWC LLR
PPS Sieve
PPS LLR (not PPSE or MEGA)
SGS LLR
GFN-19
TRP LLR
ESP LLR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conjecture-o-rama!
____________
My Lucky Number is 1893*2^1283297+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I'm a member of Seti.Germany.
If possible, I would like to ask you to cover the following dates:
Pentathlon from 01 May 2019 till 19 May 2019
Wow! Event from 15 August 2019 till 29 August 2019 (only gpu)
WCG Birthday Challenge from 16 November till 22 November 2019 |
|
|
pschoeferVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 662
ID: 845
Credit: 2,220,370,221
RAC: 0
    
|
|
1. SoB - it was already mentioned somewhere that there will very likely be a challenge every year until the DC is finished, so we won't get around that one anyways. :)
2. ESP - Lennart Honary Challenge is great, but a 65 day challenge would only be special in the sense that it would become especially boring long before it is finished. How about one challenge of two times 6.5 days with a break in between (could be a 52 days break so that it is still 65 days from start of part 1 to end of part 2)?
3. TRP - there should be a third "conjecture challenge" and it should be shorter than 10 days if we already have SoB and ESP challenges in the 10+ days range, so TRP is the more reasonable choice than PSP.
4. GCW - we had both CUL and WOO this year, let's do the combination of their generalized forms next year (ignoring the fact that it is actually GC only ;)).
5. PPSE - we had MEGA in 2016 and plain PPS challenges every other year, but no PPSE since 2010. Ideally suited for a sprint of 1 or 2 days.
6. GFN - we had the short ones (15-17) last year and a long one (21) this year, so it's time for something in between again (18, 19, or both).
7. AP27 - another GPU project for the traditional Winter Solstice challenge and AP27 is more interesting than PPS Sieve.
There is a Conjunction of Venus and Jupiter on November 24th next year, so there could be a 5 day challenge (GCW or medium-sized GFN) from Nov 24 to Nov 29 with that theme which did not fit this year. |
|
|
Ken_g6Volunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 06
Posts: 915
ID: 3110
Credit: 183,164,814
RAC: 0
         
|
PPS & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge).
I like this idea! Though I'd rather it was:
PPSE & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge) ("Primepocalypse Now"?)
To it I'd add:
GCW Sieve & PPS Sieve (Combo Challenge) (probably in January)
PPS Mega
I don't know about other projects, but we should do something to honor Lennart. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
         
|
I like this idea! Though I'd rather it was:
PPSE & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge) ("Primepocalypse Now"?)
While Roger has almost complete authority over the challenges, be aware that the realities of server and database performance imply there are certain things we can't do. We're also going to be somewhat more cautious this time around because we're about to move to new servers and we can't be certain about performance on the new hardware until we're actually running on it.
So, a few guidelines dictated by operational issues:
1) Any challenge with short tasks (PPSE, SGS, GFN-15, GFN-16, PPS-Sieve, and maybe AP27) MUST be of short duration so we don't add too many rows to the database. How many is "too many"? We don't know. The way databases tend to work is that they work great right up until the point where they bog down and become horribly slow. In the past, challenges such as these have been limited to at most three days, but were often just one day.
2) For apps that have CPU and GPU tasks, the challenge has to be viable for the CPU tasks. That might mean that PPS-Sieve, AP27, and perhaps GFN-16 need challenges that are longer than one day.
Clearly, #1 and #2 may conflict with each other.
3) It's not just the length of the challenge, it's the length of the challenge cleanup. We prohibit purging of tasks from the database until the challenge cleanup is finished, so tasks keep accumulating during the cleanup. Fortunately, with short tasks you have short cleanups, so we're done in 2 weeks or so. But if you combine a short task with a long task, say, SGS and SoB, the cleanup will last months because of SoB while SGS will be adding many millions of tasks to the database. We absolutely can not combine short and long tasks in the same challenge.
4) If you run a challenge that is ONLY GPU, a lot of people will be angry because they can't participate at all. That means you can't run a GFN-15 challenge or a GFN-22 challenge by themselves.
Please keep the above in mind when coming up with creative ideas for challenges.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
I like this idea! Though I'd rather it was:
PPSE & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge) ("Primepocalypse Now"?)
While Roger has almost complete authority over the challenges, be aware that the realities of server and database performance imply there are certain things we can't do. We're also going to be somewhat more cautious this time around because we're about to move to new servers and we can't be certain about performance on the new hardware until we're actually running on it.
So, a few guidelines dictated by operational issues:
1) Any challenge with short tasks (PPSE, SGS, GFN-15, GFN-16, PPS-Sieve, and maybe AP27) MUST be of short duration so we don't add too many rows to the database. How many is "too many"? We don't know. The way databases tend to work is that they work great right up until the point where they bog down and become horribly slow. In the past, challenges such as these have been limited to at most three days, but were often just one day.
