COMPLETE!!!! Thinking out loud about getting under 20M unfactored exponents
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/url]
Breaking it down I'm thinking if each 100M range has less than 2M unfactored we have the desired end result. Similarly if each 10M range has less than 200K unfactored... or each 1M range has less than 20K unfactored... or each 100K range has less than 2,000 unfactored. So I did some Excel ciphering looking at:  how many more factors are required in each range  how many exponents need to be TF'd at the current bit level to get there (could require several bit levels to complete)  how many GhzDays each assignment would take.  I stopped at the 59M range thinking current GPU TF bit levels will factor adequately (most of the time) to get below my limits of interest here. I did this for the 10M, 1M and 100K ranges. Then I added it all up and came up with very roughly 250M GhzDays of TF with some ranges requiring up to 10 more bit levels of TF. WOW. In perspective, my 1,000 per day GPUs would take 250K days: 685 years. Oh dear; that's way more than I had expected. Note: I only considered TF. I understand that in some (many?) cases ECM (on lower exponents) and P1 could find factors much quicker. In either case it looks like this will be a very far off milestone. [CODE] AND WE ARE DONE!!!! [/CODE] 
It just means we need more GPUs.
For instance if we can get 1000 high end GPUs on it, we could get it done in under a year based on your maths. We just need to find an organisation with a spare 800K USD who had a sudden urge to generously donate GPUs to anyone that requests one. 
And what would this accomplisch?

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;464195]And what would this accomplisch?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely nothing of consequence. Nothing more than another milestone of interest to some. 
If your best tool is a factoring machine you view everything as as entities to be factored. :)
Jacob 
[QUOTE=S485122;464237]If your best tool is a factoring machine you view everything as as entities to be factored. :)[/QUOTE]
Just to reflect Jacob... Sometimes it is worth the effort to think about what other people are thinking about... In addition to the Philips, are you familiar with the Roberson? The hex? I have actually watched people slam screws into wood using a hammer, because the Philips screws' heads were stripped with a screw driver which was too small. I actually learned some new words (containing many symbols, including (!*%$@***!!!)) from men who should have understood the simplicity of the situation. For what that is worth.... 
[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;464195]And what would this accomplisch?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what the OP has in mind, but I know that full factorizations of small Mersenne numbers are very useful. For example, they greatly speed up the [url=http://www.janfeitsma.nl/math/psp2/notsqrtsmooth]nonsqrtsmooth part[/url] (which dominates computationally) of [url=http://www.janfeitsma.nl/math/psp2/index]Feitsma's algorithm[/url] for listing 2pseudoprimes. I've heard interest in extending his work beyond 2^64 so this isn't just academic. As for finding individual factors, I don't know... I guess it just gives simpler/shorter certificates of compositeness. 
[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;464195]And what would this accomplisch?[/QUOTE]
because they are there and because we can :) 
[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;464195]And what would this accomplisch?[/QUOTE]
if done high enough, in theory, it could deplete the candidate factors for larger mersenne numbers a bit. 
[QUOTE=science_man_88;464251]if done high enough, in theory, it could deplete the candidate factors for larger mersenne numbers a bit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah... In theory.... 
1 Attachment(s)
I believe just about everyone here recognizes the image I have attached. This ends at 2[SUP]80[/SUP]. I suppose some here could comfortably TF to this level in a reasonable period of time. Of course, I do not know what most would consider "reasonable."
The last I heard, a computer "generation" was in the area of 18 months. It is probably less now. It would take many generations of tech growth to get to the level the OP was writing about. [U]Point[/U]: Let us do now what needs to be done now, and not think about the future. :smile: 
I think I'll start somewhere in this range....some day soon.
This is the current DC range so it can help there too. [CODE] 100K ToGo 2^N 40.0 2059 72 40.1 2116 72 40.2 2046 72 40.3 2096 72 40.4 2032 72 40.5 2077 72 40.6 2023 72 40.7 2033 72 40.8 2066 72 40.9 2004 72 41.0 2063 72 41.1 2093 72 41.2 2012 72 41.3 2041 72 41.5 2035 72 41.6 2049 72 41.7 2099 72 41.8 2051 72 41.9 2047 72 42.0 2021 72 42.1 2017 72 42.2 2014 72 42.3 2045 72 42.4 2022 72 42.5 2003 72 42.6 2129 72 42.7 2035 72 42.8 2015 72 42.9 2067 72 43.0 2133 72 43.1 2046 72 43.2 2064 72 43.3 2097 72 43.4 2102 72 43.6 2021 72 43.7 2025 72 43.8 2049 72 43.9 2028 72 44.0 2017 72 44.1 2012 72 44.2 2024 72 44.6 2098 72 44.7 2060 72 44.8 2009 72 44.9 2034 72 45.0 2015 72 45.2 2046 72 45.3 2090 72 45.4 2014 72 45.5 2096 72 45.6 2024 72 45.7 2031 72 45.8 2093 72 46.0 2042 72 46.1 2005 72 46.2 2028 72 46.3 2097 72 46.5 2061 72 46.6 2054 72 46.7 2044 72 46.8 2030 72 47.0 2025 72 47.1 2060 72 47.2 2038 72 47.5 2065 72 47.6 2019 72 47.7 2046 72 47.8 2074 72 48.0 2028 72 48.1 2026 72 48.2 2053 72 48.3 2035 72 48.4 2113 72 48.6 2030 72 48.7 2029 72 48.9 2023 72 49.1 2004 72 49.3 2049 72 49.4 2081 72 49.5 2056 72 49.6 2121 72 49.8 2072 72 49.9 2008 72 50.2 2053 73 50.3 2034 73 50.4 2019 73 50.6 2005 73 50.8 2012 73 50.9 2017 73 51.3 2000 73 51.7 2004 73 52.2 2003 73 52.3 2057 73 52.4 2005 73 52.9 2045 73 53.2 2034 73 53.3 2002 73 53.5 2029 73 53.9 2053 73 54.0 2018 73 54.2 2019 73 54.6 2009 73 55.0 2009 73 55.4 2011 73 55.6 2016 73 55.9 2011 73 56.0 2002 73 56.1 2010 73 56.3 2032 73 56.5 2032 73 56.6 2043 73 56.7 2027 73 56.8 2061 73 57.4 2009 73 57.6 2030 73 57.7 2008 73 57.8 2004 73 58.1 2032 73 58.7 2067 73 58.8 2019 73 59.4 2065 73 59.6 2031 73 59.9 2004 73[/CODE] A lot of these will have poor P1; might be more efficient to start there? 
