[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245083]As a follow up, this graphic illustrates where, I think, the best efforts are made by the 2 classes of processors.[/QUOTE]Please pardon some questions from one who follows this only occasionally:

Does the graph's horizontal axis (1, 201, 401, ...) represent the sequence of [I]unfactored[/I] Mersennes with prime exponents above 332,192,830? That is, "1" represents the first unfactored Mersenne with prime exponent above 332192830, "201" represents the 201st unfactored Mersenne with prime exponent above 332192830, ... ?

Or does the horizontal axis represent the sequence of all Mersennes, whether or not they've been factored, with prime exponents above 332192830, so that "1" represents the Mersenne (whether or not it's been factored) with the first prime exponent above 332192830, "201" represents the Mersenne (whether or not it's been factored) with the 201st prime exponent above 332192830, and so on? In the latter case, once an exponent has been factored, would the column on the graph above its sequence number would be blanked, or would it remain as a bar extending up to the bit length of the found factor?

Or ... ?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245078]
If it is the first, could you instead grab the smallest exponents that are below 76 and work on them up to 76 (or maybe higher, like 78 or 80)? This will let the folks with CPU's work in the 70 to ~74 range.
[/QUOTE]

Yes I meant the first. The primenet-server gave me assignments in this ranges.
I will let compute the assignments from 74 to 75 bits and 75 to 76bits first. Hope my GPU is fast enough to do it!

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245078]
If the latter, could you still try to focus on the smallest available exponents? That way we can be sure that when they go to an LL tester they are up to the desired bit level. I think that with some focus by the group we can get enough done that no LL gets handed out (in this range) that is not at least to 78.
[/QUOTE]

I will note it on my next visit at the Manual Assingnment page.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;245105]Does the graph's horizontal axis (1, 201, 401, ...) represent the sequence of [I]unfactored[/I] Mersennes with prime exponents above 332,192,830? That is, "1" represents the first unfactored Mersenne with prime exponent above 332192830, "201" represents the 201st unfactored Mersenne with prime exponent above 332192830, ... ?[/QUOTE]That would be the case. I pull the data using this PrimeNet report: [url]http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=332192831&exp_hi=332399999&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=99&B1=Get+Data[/url]
I also grab the factored out numbers separately.
The small numbers (1 - 4501) are easier to deal with in the graph and show the work that needs to be done.

The attached graphic illustrates what the latter would look like (it is for Operation Billion Digits). There are 3 problems that I see doing the same for 100Million Digit Prefactor Project. [B]First[/B], I have no desire to continue factoring numbers after a factor has been found. The lowest bit level of the factors is 29, that would make for some really squashed graphs. [B]Second[/B], graphing in excel the 2 sets like the way that I would like, I can't. [B]Third[/B], since we are using PrimeNet, I just use those clean and easy reports to get the current status. To do it otherwise would require doing multiple queries and cutting and pasting many screens worth of data.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245078]
.., could you still try to focus on the smallest available exponents? ...
[/QUOTE]

I have sorted, my 1000 TF exponents that are in the 100M digit range, so, that the order of operations should reflect your suggestions.

[B][COLOR=black]sort worktodo.txt -t, -k2 -n -o wtd.txt
[/COLOR][/B]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245132]That would be the case. I pull the data using this PrimeNet report: [URL]http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=332192831&exp_hi=332399999&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=99&B1=Get+Data[/URL]
I also grab the factored out numbers separately.
The small numbers (1 - 4501) are easier to deal with in the graph and show the work that needs to be done.[/QUOTE]Thank you. :-)

[QUOTE=moebius;245159]I have sorted, my 1000 TF exponents that are in the 100M digit range, so, that the order of operations should reflect your suggestions.[/QUOTE][COLOR="DarkOrange"][B][SIZE="2"]You snagged 1000?[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] How long will till they are complete? If it more than one month, you may want to drop all of those with lower bit levels.

This is not your typical LMH range. Within the ~4400 exponents in that are being charted, there are at least 6 people that are frequently contributing. I would again suggest that the GPU's leave the exponents below 74 bits to the CPU's (unless the lowest, number not bit level, available exponent is lower).

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;245559]How long will till they are complete?
If it more than one month, you may want to drop all of those with lower bit levels.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it takes significantly longer in higher bit-levels!
I don't want to drop those with lower bit levels for the moment, but I will move those to my several cpu-cores.
I do not think people will be out of work because of me, but surely you anounce alarm at the same time in this case.

End of Message.

Here is a status report for the range from 332192831 to 332399999:

[code]Date of data 1/22/2011
Average bit depth for first 100 expos 77.40
Average bit depth for first 1000 expos 75.36
100th active expo (no factor found) 332198357
1000th active expo (no factor found) 332244461
Unitless total effort number 77735424 estimated GHz/day equiv = 109270
Number of first 100 expos to 2^76 75
Number left in range 4340

Estimated expos in range to be removed 551
(by taking all expos to 2^82)[/code]
[code]Bit # at bit level
70 2371
71 790
72 221
73 34
74 246
75 184
76 161
77 139
78 7
79 167
80 19
81 1
P-1 83[/code]
As noted above, all exponents in this range are now at 70 or above. There are now only single stragglers that below 75 in the first 100, below 74 in the first 600, and below 72 in the first 800.

Attached is a lovely picture.

Here is a status report for the range from 332192831 to 332399999:

[code]Date of data 3/20/2011
Average bit depth for first 100 expos 78.11
Average bit depth for first 1000 expos 75.83
100th active expo (no factor found) 332198357
1000th active expo (no factor found) 332245057
Unitless total effort number 110,181,888 estimated GHz/day equiv = 154,879
Number of first 100 expos to 2^76 89
Number left in range 4304

Estimated expos in range to be removed 521
(by taking all expos to 2^82)[/code]
[code]Bit # at bit level
70 1531
71 1476
72 205
73 39
74 201
75 113
76 232
77 214
78 9
79 261
80 22
81 1
P-1 93[/code]
No fancy picture at the moment, having computer problems.

Somebody has been working int he 332,xxxx,xxxx range outside the 332192831 to 332399999. The broader range is now at 57.00% factored out.:fusion:

I'll be finishing up a P-1 on M332205149 a little later this evening, assuming my power doesn't go out with these crazy storms. Current time is 19:05 and current estimate is 00:20. Using B1=3365000 and B2=95902500. Stage 1 finished back on March 5 without finding a factor. Obviously I'll report back with my findings. It's finishing earlier than I had originally projected because I added an extra core to the assignment.

I previously reported that I'd be doing this work at [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=254426#post254426[/url] and perhaps other places... not sure why I didn't think to post in this thread until now.