2) For apps that have CPU and GPU tasks, the challenge has to be viable for the CPU tasks. That might mean that PPS-Sieve, AP27, and perhaps GFN-16 need challenges that are longer than one day.
Clearly, #1 and #2 may conflict with each other.
3) It's not just the length of the challenge, it's the length of the challenge cleanup. We prohibit purging of tasks from the database until the challenge cleanup is finished, so tasks keep accumulating during the cleanup. Fortunately, with short tasks you have short cleanups, so we're done in 2 weeks or so. But if you combine a short task with a long task, say, SGS and SoB, the cleanup will last months because of SoB while SGS will be adding many millions of tasks to the database. We absolutely can not combine short and long tasks in the same challenge.
4) If you run a challenge that is ONLY GPU, a lot of people will be angry because they can't participate at all. That means you can't run a GFN-15 challenge or a GFN-22 challenge by themselves.
Please keep the above in mind when coming up with creative ideas for challenges.
Can you give out separate 'awards' for the cpu and the gpu when running challenges that do both? Or do you do that already? That way the cpu people aren't directly competing with the gpu people and vice versa. Theoretically one person could win both during a challenge but with the wide mixture of machines that's unlikely. IF you can do that then you could even separate them so you can do a cleanup in between them. |
|
|
dthononVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 17
Posts: 393
ID: 957147
Credit: 1,424,257,210
RAC: 0
|
PPS & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge).
I like this idea! Though I'd rather it was:
PPSE & GFN 17-Low (Combo Challenge) ("Primepocalypse Now"?)
Tour de Prime is, mostly, a PPSE & GFN16 challenge, with a bit of higher tasks on top. Adding another challenge with PPSE would be, in my opinion, too much for a single small task. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Can you give out separate 'awards' for the cpu and the gpu when running challenges that do both? Or do you do that already? That way the cpu people aren't directly competing with the gpu people and vice versa. Theoretically one person could win both during a challenge but with the wide mixture of machines that's unlikely. IF you can do that then you could even separate them so you can do a cleanup in between them.
No we don't do that, and I have no plans on changing how the challenge system works. Challenges need to fit into the existing framework.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1. TRP
2. 321
3. GCW
4. ESP
5. PPS MEGA
6. WOO
7. GFN17-Low |
|
|
JaySend message
Joined: 27 Feb 10
Posts: 103
ID: 56067
Credit: 53,729,466
RAC: 0
          
|
|
SOB
AP27
ESP
SOB
PSP
TRP
SOB |
|
|
|
|
SOB
AP27
ESP
SOB
PSP
TRP
SOB
I like your attitude
____________
My Lucky Number is 1893*2^1283297+1 |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
SOB
AP27
ESP
SOB
PSP
TRP
SOB
Now now dry your eyes, it's not that bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
ESP
TRP
SOB
PSP
SR5
WOO
CUL
____________
Badge Score: 2*2 + 9*5 + 4*6 + 3*7 + 2*8 + 1*9 = 119 |
|
|
|
|
...
So, a few guidelines dictated by operational issues:
...
4) If you run a challenge that is ONLY GPU, a lot of people will be angry because they can't participate at all. That means you can't run a GFN-15 challenge or a GFN-22 challenge by themselves.
...
How about two challenges in parallel, over the same time interval, scoring them separately
A: GPU only
B: CPU only
This gives people without a GPU a chance to compete on equal footing with other CPUs, and therefore gets over the issue that almost all the people with a viable GPU appear above those without.
Those with a GPU would be able to compete in two challenges at once, but those without would still be able to compete in one challenge, and might be mollified by the fact that they are not swamped by the GPU results.
I am wondering how much effort it would be to amend the code that reports on the progress of the challenges -- in my mind it could be anything from running a task twice with different startup options to a complete re-write.
Obvs the website would need to be amended slightly to link to two current challenges in parallel
OR / AND
perhaps introduce a new CPU ranking table for all future challenges that involve both CPU and GPU results, so that the CPU results are ranked separately. This differs from the above suggestion in that the challenge would be for a single project/subproject, but that the scoring would reflect which processor had done the work. Once again this gives those without viable GPUs a chance to gain a useful position in the rankings. Of course those with lots of machines would dominate the rankings in both processor types.
____________
My computers found:
9831*21441403+1 is a quadhectokilo prime prime, ie >400,000 digits ;)
252031090528237591 + 65521*149*23*19*17*13*11*7*5*3*2*n is prime for every n in { 0..20 } (an arithemtic progression of 21 primes) |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
...
So, a few guidelines dictated by operational issues:
...