So here's my plan....
I will be starting my little pet project within the next week with 2 GPUs and adding about 30 Cores a few weeks later.
I'll be working in the extremes ranges. The bigger horses in the 40M and 50M ranges. The side benefit is that this will reduce the number requiring DC. The smaller ponies in the 2M range. For the GPUs there are about 16,000 Assignments in the high 40's factored below the yellow bar: [url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/4000[/url] I expect to find about 200 factors there. For the faster cores with adequate RAM I will be P1'ing exponents in that same range that were done with B1=B2. These seem to give better odds at finding a factor than doing P1 where the B1 and B2 bounds were less than adequate. I'll let a few slower cores dabble at the low end (2M) doing ECM. ================= If anyone is intrigued you are more than welcome to join in. Keep me posted so we don't step on each other's toes. See the first post for the details on this little initiative. Wayne 
[QUOTE=petrw1;466721]For the GPUs there are about 16,000 Assignments in the high 40's factored below the yellow bar: [url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/4000[/url] I expect to find about 200 factors there.
If anyone is intrigued you are more than welcome to join in. Keep me posted so we don't step on each other's toes.[/QUOTE] After conferring with Wayne, I have reenabled DCTF on GPU72 to take the candidates from 48.8M to 50M up to (at least) 73 bits (the optimal economic crossover point for contemporary GPUs). This is to help avoid any "toes being stepped on". If anyone is interested, the DCTF manual assignments page has been reenabled, and the spiders (MISFIT et al) can simply ask for DCTF work again. 
For what it is worth, if been redoing P1 on exponents that had their P1 done with B1=B2 (usually on machines with no spare memory to do the higher B2 level). Almost all of it in the 10M to 20M range. Mostly with B1=300000 and B2=6000000. About one in 38 candidates yields a new found factor on a previously unfactored exponent.

[QUOTE=tha;467296]For what it is worth, if been redoing P1 on exponents that had their P1 done with B1=B2 (usually on machines with no spare memory to do the higher B2 level). Almost all of it in the 10M to 20M range. Mostly with B1=300000 and B2=6000000. About one in 38 candidates yields a new found factor on a previously unfactored exponent.[/QUOTE]
Thanks....I'll note that and try not to step on your toes. I realize my little subproject is actually quite a massive undertaking that I couldn't dream of finishing in my lifetime. But I understand that there are always people dabbling at factoring in these ranges:  Some are doing TF in the 20M or 30M ranges; in fact most ranges.  There is a steady stream of ECM in the 0M  20M range.  Others are doing P1 here and there. So we'll see where we are at end of 2018. To compare: since the beginning of 2017 there have been 4,082 exponents newly factored under 60M.  Over half of these in the 2030M range.  And another 30% under 10M W 
[QUOTE=petrw1;467318]Thanks....I'll note that and try not to step on your toes.
[/QUOTE] Oh, thanks, but I am not claiming any range, do go ahead. 
Almost 8 weeks later...an update.
698 (1.25%) exponents factored in the ranges of interest....0  59.9M
1 range cleared (now below 2,000): 22.2M Several with significant progress. 
I am doing a lot of the TF in the under 10m block.
Have already done to 67 bits 3,5,6,7,8 & 9m to 67 bits. Someone else took 9m to 68 bits 2m is 2/3 the way to 67 bits. So about 100k'ish exponents so far. Did quite a bit in the sub 1m range to lift them to 64 bits, but mfaktc doesn't work below 100k so would need to use the cpu  which is currently tied up doing the ecm stage 1's to keep the deep stage 2's going on M4007. 
[QUOTE=Gordon;467921]
Did quite a bit in the sub 1m range to lift them to 64 bits, but mfaktc doesn't work below 100k so would need to use the cpu  which is currently tied up doing the ecm stage 1's to keep the deep stage 2's going on M4007.[/QUOTE] Below 100k all exponents have already been ECM'd to t=30 (about 100 bits), so only about a 37% chance of finding a factor smaller than 100 bits. So TF to 64 bits would have a very very low probability of finding any new factors. Below 656k all exponents have already been ECM'd to t=25 (about 83 bits). Poor prospects for finding factors of 64 bits or smaller. The above is for all exponents, including the ones that already have at least one known factor. If we consider only exponents with no known factors, then everything below 1M has already been ECM'd to t=25. Edit: also [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19014&p=461679"]user TJAOI has covered everything up to 64 bits[/URL]. 
[QUOTE=GP2;467922]... everything below 1M has already been ECM'd to t=25. ...
[/QUOTE] Good to know...however. The lowest range of interest to my little subproject (getting all 100K ranges below 2,000 unfactored) is 1.8M 
[QUOTE=Gordon;467921]I am doing a lot of the TF in the under 10m block.