4) If you run a challenge that is ONLY GPU, a lot of people will be angry because they can't participate at all. That means you can't run a GFN-15 challenge or a GFN-22 challenge by themselves.
...
How about two challenges in parallel, over the same time interval, scoring them separately
A: GPU only
B: CPU only
I'd sooner run two separate Challenges. People can choose to participate or not. I expect users to play to their strengths. This has no benefit by itself. There are subprojects where CPU and GPU exist side by side, GFN for instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestions:
SoB 15+ days
GFN17low 10 days
PPS 5 days (regular)
TRP 7 days
PSP 12 days
321 10 days
GFN22 15+ days
You can find some of my reasoning from my suggestion thread (http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=8202.
GFN17low and PPS are good small challenges, because they are the ones that dont get that much love during TdP. I'm especially keen on GFN17low. I'd also vote for sieving GFN17low a bit deeper before such a challenge (if its still beneficial).
My wild extra proposal: Have a 21 day long SoB+GFN22 challenge at the same time. Let's pump those monsters out! |
|
|
|
|
...
So, a few guidelines dictated by operational issues:
...
4) If you run a challenge that is ONLY GPU, a lot of people will be angry because they can't participate at all. That means you can't run a GFN-15 challenge or a GFN-22 challenge by themselves.
...
How about two challenges in parallel, over the same time interval, scoring them separately
A: GPU only
B: CPU only
I'd sooner run two separate Challenges. People can choose to participate or not. I expect users to play to their strengths. This has no benefit by itself. There are subprojects where CPU and GPU exist side by side, GFN for instance.
But my suggestion works round the discomfort shown by people when you run a GPU-only project. How would you suggest working around that?
____________
My computers found:
9831*21441403+1 is a quadhectokilo prime prime, ie >400,000 digits ;)
252031090528237591 + 65521*149*23*19*17*13*11*7*5*3*2*n is prime for every n in { 0..20 } (an arithemtic progression of 21 primes) |
|
|
|
|
|
1. SOB - work on the DC
2. ESP
3. SOB - a vote for either a second SOB challenge or "double-wide" single challenge.
4. TRP
5. GFN-18 - dunno, just feeling lucky.
6. PPS-Mega
7. GCW - as mentioned at the start, it's time to put all that sieving to work.
g
____________
Badge score: 5*1 + 6*12 + 8*2 + 10*4 + 12*1 = 145
|
|
|
|
|
But my suggestion works round the discomfort shown by people when you run a GPU-only project. How would you suggest working around that?
Not sure I follow here. What discomfort? Folks have the freedom to run or not run, buy or not buy. Sorry but I am one of those folks who doesn't believe in a world where if you are not willing to do what it takes to be competitive then the world should change and make it easier or even un-necessary to work at it. I'm am not trying to be ugly so please don't take this as such. I just believe that there will always be folks who are willing to get the latest and greatest which is their choice. That in no way makes some one who doesn't unfairly disadvantaged. It's their choice (well maybe not entirely).
I have old cpu's and old gpu's so in your thinking, where would it stop on trying to make folks comfortable? Following your statement, we would create challenges that separate cpu and gpu and then age of each? Just saying.
Rick |
|
|
rogueVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 07
Posts: 1218
ID: 12001
Credit: 18,565,548
RAC: 0
|
|
IMO, any project that has a well-defined boundary is a good candidate for a challenge. The two projects that come to mind are:
PPS - because once n reaches PPS Mega territory, then PPS Mega can be shut down
GFN17 Low - because once b reaches GFN17 Mega territory, then there will be only one GFN17 sub-project
The difficulty with PPS is that there are millions of tests left to reach PPS Mega.
It would be nice to not only know when the last challenge was for a project, but when the last prime was found. This clearly has more value for projects where primes are more rare, such as SoB, Cullen, and GCW.
If you really want people to vote, then I suggest you use a weighted voting system. Each person who votes rates projects from 1 to x, with x being the number of projects and no two projects have the same weight. That tells you the projects that should have challenges. You then provide a system where they can decide the length of each chosen project, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 14 days, etc. Once that is done you just need to put them on the calendar.
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
It would be nice to not only know when the last challenge was for a project, but when the last prime was found.
I can do that. Actually, anyone could do that. Anyway, here's Roger's list from the OP, with the date of the last prime:
Sub-project - date of last challenge
321 - March 2018. Last prime n=11.8M, now up to 14.5M. Last prime 2015-06-23
Cullen - September 2018. Last prime n=6.6M, now up to 17M. Last prime 2009-07-25
ESP - April 2018. Last prime n=11.4M, now up to 12.4M. Last prime 2018-04-03
GCW - August 2017. Last prime n=1.8M, now up to 3.07M. Last prime 2018-03-11
PSP - April 2017. Last prime n=19.3M, now up to 20.1M. Last prime 2017-09-17
PPS - August 2018. Last primes (all flavors, very recently)
SoB - January 2018. Last prime n=31.1M, now up to 28.2M with the DC. Last prime 2016-10-31
SR5 - June 2018. Last prime n=2.6M, now up to 2.6M. Last prime 2018-08-15
SGS - June 2017. 5K+ Last prime recent, Last SGS 2016-02-29, Last twin 2016-02-29
TRP - October 2017. Last prime n=8.9M, now up to 9.2M. Last prime 2017-12-13
Woodall - October 2018. Last prime n=17.0M, now up to 17M. Last prime 2018-03-21
GCW Sieve - January 2017.
PPS Sieve - December 2017.
GFN - Next in December 2018. Largest prime found at n=20. Last primes, all N 15-20 recent, 21 NEVER, 22 NEVER
AP27 - Starting November 2018. Last AP26 recent, Last AP27 NEVER
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 885
ID: 370496
Credit: 334,085,845
RAC: 0
|
|
In no particular order:
SOB - It's SOB.
Cullen - A 10 day challenge starting July 25th to honor the 10y anniversary of the last discovery.
GFN-21 - We shall find the first one.
ESP - Help catch up to PSP, also Lennart.
PPS - Help catch up to Mega.
TRP - I like it.
SR5 - I like it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
But my suggestion works round the discomfort shown by people when you run a GPU-only project. How would you suggest working around that?
Not sure I follow here. What discomfort?
Rick, it is often helpful to prune a quote before replying, but NOT when you prune out the part that answers the question you ask.
My post to which you are replying was itself a response to the suggestion by Michael that some folks get angry about GPU-only challenges. That is the discomfort that I was responding to.
To make it easy for you to follow this chain of thought I included Michael's words in the post you are answering.
You are of course free to disagree with me, but please take my comments IN CONTEXT when replying -- whether to agree or disagree.
I have old cpu's and old gpu's so in your thinking, where would it stop on trying to make folks comfortable? Following your statement, we would create challenges that separate cpu and gpu and then age of each?
Not "my thinking" actually. I was taking Michael's comment as probably accurate, given that he is by far the most prolific writer on these boards, and is an official part of the team
I would like to ask again: given Michael's observation that folks get angry when a GPU-only challenge is issued, how would YOU address that?
____________
My computers found:
9831*21441403+1 is a quadhectokilo prime prime, ie >400,000 digits ;)
252031090528237591 + 65521*149*23*19*17*13*11*7*5*3*2*n is prime for every n in { 0..20 } (an arithemtic progression of 21 primes) |
|
|
|
|
I would like to ask again: given Michael's observation that folks get angry when a GPU-only challenge is issued, how would YOU address that?
First thanks for pointing out the remark. That however doesn't change my opinion.
If the admins see fit to address this in a different way such as you suggest I have no issue with that either because I choose to be a participant at this project.
One of the better parts of PG is that everyone is given the freedom to express their opinions.
Rick |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing there's enough sieving done every day, so I vote for GFNs and LLRs:
llrTRP
llrESP
llrSGS
genefer 17 mega
llrPSP
llrGCW
genefer 18 |
|
|
|
|
|
321
Extended Sierpinski Problem
Prime Sierpinski Problem
PPS (not PPSE neither PPS Mega)
Seventeen or Bust
The Riesel Problem
Genefer 17 Low
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
tngSend message
Joined: 29 Aug 10
Posts: 398
ID: 66603
Credit: 22,925,088,044
RAC: 1
                              
|
|
My vote:
SoB -- work on the DC
AP27 -- works for GPU and CPU, and it's not too hard to find at least an AP20
GFN 15,16,17 low (like in 2017) -- again works for CPU and GPU, and should satisfy those who want to push to complete GFN17 Low
TRP -- needs the help
ESP -- for Lennart, and needs the help
PPS-Mega -- let's find mega primes
321 -- long time since the last prime
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
SGS - 2 day - "Memory Lane" or "Founders" challenge commemorating those of us who started with TPS (or earlier...) as I see SGS as the direct descendant of the TPS search. 2 days for the Twin part.
I have no particular input beyond that.
Edit: Wow, I just noticed it has been 13 years now...
____________
 |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
|
Results from Round 1 of the voting are in:
Project Total Rank
321 9 8
Cullen 6 10
ESP 22 4
GCW 12 7
PSP 16 6
PPS 22 4
SoB 24 1
SR5 5 11
SGS 7 9
TRP 24 1
Woodall 3 15
GCW-Sv 4 12
PPS-Sv 4 12
GFN 24 1
AP27 4 12
Total is total number of votes recorded for each Sub project.