Have already done to 67 bits 3,5,6,7,8 & 9m to 67 bits. Someone else took 9m to 68 bits 2m is 2/3 the way to 67 bits. So about 100k'ish exponents so far. Did quite a bit in the sub 1m range to lift them to 64 bits, but mfaktc doesn't work below 100k so would need to use the cpu  which is currently tied up doing the ecm stage 1's to keep the deep stage 2's going on M4007.[/QUOTE] Thanks.... 
The plural of "guess" is not "fact"
[QUOTE=GP2;467922]also [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19014&p=461679"]user TJAOI has covered everything up to 64 bits[/URL].[/QUOTE]It is my understanding that we don't know this for certain. It is merely an assumption that people seem to take as a known truth.

[QUOTE=retina;467936]It is my understanding that we don't know this for certain. It is merely an assumption that people seem to take as a known truth.[/QUOTE]
It's no different than trusting all the other "no factor" TF results. 
[QUOTE=Mark Rose;467963]It's no different than trusting all the other "no factor" TF results.[/QUOTE]Maybe. But there is a difference in that we can audit results from users doing TF to compare the expected vs discovered factors. It isn't a perfect test of course. However, there is no equivalent test we can apply to the results from TJAOI.

[QUOTE=retina;467964]Maybe. But there is a difference in that we can audit results from users doing TF to compare the expected vs discovered factors. It isn't a perfect test of course. However, there is no equivalent test we can apply to the results from TJAOI.[/QUOTE]
See [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=467989"]my post in the "User TJAOI" thread[/URL], where I look at the datestamps for factor discoveries in the PrimeNet database to check how systematic TJAOI's searches are. Spoiler: from the empirical evidence, it is very systematic. Apart from one glitch almost three years ago, which was quickly fixed, it is indeed true that when TJAOI finishes with a given bitsize range, no new factors of that bit size are ever discovered, by him or by anyone else. Doing TF for 64bits or smaller will not find any new factors. Even 65 bits would probably just be a duplication of effort, since we can expect TJAOI to systematically complete that range sometime in 2018. 
Here is a graph of the number of factored exponents (at least 1 factor) since November 2008 based on the summary files.
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/factored.png"]factored.png[/URL] The top of the chart 30,850,000 is roughly at 20M unfactored exponents (19,997,534). Unfortunately the slope has gone down during 2017, the averate rate in the last 6 months is 436 exponents per day, which will give 10.1 years to reach 20M unfactored exponents. 
Number of newly factored exponents per day, average over 30 days:
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/factoredspeed.png"]factoredspeed.png[/URL] 
Yeah I know its a long way away....but I think it will be done before all exponents are tested up to 100M ... or before we find our find a 100M digit prime.
I just find it interesting to watch. And if I can knock off a couple dozen ranges over the next year it will be fun. TeeHeeHee And thanks for the data. 
Oct 15, 2017 Update; 1 month later
643 more exponents factored in the ranges of interest....0  59.9M
(In ranges where there are still more than 1,999 unfactored. 2 more ranges cleared (now below 2,000): 48.9M and 49.1M 
November 16, 2017  1 month later
800 more exponents factored in the ranges of interest....0  59.9M
(In ranges where there are still more than 1,999 unfactored. 2 more ranges cleared (now below 2,000): 46.1M and 49.9M 
100 days...100 factors for me.
...

December 17,2017  Monthly Update
841 more exponents factored in the ranges of interest....0  59.9M
(In ranges where there are still more than 1,999 unfactored. 6 more ranges cleared (now below 2,000): 1.8M, 2.1M, 45.4M, 47.0M, 47.6M and 48.0M 
UPDATE  January 14, 2018
1,547 !!! more exponents factored in the ranges of interest...0  59.9M GREAT PROGRESS
(In ranges where there are still more than 1,999 unfactored. 4 more ranges cleared (now below 2,000): 45.0M, 48.1M, 51.3M, and 59.9M 11 ranges within 5 or less to go. Good news (HAHA): There will be no February update (Vacation) 
6 months
And I've found 200 factors for this little subproject so far.

You got some work to do
There remain 21,535,921 unfactored exponents below 1G, so even if GIMPS keeps up with the current pace of ~160,000 new factors per year, you're looking at another 10 years to get that number below 20,000,000 :unsure:.
I haven't even factored in that is gets increasingly harder to find factors... 
I am doing some heavy ECM on a few candidates between M100000 and M220000 chosen from [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_ecm/[/url] but I don't want to step over someone else's work...

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;481690]There remain 21,535,921 unfactored exponents below 1G, so even if GIMPS keeps up with the current pace of ~160,000 new factors per year, you're looking at another 10 years to get that number below 20,000,000 :unsure:.
I haven't even factored in that is gets increasingly harder to find factors...[/QUOTE] Agreed. But Moore's law is our friend. I'm focused on exponents under 60M. Those higher (with a few exceptions) will happen naturally with the given TF limits. We need about 40,000. Last year over 10,000 were found. Granted this range even more so will take progressively longer but likely much less than 10 years. 
Since the 1st of February 2013 we have found nearly 1,400,000 new factors. I am pretty confident it will take no longer than 67 years to get to under 20M unfactored.

2 Months later and great progress  March 16,2018
2,759 !!! more exponents factored in the ranges of interest...0  59.9M
GREAT PROGRESS (In ranges where there are still more than 1,999 unfactored. 13 more ranges cleared (now below 2,000): 2.0M 35.6M 40.9M 42.5M 44.8M 45.6M 45.7M 46.2M 46.8M 51.7M (51.xM is now complete) 55.0M 56.0M 57.8M 6 ranges within 5 or less to go. 