Rank is based on total number of votes. So there was a 3 way tie for first and a two way tie for fourth. Order they come in doesn't matter as long as they make the cut-off.
GFN and PPS both made the cut-off, so they'll each have their own second round.
If you haven't specified which GFN or PPS sub project(s) you prefer then you can vote now. Combos are also counted.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
321
GFN-21
TRP
SoB |
|
|
dukebgVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 17
Posts: 238
ID: 950482
Credit: 23,670,125
RAC: 0
|
|
What's the cut-off value? We seem to have 8-9 challenges a year, the number isn't exact. We were voting for 7, so I guess the implication is there'll be 7 challenges, but I just wanted to have it clear |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, not sure how many projects we can suggest, but if 7 is not the rule anymore, then my voting starts from the top being the most preferred :)
ESP - 65 days honary challenge for Lennart - because Lennart was extraordinary and so are we
TRP
SR5
PSP
SOB
Generalized Cullen Woodall
Thank you! |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
What's the cut-off value? We seem to have 8-9 challenges a year, the number isn't exact. We were voting for 7, so I guess the implication is there'll be 7 challenges, but I just wanted to have it clear
I am thinking at least 7 challenges. If we have longer challenges, should be balanced by less challenges. Will become clearer once I put the suggested schedule together. Certainly no more than 9 challenges.
If anyone votes for more than 7 challenges, I only count the first 7.
In the seond round you can vote for as many PPS and GFN sub-projects as you like. However voting for all of them has the same affect as not voting, as your not showing any preference. |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
|
Results from Round 2 of the voting are in:
GFN Project Total Rank
GFN 15 2 6
GFN 16 1 7
GFN 17 Low 12 1
GFN 17 Mega 1 7
GFN 18 4 2
GFN 19 3 3
GFN 20 1 7
GFN 21 3 3
GFN 22 3 3
PPS Project Total Rank
PPSE 6 3
PPS 11 1
PPS Mega 8 2
Combo Total
PPSE & 17 Low 1
PPS & 17 Low 1
GCW Sv & Psv 1
SoB & 22 1
GFN-17 Low and PPS are the clear winners.
I've added chip's votes to my first round post.
So the line up for 2019 will be:
SoB
TRP
GFN-17 Low
ESP
PPS
PSP
GCW
On the bench, depending how many Challenges we have, are:
321
SGS
Thanks everyone for your suggestions!
Next I'll put together a schedule in a new thread.
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
Tentative Schedule
http://www.primegrid.com/challenge/2019_challenge.php
The last challenge is listed as "TBD". That's the spot for GFN-17-Low. We're still discussing that one.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
pschoeferVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 662
ID: 845
Credit: 2,220,370,221
RAC: 0
|
|
Good job. Many different FFT lengths, not too long in total, although I'd like to see at least one of the short task challenges (PPS, AP27, GFN-17-Low) running only for 3 days. Two comments regarding the themes:
1) I'm not sure about the 25th anniversary of discovery of the first extrasolar planets. Wolszczan & Frail reported two planets around a pulsar in January 1992, and the first discovery around a main-sequence star was announced in October 1995 (Mayor & Queloz).
2) While I understand the problem with 'Winter Solstice', there are still two solstices per year. 'December Solstice' would be a neutral, but unambiguous name. :) |
|
|
KeithVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 13
Posts: 436
ID: 284516
Credit: 412,580,108
RAC: 0
|
Good job. Many different FFT lengths, not too long in total, although I'd like to see at least one of the short task challenges (PPS, AP27, GFN-17-Low) running only for 3 days.
I agree that PPS should perhaps be three days instead of five.
GFN17low and AP27 are fast on GPUs, but slower on CPUs and I think we should give CPUs every opportunity to participate meaningfully in those in the same way that CPUs are having an impact in the current GFN21 challenge.
Recent average CPU time: 11:38:36 for GFN17low
Recent average CPU time: 27:58:58 for AP27
Otherwise looks good to me!
____________
My Primes
Badge Score: 2*1 + 3*1 + 4*2 + 6*4 + 7*9 + 9*1 + 10*2 = 129
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
GFN17low and AP27 are fast on GPUs, but slower on CPUs and I think we should give CPUs every opportunity to participate meaningfully in those in the same way that CPUs are having an impact in the current GFN21 challenge.
The key word there is "meaningfully". CPUs are merely an afterthought in other GPU challenges unless you have a couple of hundred server cores at your disposal. And even then, that whole datacenter's output can usually be matched by a single high-end GPU.
GFN21 is a special case -- probably unique amongst all of PrimeGrid's projects. It's the only CPU/GPU project where the CPU app can run multi-threaded, and it's the only one where we can use FMA3 transforms. Every other CPU app is MUCH slower than the corresponding GPU app. GFN16 isn't as horribly lopsided as the others only because the tasks are so small that the kernels don't run very efficiently on todays monster GPUs.