April 15 Update
3 Ranges cleared: 44.1M, 54.6M, 57.7M
910 Exponents Factored 5 ranges within 5 or less factors to go. And 6 more with 10 or less factors to go. 
May 15 Update
3 Ranges cleared: 44.0M, 44.2M, 57.4M (34/497 Cleared since Sept 24, 2017)
601 Exponents Factored (8,770 since Sept 24, 2017) 6 ranges within 5 or less factors to go. And 6 more with 10 or less factors to go. 
50M Range Update
This has been my current focus though others have certainly helped in this range too.
As of today all 10 5xM Ranges have under 20,000 unfactored. 69 5x.x Ranges have under 2,000 unfactored. Of the 31 remaining ranges I hope to get 20 of them under 2,000 over time. The last 10 ranges, which for some reason have more than expected unfactored, may have to remain. :( 
[QUOTE=petrw1;488036]Of the 31 remaining ranges I hope to get 20 of them under 2,000 over time.
The last 10 ranges, which for some reason have more than expected unfactored, may have to remain. :([/QUOTE] I am doing fine getting the P1 done; if anyone wants to participate the TF to higher bits is lagging; I am behind getting my new GPU thanks to BITCOIN!!! 
Some historical data on 50M60M:
[CODE] Factored Unfactored 20081120 10:00 UTC 327315 233666 20090520 00:00 UTC 336948 224033 20100520 00:00 UTC 341827 219154 20110520 00:00 UTC 346016 214965 20120520 00:00 UTC 354917 206064 20130520 00:00 UTC 359500 201481 20140520 00:00 UTC 359592 201389 20150520 00:00 UTC 360076 200905 20160520 00:00 UTC 362262 198719 20170520 01:00 UTC 362269 198712 20180520 00:00 UTC 362510 198471 [/CODE] 
[QUOTE=ATH;488041]Some historical data on 50M60M:
[CODE] Factored Unfactored 20081120 10:00 UTC 327315 233666 20090520 00:00 UTC 336948 224033 20100520 00:00 UTC 341827 219154 20110520 00:00 UTC 346016 214965 20120520 00:00 UTC 354917 206064 20130520 00:00 UTC 359500 201481 20140520 00:00 UTC 359592 201389 20150520 00:00 UTC 360076 200905 20160520 00:00 UTC 362262 198719 20170520 01:00 UTC 362269 198712 20180520 00:00 UTC 362510 198471 [/CODE][/QUOTE] Interesting 35,000 in 10 years. 
As of a couple days ago all 100Million ranges have less than 2.2Million unfactored.
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/url] 
I recently started rerunning P1 on some really old exponents with only stage 1 done. I'm aware that this won't help us find a new Mersenne prime or even progress towards milestones, but at least I can do several hundred P1 jobs for the cost of a single LL test at the current wavefront.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;488652]I recently started rerunning P1 on some really old exponents with only stage 1 done. I'm aware that this won't help us find a new Mersenne prime or even progress towards milestones, but at least I can do several hundred P1 jobs for the cost of a single LL test at the current wavefront.[/QUOTE]
Cool. I'm doing so in the 50M range at least until October. Then I will move down to 40M. 
5xM progress since September 2017
I have now completed 5,000 PM1 in the 5xM Range since September 2017.
And found 151 Factors for just over a 3% success rate. There are all redo's of PM1 that only had a Stage 1 done previously. I've also found 27 factors with TF in this same range. Others have found 48 more factors in this same range. We now have 11 more 5x.x ranges with less than 2,000 unfactored. 29 ranges to go; granted about 10 are not cooperating and may have to be left. And that is 226 less DC's required. 
June 15 Update
4 Ranges cleared: 37.2M, 37.9M, 52.2M, 58.8M (38/497 Cleared since Sept 24, 2017)
491 Exponents Factored (9,251 since Sept 24, 2017) 5 ranges within 5 or less factors to go. And 8 more with 10 or less factors to go. 
July 24, 2018 ... 1 years since I started tracking
Total of 43 ranges cleared (out of a total of 497) = 8.65%
4 more ranges with less than 5 exponents to go. 11 ranges with less than 10 to go. 43 ranges with less than 25 to go. 9,918 exponents of interest factored (out of a total of 55,228) = 17.96% I understand we are NOT 17.96% done or even 8.65% done because in general the easiest ranges fall first. BUT....we have made great progress. GO, TEAM GO!!!!! (REMINDER: My lofty goal is to get all 0.1Million ranges under 60Million to under 2,000 unfactored. With the deeper factoring for ranges over 60Million I expect virtually all these ranges to be cleared in this way). 
September 5 ... 1 year since I started work on this
A very good 6 weeks.
Total of 55 ranges cleared (out of a total of 497) = 11.07% 13 new ranges this month: 2.5, 39.2, 41.2, 42.2, 43.6, 43.7, 43.9, 50.6, 53.3, 54.0, 54.2, 55.4, 55.9 This got the entire 54M range complete. And the 55M range is REALLY close....just 2 more factors. 3 more ranges with less than 5 exponents to go. 4 ranges with less than 10 to go. 36 ranges with less than 25 to go. 10,761 exponents of interest factored (out of a total of 55,228) = 19.48% As well the 44Million range is now under 20,000 unfactored. We have made great progress. GO, TEAM GO!!!!! A big thanks to Chris and his GPU72 support; and to everyone else willingly helping out. ……………………… Personally (not to brag because my contribution is small relative to the entire team) …………….. In 365 days I ran over 20,000 assignments and have found 383 factors; just a little over 1 per day. 91 factors from TF with just slightly better than a 1% success rate. 263 factors from P1 with a 3.15% success rate. 29 factors from ECM with a little less than a 1% success rate (though I often ran 3060 curves per assignment) 
Looking at it from a slightly different point of vue:
157 [B]0.1M[/B] ranges cleared, out of 600 ([B]26.17%)[/B] 13 [B]1M[/B] ranges cleared, out of 60 ([B]21.67%)[/B] 1 [B]10M[/B] range cleared, out of 6 ([B]16.67%)[/B] 
:tu:
Nice project! 