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 885
ID: 370496
Credit: 334,085,845
RAC: 0
|
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
If you wanted to, you could set the server to only send tasks if it sees your CPU reporting FMA3 and sending the task with a "-t 2" flag at bare minimum, right? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
If you wanted to, you could set the server to only send tasks if it sees your CPU reporting FMA3 and sending the task with a "-t 2" flag at bare minimum, right?
Probably on the fma3 part, not so sure about the multi-threading part. Both would need a lot of testing.
Keep in mind that CPU speed is only one part of the problem. You may have the lastest 12 core i9-XE CPU, but if you're only running it an hour or two every couple of days it's still going to take a long time to finish a task like that.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
In looking at some of my units in progress, recent CPU architectures are very much productive when it comes to GFN21 and I would love to see GFN22 turned back on once again.
Here is another vote for GFN22 (CPU). |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
In looking at some of my units in progress, recent CPU architectures are very much productive when it comes to GFN21 and I would love to see GFN22 turned back on once again.
Here is another vote for GFN22 (CPU).
It's not a vote, and if it was, there would only be two votes that count and your's isn't one of them. ;)
The problem isn't that there aren't CPUs that can do the job. There's plenty of very capable CPUs out there. This was also true in 2015 when we first enabled GFN-22 CPU jobs.
The problem is keeping out the slow CPUs and other systems that will take much too long to run the tasks.
I suppose I could set it up so that you need our permission to run GFN-22 CPU tasks. Maybe we could do that, and for a challenge allow everyone to participate.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
This makes me want to turn GFN22 CPU apps back on.
In looking at some of my units in progress, recent CPU architectures are very much productive when it comes to GFN21 and I would love to see GFN22 turned back on once again.
Here is another vote for GFN22 (CPU).
It's not a vote, and if it was, there would only be two votes that count and your's isn't one of them. ;)
I was using a figure of speech. :-)
I suppose I could set it up so that you need our permission to run GFN-22 CPU tasks. Maybe we could do that, and for a challenge allow everyone to participate.
If it isn't too much trouble, please do find a way to make GFN22's available for those with capable CPU's. |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
|
Nothing too disuptive this end overall.
You spelt October wrong & it's in Sep.
I agree re exoplanets, distinctly associated Oct 1995 with 51 Peg & its ilk.
Definitely 50 years since Moon landing as that's a major part of next year.
I like the idea of permission to do G22 CPU. |
|
|
KeithVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 8 Dec 13
Posts: 436
ID: 284516
Credit: 412,580,108
RAC: 0
|
You spelt October wrong & it's in Sep.
Oktoberfest is the name of the celebration and it usually happens near the end of September.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest
In my previous post that Michael addressed I almost did not use the word "meaningfully". Now I'm glad I added that distinction to the post before hitting "post reply".
____________
My Primes
Badge Score: 2*1 + 3*1 + 4*2 + 6*4 + 7*9 + 9*1 + 10*2 = 129
|
|
|
|
|
Tentative Schedule
http://www.primegrid.com/challenge/2019_challenge.php
The last challenge is listed as "TBD". That's the spot for GFN-17-Low. We're still discussing that one.
Nice list! :) I'm rooting for GFN17low, but I understand the fact that people might also be more interested in the higher n's. |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
Good job. Many different FFT lengths, not too long in total, although I'd like to see at least one of the short task challenges (PPS, AP27, GFN-17-Low) running only for 3 days. Two comments regarding the themes:
1) I'm not sure about the 25th anniversary of discovery of the first extrasolar planets. Wolszczan & Frail reported two planets around a pulsar in January 1992, and the first discovery around a main-sequence star was announced in October 1995 (Mayor & Queloz).
2) While I understand the problem with 'Winter Solstice', there are still two solstices per year. 'December Solstice' would be a neutral, but unambiguous name. :)
1) I got the anniversary from here. Clearly it's wrong. I'll have to come up with another theme.
2) Yes, we'll rename it December Solstice Challenge. Sounds better than Solstice Challenge. |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
1) I'm not sure about the 25th anniversary of discovery of the first extrasolar planets. Wolszczan & Frail reported two planets around a pulsar in January 1992, and the first discovery around a main-sequence star was announced in October 1995 (Mayor & Queloz).
1) I got the anniversary from here. Clearly it's wrong. I'll have to come up with another theme.
OK. We can either:
a) Celebrate Mathematics Aweness Month in April, or
b) Celebrate Hans Ivar Riesel's 90th birthday on 28th May 2019 with a week long TRP challenge, and swap GCW LLR into the March Chinese New Year slot.
Let me know if anyone has a preference. |
|
|
|
|
OK. We can either:
a) Celebrate Mathematics Aweness Month in April, or
b) Celebrate Hans Ivar Riesel's 90th birthday on 28th May 2019 with a week long TRP challenge, and swap GCW LLR into the March Chinese New Year slot.
Let me know if anyone has a preference.
b) |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
OK. We can either:
a) Celebrate Mathematics Aweness Month in April, or
b) Celebrate Hans Ivar Riesel's 90th birthday on 28th May 2019 with a week long TRP challenge, and swap GCW LLR into the March Chinese New Year slot.
Let me know if anyone has a preference.
I like the idea of celebrating Riesel's 90th birthday, so (b).
Also, how about "Aussie Summer Solstice" instead of "December Solstice"? "December" seems very bland.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
|
B. |
|
|
|
|
|
B
And B again because he has got a rather nice name!
ðŸ˜ðŸ‘
With regards
Hans Sveen
____________
MyStats
My Badges |
|
|
|
|
|
I like the B option.
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
B!
____________
DeleteNull |
|
|
RogerVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 11
Posts: 1137
ID: 120786
Credit: 267,535,355
RAC: 0
|
|
Very good. So we have:
- 5 day GCW LLR 5-10 March 18:00 UTC Year of the Pig Challenge
- 7 day TRP LLR 24-31 May 00:00 UTC Hans Ivar Riesel's 90th Birthday Challenge
And why not have a Hot Aussie Solstice. It's 41 deg C here today! |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Very good. So we have:
- 5 day GCW LLR 5-10 March 18:00 UTC Year of the Pig Challenge
- 7 day TRP LLR 24-31 May 00:00 UTC Hans Ivar Riesel's 90th Birthday Challenge
And why not have a Hot Aussie Solstice. It's 41 deg C here today!
Most recent version of the challenge schedule:
http://www.primegrid.com/challenge/2019_challenge.php
I took some artistic liberty with the last name. Let me know what you think. :)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Sysadm@NbgVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 5 Feb 08
Posts: 1188
ID: 18646
Credit: 490,016,651
RAC: 0
      
|
Most recent version of the challenge schedule:
http://www.primegrid.com/challenge/2019_challenge.php
I took some artistic liberty with the last name. Let me know what you think. :)
:thumbup: ;-)
____________
Sysadm@Nbg
my current lucky number: 3749*2^1555697+1
PSA-PRPNet-Stats-URL: http://u-g-f.de/PRPNet/
 |
|
|
|
|
I took some artistic liberty with the last name. Let me know what you think. :)
Crikey!
Mate I think she's a ripper! |
|
|
Ken_g6Volunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 06
Posts: 915
ID: 3110
Credit: 183,164,814
RAC: 0
|
|
This is my first time looking in on 2019 challenges in awhile. I'm seeing a lot of surprises.
1. Fifteen days for SoB? That's a lot!
2. No challenge less than 5 days? Not even in July or August? That's a "challenging" schedule!
3. No sieves? I get that PPS Sieve is pretty well done, but is there nothing that needs sieving?
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
Here's the ones I can answer:
1. Fifteen days for SoB? That's a lot!
That's the same as it was last year, and the same as it will likely be in the following years until the double check is finished.
3. No sieves? I get that PPS Sieve is pretty well done, but is there nothing that needs sieving?
There's only two sieves at the moment. GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve. |
|
|
JimBHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 11
Posts: 916
ID: 107307
Credit: 974,514,092
RAC: 0
 
|
GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve.
GCW Sieve will be gone around March. There's no reason to have a challenge on a project that's reached optimal sieving. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote: GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve.
GCW Sieve will be gone around March. There's no reason to have a challenge on a project that's reached optimal sieving.
Besides, you're trying to get ONE-LAST-BADGEtm in GCW-Sieve, and running a challenge can only mean it will finish sooner. Bad for you, no?
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve.
GCW Sieve will be gone around March. There's no reason to have a challenge on a project that's reached optimal sieving.
A GCW LLR challenge is scheduled for Mar/2019 as per http://www.primegrid.com/challenge/2019_challenge.php. I am suggesting changing the GCW LLR challenge to an empty slot (Apr/2019).
Thanks for the confirmation surrounding GCW Sieve. |
|
|
|
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote: GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve.
GCW Sieve will be gone around March. There's no reason to have a challenge on a project that's reached optimal sieving.
Besides, you're trying to get ONE-LAST-BADGEtm in GCW-Sieve, and running a challenge can only mean it will finish sooner. Bad for you, no?
I think there is confusion between GCW Sieve and GCW LLR. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote: GCW is in its final stages, and PPS-Sieve is so far ahead of the primality testing what we're sieving now won't be used for a very long time.