Not only lightning strikes twice....
A couple months ago I was patiently waiting for the last 2 Factors to get range 50.6 under 2,000.
I had a decent 2core laptop (LAPA) going fullsteam but having a bad streak (over 100 consecutive NFPM1 results). The assignments I am doing should statistically succeed 3 times in 100 attempts. So I added a second 2core laptop (LAPB) and about a week later LAPB found 1 factor so with only 1 remaining I chose to let LAPA finish the work. About another week later LAPA found the remaining factor (YAY) but by the time I could get to LAPA to give it new work it was nearly complete another P1; so I let it finish...and it found another factor: That is 2 in a row after 100 failures. So this week LAPA is once again in charge of completing the 50.4 range and again has 2 to go and I am again letting LAPB help out. Except this time LAPA finds the penultimate factor first … AND … over night it finds another (2 in a row again) … AND … again by the time I get to it is almost finished another P1 which I let complete and if finds a third factor … YUP: 3 factors in a row (with no intervening NF). 
[QUOTE=petrw1;495985]… YUP: 3 factors in a row (with no intervening NF).[/QUOTE]
Congrats. And, yup... Statistics has no memory.... :wink: 
1 year in and 5xMillion P1 is almost done...4xM next
I am about a week away from completing all the P1 I can do in he 5xM range.
I took every exponent in the ranges of interest that had B1=B2 to B1=1000000, B2=20000000 ... Then a few hundred more that had B1 and B2 low enough that they still had a 1.5% chance of finding a factor with the same new B1,B2. When all my P1 is done I will have done almost 8,000 and found about 240 P1 factors in this range. There is still quite a bit of TF to do, though. I didn't have the GPUs I counted on for the last year for a couple reasons. But I had great help from many others here....THANKS I started with 40 ranges needing work. As of today we are half done (20 to go). I expect that TF will clear about half the remaining. The last 10 or so ranges are being stubborn and may have to left behind for a while.  Shortly I will be starting P1 in the 4xM ranges; starting with those already at 73 TF bits (43.5M +) with lower remaining. I will avoid any ranges I detect others working on (like 44.9 and 46.3). Let me know if you have or want dibs on any ranges and I will respect them. I plan to start with these ranges: Any conflicts? 48.6, 48.7, 46.7, 48.3, 47.2, 47.7, 43.8, 46.0, 45.2 
Oct 12, 2018...I've completed P1 in the 5xM range
I've done 8,161 P1 in the 5xM range; the last 350 or so had B2>B1 but low values.
244 factors for a 3% success rate. Personally I will move my P1 effort to 4xM while working my GPUs in the remaining 5xM ranges. 23 of the 40 5xM ranges I started with are now "cleared" (under 2,000 unfactored). Ranges 51M, 54M and 55M are complete; have all ranges "cleared" Of the 17 ranges remaining 8 or 9 will be tough to complete. This month the project completed 8 more ranges: 31.1; 33.6; 44.9; 50.4; 50.8; 55.6; 56.1; 56.3 for a total of 64 out of 497 or 12.88% 557 factors found in ranges of interest. Thanks for all the help and interest. Go Team Go!!!! 
[QUOTE=petrw1;497975]I've done 8,161 P1 in the 5xM range; the last 350 or so had B2>B1 but low values.
244 factors for a 3% success rate. Personally I will move my P1 effort to 4xM while working my GPUs in the remaining 5xM ranges. 23 of the 40 5xM ranges I started with are now "cleared" (under 2,000 unfactored). Ranges 51M, 54M and 55M are complete; have all ranges "cleared" Of the 17 ranges remaining 8 or 9 will be tough to complete. This month the project completed 8 more ranges: 31.1; 33.6; 44.9; 50.4; 50.8; 55.6; 56.1; 56.3 for a total of 64 out of 497 or 12.88% 557 factors found in ranges of interest. Thanks for all the help and interest. Go Team Go!!!![/QUOTE] I had grabbed and reserved 43 P1 in the 5xM range for the project... Should I complete them, or you had zeroed the whole range? :O 
[QUOTE=ET_;497978]I had grabbed and reserved 43 P1 in the 5xM range for the project... Should I complete them, or you had zeroed the whole range? :O[/QUOTE]
Feel free to work on whatever you like... Specifically for my project I am working on 0.1 Million ranges with 2000+ unfactored. In my opinion I have done all the P1 of value in the 5xMillions in those 2000+ ranges. There is lots of P1 left in other ranges with B1=B2 but not much in my ranges. Any extra P1 would have less than a 1.5% chance of finding a factor with P1 to B1=1000000,B2=20000000 over what P1 has already been done. Mind you 1.5% is better than nothing but I think GPU TFing might be the best choice to continue there. That is why I have chosen to move my P1 efforts to the 4xMillions and let GPUs work in 5xMillion. Thanks for your help and interest 
[QUOTE=petrw1;497993]Feel free to work on whatever you like...