Nothing is scheduled for April/2019. How about moving the current March challenge (GCW LLR) to April so that folks can participate with both the final stages of GCW Sieve in March and also with GCW LLR now in April in lieu of March? If nothing else, it will maximize the number of users participating in the GCW LLR challenge who would otherwise be busy with GCW Sieve.
GCW Sieve will be gone around March. There's no reason to have a challenge on a project that's reached optimal sieving.
Besides, you're trying to get ONE-LAST-BADGEtm in GCW-Sieve, and running a challenge can only mean it will finish sooner. Bad for you, no?
I think there is confusion between GCW Sieve and GCW LLR.
Gotcha. I see what you're saying.
Two comments:
1) There's the whole thing regarding the word "about". As in, "The sieve will be ending in ABOUT a year." I haven't bothered to look up my original message about the impending demise of GCW-Sieve, but considering it was a year in advance, there's no way I could have been certain about exactly when it would end, and I would have been certain to be clear about that. My margin of error, that long ago, was about plus or minus 6 months. Even today, I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it being specifically March. It might be March. It might be April. It might be August. Or...
2) There's some new software in the works. If it pans out, that would speed up the sieve. If that happens, the optimal depth increases. If the optimal depth increases, we keep running the sieve for a lot longer.
As of now, we're sticking with "March" only because we don't really have a better estimate and I'd rather the sieve ends later than you're expecting than have it end earlier than you're expecting. It's very likely to be later than that, and possibly a lot later. There's no reason to to be changing the challenge schedule.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
1) There's the whole thing regarding the word "about". As in, "The sieve will be ending in ABOUT a year."
I agree but last month Jim mentioned "We promised a year on 2018-03-28. GCW Sieve will not shut down before then ...." (message #121952) which nicely addressed your original estimate (at least on the lower cut-off).
Anyway, I am walking on a tightrope and hence for all of this nonsense. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
1) There's the whole thing regarding the word "about". As in, "The sieve will be ending in ABOUT a year."
I agree but last month Jim mentioned "We promised a year on 2018-03-28. GCW Sieve will not shut down before then ...." (message #121952) which nicely addressed your original estimate (at least on the lower cut-off).
Anyway, I am walking on a tightrope and hence for all of this nonsense.
I was actually a little surprised when Jim said that, but he knows more about the status of sieving than I do. Nine months ago, "a year" seemed like a reasonable estimate, give or take... a lot, either way.
More recently, it's become clearer that we're more likely to err on the longer side, which is why Jim said what he did.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
1) There's the whole thing regarding the word "about". As in, "The sieve will be ending in ABOUT a year."
I agree but last month Jim mentioned "We promised a year on 2018-03-28. GCW Sieve will not shut down before then ...." (message #121952) which nicely addressed your original estimate (at least on the lower cut-off).
Anyway, I am walking on a tightrope and hence for all of this nonsense.
I was actually a little surprised when Jim said that, but he knows more about the status of sieving than I do. Nine months ago, "a year" seemed like a reasonable estimate, give or take... a lot, either way.
More recently, it's become clearer that we're more likely to err on the longer side, which is why Jim said what he did.
As of Feb 1st, I will need 20 days of further crunching. I hope you don't mind me asking then for hopefully a more firm end-date so that I will know what to do during February itself (TdP or GCW Sieve). I don't mean to be a PITA but a LOT of hard work went into GCW Sieve to get this far. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
1) There's the whole thing regarding the word "about". As in, "The sieve will be ending in ABOUT a year."
I agree but last month Jim mentioned "We promised a year on 2018-03-28. GCW Sieve will not shut down before then ...." (message #121952) which nicely addressed your original estimate (at least on the lower cut-off).
Anyway, I am walking on a tightrope and hence for all of this nonsense.
I was actually a little surprised when Jim said that, but he knows more about the status of sieving than I do. Nine months ago, "a year" seemed like a reasonable estimate, give or take... a lot, either way.
More recently, it's become clearer that we're more likely to err on the longer side, which is why Jim said what he did.
As of Feb 1st, I will need 20 days of further crunching. I hope you don't mind me asking then for hopefully a more firm end-date so that I will know what to do during February itself (TdP or GCW Sieve). I don't mean to be a PITA but a LOT of hard work went into GCW Sieve to get this far.
You can ask -- but I'm always giving you the best information that's available. I can't tell you what we don't know.
I suspect, but can't guarantee, that you'll have plenty of time to get the badge in March. Don't forget that I guarantee you at least 30 days notice of when we're going to shut down a project. If you only will need 20 days, you have nothing to worry about because I have NOT yet given that 30 day notice. Right now you don't have anything to worry about.
AND WITH THAT, NO MORE TALKING ABOUT GCW SIEVE IN THIS THREAD. If you want to continue this, take the discussion over to GCW. Thank you.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