Specifically for my project I am working on 0.1 Million ranges with 2000+ unfactored. In my opinion I have done all the P1 of value in the 5xMillions in those 2000+ ranges. There is lots of P1 left in other ranges with B1=B2 but not much in my ranges. Any extra P1 would have less than a 1.5% chance of finding a factor with P1 to B1=1000000,B2=20000000 over what P1 has already been done. Mind you 1.5% is better than nothing but I think GPU TFing might be the best choice to continue there. That is why I have chosen to move my P1 efforts to the 4xMillions and let GPUs work in 5xMillion. Thanks for your help and interest[/QUOTE] No problem, I will look for something else :smile: 
[QUOTE=ET_;497995]No problem, I will look for something else :smile:[/QUOTE]
I think you guys are missing each other's points... Redoing P1 (where only Stage 1 was done) in 5xM /would/ help the GIMPS DC'ing effort. It just wouldn't be of interest for Wayne's "to below 2,000" subsubproject. 
[QUOTE=chalsall;497997]I think you guys are missing each other's points... Redoing P1 (where only Stage 1 was done) in 5xM /would/ help the GIMPS DC'ing effort. It just wouldn't be of interest for Wayne's "to below 2,000" subsubproject.[/QUOTE]
Exactly... :) 
[QUOTE=chalsall;497997]I think you guys are missing each other's points... Redoing P1 (where only Stage 1 was done) in 5xM /would/ help the GIMPS DC'ing effort. It just wouldn't be of interest for Wayne's "to below 2,000" subsubproject.[/QUOTE]
:davieddy::picard: 
As of today the 50M range is 50% complete.
I started tracking for this project 14 months ago (2017/09/01).
At that time it required 981 factors in the 40 ranges of interest. Today the 491st factor was found. Granted most of the "easy" work is done so the next 490 will certainly be more difficult. 
As per James´s site there are just 475 to go. Not that it makes a big difference, but still...
I know, I know: "just" is more appropriate than just... :smile: 
[QUOTE=lycorn;499297]As per James´s site there are just 475 to go. Not that it makes a big difference, but still...
I know, I know: "just" is more appropriate than just... :smile:[/QUOTE] Hmmmm I better check my math. 
December 2, 2018 Update
7 more cleared: 11.5, 38.1, 42.0, 42.1, 42.4, 48.7, 56.5
71 total cleared or 14.29% 12 Ranges with less than 20 to go. 551 more factored. I've moved all my P1'ers (32 of them) to the 4xM Ranges. My GPUs (4500GhzDays) continue to work in the 5xM Ranges...15 to go. Thanks again for everyone contributing. 
10,000 P1 assignments later...
In just over 14 months and I have surpassed 10,000 P1 attempts in the 4x and 5x Million ranges for exponents that had B1=B2 (and a few hundred more with low bounds).
The assignments were taken to: B1=0.8M to 1M, B2=16M to 20M. I have found 293 P1 factors for a 2.93% success rate. Also, 69 TF factors out of almost 6,900 attempts for a 1% success rate.  This may seem like a lot but everyone else has contributed a lot more to this project. Thanks 
How´s your new GPU doing?

[QUOTE=lycorn;502813]How´s your new GPU doing?[/QUOTE]
Whoop whoop. 4,000 GhzDays/Day. 59.6M 7475 in 23 minutes. 
[QUOTE=petrw1;502817]Whoop whoop.
4,000 GhzDays/Day. 59.6M 7475 in 23 minutes.[/QUOTE] I'd have to run 5 of my GTX 1070s to match that. The RTX series are crazy good at TF. 
[QUOTE=petrw1;502817]Whoop whoop.
4,000 GhzDays/Day. 59.6M 7475 in 23 minutes.[/QUOTE] Geee... That´s great, man! :bow: A nice push towards your "personal goal" :smile: On another note, it would be interesting that you run TF on a small (read 900k or lower) exponent just to compare performance. My GTX1060 does about 470 GHzd/day while running TF on 300M (69>70 bits) exponents, and around 700Ghzd/day on 900K (66> 67 bits). 
[QUOTE=lycorn;502908]Geee...
That´s great, man! :bow: A nice push towards your "personal goal" :smile: On another note, it would be interesting that you run TF on a small (read 900k or lower) exponent just to compare performance. My GTX1060 does about 470 GHzd/day while running TF on 300M (69>70 bits) exponents, and around 700Ghzd/day on 900K (66> 67 bits).[/QUOTE] My lower limit is just over 1Million without changing some config parms. 1,155,xxx from 67 to 68 runs at almost 5,000GD 
[QUOTE=petrw1;502913]My lower limit is just over 1Million without changing some config parms.
1,155,xxx from 67 to 68 runs at almost 5,000GD[/QUOTE] Yes, I see, the GPUSievePrimes isn´t it? I have to tweak it as well, whenever I change from high to low ranges. It also makes a fair difference in your rig. 
[QUOTE=lycorn;502908]Geee...
That´s great, man! :bow: A nice push towards your "personal goal" :smile: On another note, it would be interesting that you run TF on a small (read 900k or lower) exponent just to compare performance. My GTX1060 does about 470 GHzd/day while running TF on 300M (69>70 bits) exponents, and around 700Ghzd/day on 900K (66> 67 bits).[/QUOTE] Come down to the *low* side  under 5k... 
[QUOTE=Gordon;502951]Come down to the *low* side  under 5k...[/QUOTE]
That´s too low for the GPU TF programs we have available. Or did you want to mean 5[B]M[/B]? 
[QUOTE=Gordon;502951]Come down to the *low* side  under 5k...[/QUOTE]
Exponents <5000 all have had at least a t40 of ECM done, most of them even t50 or more. Please don't use TF in that region, it's a complete waste of time/resources. 
[QUOTE=lycorn;502968]That´s too low for the GPU TF programs we have available. Or did you want to mean 5[B]M[/B]?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;502989] Please don't use TF in that region, it's a complete waste of time/resources.[/QUOTE] There are modified versions of mfaktc that allow factoring "over 2k", but we agree with Victor that TF there is a totally waste of time and resources. They had tons of ECM and P1 done, so the chance a factor under 100 bits escaped is smaller than any epsilon... 
[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;502989]Exponents <5000 all have had at least a t40 of ECM done, most of them even t50 or more. Please don't use TF in that region, it's a complete waste of time/resources.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't make that clear, it's ECM that I'm doing... 
[QUOTE=petrw1;492437](REMINDER: My lofty goal is to get all 0.1Million ranges under 60Million to under 2,000 unfactored. With the deeper factoring for ranges over 60Million I expect virtually all these ranges to be cleared in this way).[/QUOTE]
What was the basis for reliance on the notion of unfactored <2000 per 100k goal for below 60M or any other range for that matter? Perhaps there is a graph somewhere that supports the accompanying notion that the goal posts might be shifted for different, particularly higher, exponent million zones? By the way I didn't notice mention of what grand GPU equipment you apparently now have enslaved, perhaps that was highlighted in a different thread slightly off topic from here! 
[QUOTE=snme2pm1;504737]By the way I didn't notice mention of what grand GPU equipment you apparently now have enslaved, perhaps that was highlighted in a different thread slightly off topic from here![/QUOTE]Enough that during the winter in central Canada he must needs keep a window open in a room where the beasts reside.
[url]https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=502902[/url] 
[QUOTE=snme2pm1;504737]What was the basis for reliance on the notion of unfactored <2000 per 100k goal for below 60M or any other range for that matter?
Perhaps there is a graph somewhere that supports the accompanying notion that the goal posts might be shifted for different, particularly higher, exponent million zones? By the way I didn't notice mention of what grand GPU equipment you apparently now have enslaved, perhaps that was highlighted in a different thread slightly off topic from here![/QUOTE] GIMPS as a whole has well defined standards of how deep to factor all ranges; though GPUs have increased these somewhat. I am not trying to undermine that in any way. I see my interest as more custodial; cleaning up behind them. Some time back someone, on the topic of milestones, noted that having less than 20,000,000 unfactored exponents would be monumental though admittedly a LONG way off. See unfactored total at the bottom of this (just over 21.3 Million): [url]https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/url] That got me to thinking as I noted in the first post of this Thread: [QUOTE] Thinking out loud about getting under 20M unfactored exponents Breaking it down I'm thinking if each 100M range has less than 2M unfactored we have the desired end result. Similarly if each 10M range has less than 200K unfactored... or each 1M range has less than 20K unfactored... or each 100K range has less than 2,000 unfactored.[/QUOTE] So I decided to make it a subproject of focus for me. Happily several others found it interesting as well and have been helping out. A huge thanks to Chris for volunteering to let GPUto72 spider the TF work assignments. When I drilled down into the same link above I noticed that ranges 60M and above would mostly end up with less than 2,000 on their own due to the deep factoring going on at GPUto72. There are a few exceptions but not many. Some day I may look there too. So my main focus and tracking has been under 60M though I do occasionally "spy" on the larger ranges. Still I wanted to work on this project in a way that would benefit GIMPS as a whole if I could. I noted that the current DC wavefront is in the 40M area so I realized that factoring there would reduce the DC workload at the same time. Hence my main focus that last couple years has been in the 40M and 50M ranges. My 3pronged approach has been to find ranges with 2000+ unfactored. Then: 1. Find exponents with poor P1 bounds (mainly with B1=B2) and redo them with CPUs. I am going beyond the default bounds set by Prime95. Mostly B1=1000000; B2=20000000 in the 50M ranges. This has cleared several ranges; as in <2000. 2. Use the GPUs to factor remaining ranges deeper. This cleared many more. 3. For CPUs with slower processors or less RAM run P1 or ECM in the very low ranges; i.e. under 5M. I have cleared about half a dozen ranges there. Granted normal ECM work would probably have done so itself over the next few years. I would recommend the same approach for anyone interesting in helping out. We only ask that there is some communication to ensure no toestepping. In the 50M range I started with 40 ranges (out of 100) with 2000+ unfactored. I am a few weeks away from getting that count down to 9 and factoring over 600 exponents; thereby eliminating a DC for these. Most of my effort has now shifted to the 40M ranges. It had over 60 ranges to go when I started this subproject. It is now under 50 ranges to go and dropping. Others are working in lower ranges; mostly 30M with great progress. I started tracking about 16 months ago. At that time for the ranges under 60M there were almost 500 ranges over 2000 unfactored (out of 600 total). We are now closing in on 400. Thanks again to all contributors and to those showing an interest. 
[QUOTE=snme2pm1;504737]By the way I didn't notice mention of what grand GPU equipment you apparently now have enslaved, perhaps that was highlighted in a different thread slightly off topic from here![/QUOTE]
I took a risk and bought one of the newly announced RTX 2080Ti GPUs in the fall. The first was faulty and had to be replaced. I also bought an 8core i77820x CPU and put in it 32GB of DDR43600 RAM. These were my personal reward for taking one more contract at work when I would rather have been retired. In total I have 2 GPUs: GTX980 at about 560 GhzDays/Day of TF RTX2080Ti at about 4,000 GhzDays/Day of TF And the following CPUs. Only the 3570K (5 years ago) and the 7820X (this year) were bought new. Collectively they complete over 200GhzDays/Day (45 assignments) of P1. All 4 core except the 3 noted differently. All but 2 are in my house....I think the only people with higher power bills have a growop in the basement. Intel Core i52520M @ 2.50GHz (2Core Laptop) Intel Core i54310U @ 2.00GHz (2Core Laptop) Intel Core i52500 @ 3.30GHz Intel Core i53570 @ 3.40GHz Intel Core i53570 @ 3.40GHz Intel Core i53570K @ 3.40GHz Intel Core i76700 @ 3.40GHz Intel Core i77820X @ 3.60GHz (8core) 
[QUOTE=petrw1;504780]When I drilled down into the same link above I noticed that ranges 60M and above would mostly end up with less than 2,000 on their own due to the deep factoring going on at GPUto72.
[/QUOTE] Don't let folk misunderstand, Wayne and I are friends that have collaborated previously. I am yet to find an estimate analysis of probability for the composite of tests out to James's yellow marker, or some other criteria, that would leave unfactored candidates within a 100k exponent region at something near [B]2000[/B]. It seems to be somehow close to a likely outcome for some regions, but I suspect, as Wayne seems to acknowledge, that different regions might have different probability of survival of a candidate, again based on some criteria. I feel somewhat awkward about reliance on such an arbitrary number, and that perhaps there might be a corresponding interpretation of an exercise to chase down exponents within localized 100k regions that didn't achieve the expected probability of finding a factor. I suspect that the arithmetic has been done before this time, so is there a suitable link that can be cited? 
The fastest way to get under 20M unfactored exponents, if you skip your 2nd goal of 2,000 unfactored every 100k, is probably to use GPU to trial factor the range 100M1000M. There are probably enough factors hidden there without doing very deep factoring.
But this way you contribute more immediately to DC instead of contributing to future LL and DC. Right now there are 29,544,903 of 50,847,534 exponents with at least 1 factor, so 30,847,53429,544,903 = 1,302,631 left until 20M unfactored. Last 365 days that number of factored exponents went up with +267,160, so if that speed is kept it will take just under 5 years: [url]http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/GIMPSstats.html[/url] 
Over the last 3 or 4 months we have had a very large contributor (sometimes over 1500 factors in a day), but it's apparently cooling down :(
Let's see how it goes. 
What are the odds....
I don't mean it literally but I know several of you can tell me:
Same computer; 2 cores both found a P1 factor in the same minute. AND...Day; Hour and Minute are all 06. [CODE]Magic_8_Ball 47728897 FPM1 20190106 06:06 Factor: 120869547910518815929399 / (P1, B1=1000000, B2=20000000, E=12) 5.0266 Magic_8_Ball 47704099 FPM1 20190106 06:06 Factor: 176334906978053159315473649 / (P1, B1=1000000, B2=20000000, E=12) 5.0266[/CODE] 
[QUOTE=petrw1;505084]I don't mean it literally but I know several of you can tell me:
Same computer; 2 cores both found a P1 factor in the same minute.[/QUOTE] Since the bounds are same, and presumably the FFTs are the same, if you start the computation at the same time, it has a very high probability of finishing on the same time. So it is just a matter of multiplying the odds of individual P1 success. As for the 6/6/6 bit, since you haven't specified what kind of date/time combination are "interesting", we can't estimate a probability (for eg:, if it was 20190106 05:04, would you have noted the 6/5/4 and asked for the odds?) I would crudely estimate that 1% of all date/time combinations are interesting. Whatever be the value, multiply that probability as well. 
Can someone tell me what the E value represents?

Do you mean the BrentSuyama extension and stuff related to P1 stage 2 ? (E=2, or 6, 12, etc)

[QUOTE=LaurV;505107]Do you mean the BrentSuyama extension and stuff related to P1 stage 2 ? (E=2, or 6, 12, etc)[/QUOTE]
Yes, assuming the E= value is applicable only to P1 tests. The BrentSuyama extension is something I have never heard of. 
January 13, 2019 Update
10 more ranges cleared: 34.8, 42.7, 42.8, 46.7, 47.2, 50.3, 50.9, 56.7, 57.6, 59.6
81 total ranges cleared or 16.30% 57M Range is now complete. 11 Ranges with less than 20 to go. 540 more factored. Thanks again for everyone contributing. Personally I just surpassed 30,000 total factoring attempts in just under 500 days and found 574 factors. 14,066 TF with a 1.00% success rate 13,056 P1 with a 3.09% success rate 3,095 ECM with a 0.94% success rate. 
March 8, 2019 Update
9 more ranges cleared: 37.7, 40.6, 46.0, 47.7, 48.3, 48.6, 53.5, 581.
Plus bonus ranges cleared in the 6xM series: 68.8, 69.5 (62.8 is 1 away) 90 total ranges cleared or 18.11% 47M Range is now complete. 6 Ranges with less than 20 to go. 530 more factored. Thanks again for everyone contributing. 
April 26, 2019 Update
more ranges cleared: 32.8, 33.9, 43.8, 47.1.
Plus bonus ranges cleared in the 6xM series: 62.8, 64.1 94 total ranges cleared or 18.91% 9 Ranges with less than 20 to go. 411 more factored. Personally, I found my 800th factor in this subproject. And expended just slightly under 1Million GhzDays to date. Thanks again for everyone contributing. [B][U]More help is always gratefully appreciated.[/U][/B] 
[QUOTE=PhilF;505108]Yes, assuming the E= value is applicable only to P1 tests. The BrentSuyama extension is something I have never heard of.[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.rieselprime.de/ziki/BrentSuyama_extension"]Here[/URL] (most probably you found it long time ago, but I didn't see this thread till petrw1 woke it up by posting) 
All times are UTC. The time now is 23:03. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.