Toture test worked fine.

[URL="http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=52038281"]M52038281[/URL] found the factor (again) in S-2.

I just finished benchmarking 26.6 and 27.4.

I think I've just had a bad streak of exponents. I still wish I knew why it didn't find the same factor as Dubslow in BS?

[QUOTE=flashjh;293041] I still wish I knew why it didn't find the same factor as Dubslow in BS?[/QUOTE]

I dunno, you'd need the math guys there. Like I said before, the BS extension is much more random in how it works, though admittedly I didn't think it was random enough that running the same bounds wouldn't find the same factor.

[QUOTE=flashjh;293041]I still wish I knew why it didn't find the same factor as Dubslow in BS?[/QUOTE]

BS also depends on the number of relative primes.

[QUOTE=Prime95;293044]BS also depends on the number of relative primes.[/QUOTE]

In that case, flash, run it again (same bounds) with your memory set as "up to 10,000 MB".

(I can only guess at what my RP count was, but just about everything else has either been 432 or 480 or else somewhere in 400-500.)

Last run for M54699223
 

[QUOTE=Prime95;293044]BS also depends on the number of relative primes.[/QUOTE]

On my system, for that exponent it would be 480 unless I set the memory lower, but I'm not sure 10000 will yield less than 480, I'll know tomorrow morning ;) Could having the max actually make the system miss a factor?

Here's the line I'm running now (with [Worker #1] set to memory=10000 in local.txt):

[CODE]pfactor=N/A,1,2,54699223,-1,74,2[/CODE]

It yielded the same info Dublsow turned in to James' site:

[CODE][Mar 14 22:54] Worker starting
[Mar 14 22:54] Setting affinity to run worker on logical CPU #1
[Mar 14 22:54] Optimal P-1 factoring of M54699223 using up to 10000MB of memory.
[Mar 14 22:54] Assuming no factors below 2^74 and 2 primality tests saved if a factor is found.
[Mar 14 22:54] Optimal bounds are B1=475000, B2=8906250
[Mar 14 22:54] Chance of finding a factor is an estimated 3.12%
[Mar 14 22:54] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on logical CPU #2
[Mar 14 22:54] Using AMD K10 type-3 FFT length 2880K, Pass1=640, Pass2=4608, 4 threads
[Mar 14 22:54] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on logical CPU #3
[Mar 14 22:54] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on logical CPU #4[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293046]In that case, flash, run it again (same bounds) with your memory set as "up to 10,000 MB".

(I can only guess at what my RP count was, but just about everything else has either been 432 or 480 or else somewhere in 400-500.)[/QUOTE]

It's running again. If this doesn't work, I'll just have to presume BS is more than just settings until I have a better understanding of the math and the implementation algorithms.

Edit: The only reason I'm spending time on this, is I don't want to be missing factors on my system, and, if something isn't working correctly, it's a waste of time for me to run P-1s on this system. Thanks for the help.

It's also an interesting perspective on the BS extension, since it does appear that regular Stage 2 works. Even if BS doesn't work, P-1 should still be fine. (I can't say for sure, but I don't believe the factor chance includes the BS possibility.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;293056]It's also an interesting perspective on the BS extension, since it does appear that regular Stage 2 works. Even if BS doesn't work, P-1 should still be fine. (I can't say for sure, but I don't believe the factor chance includes the BS possibility.)[/QUOTE]

Last time I ran this I used

[CODE]
Pminus1=1,2,54699223,-1,475000,8906250
[/CODE]
So, this time the system should be doing exactly what yours did. I don't know if you're using Intel or AMD? Maybe the CPU and FFT Type has something to do with it also? (Obviosuly I have no clue how the algorithm works).

No, CPU type and FFT have nothing to do with it, but like I said, regular Stage 2 works fine, so your CPU is fine for P-1. (It's an i7-2600K, if you're still curious.)

Update: Here's what's happening:
[CODE][Mar 15 05:31] M54699223 stage 1 complete. 1370506 transforms. Time: 23814.032 sec.
[Mar 15 05:31] Starting stage 1 GCD - please be patient.
[Mar 15 05:33] Stage 1 GCD complete. Time: 168.350 sec.
[Mar 15 05:33] Available memory is 10000MB.
[Mar 15 05:33] Using 9123MB of memory. Processing 384 relative primes (0 of 384 already processed).
[/CODE]
I'll post the result later...

[QUOTE=flashjh;293091]Update: Here's what's happening:
[CODE][Mar 15 05:31] M54699223 stage 1 complete. 1370506 transforms. Time: 23814.032 sec.
[Mar 15 05:31] Starting stage 1 GCD - please be patient.
[Mar 15 05:33] Stage 1 GCD complete. Time: 168.350 sec.
[Mar 15 05:33] Available memory is 10000MB.
[Mar 15 05:33] Using 9123MB of memory. Processing 384 relative primes (0 of 384 already processed).
[/CODE]
I'll post the result later...[/QUOTE]

Ok, it found the BS factor:
[CODE]
[Thu Mar 15 13:20:17 2012]
P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=475000, B2=8906250, E=12.
UID: flashjh/P1Main, M54699223 has a factor: 3546977485247966555997217
[/CODE]

Now I have to ask the P-1 experts why? Setting the max memory to 10000 causes relative primes to drop from 480 to 384. With 480 it didn't find the BS factor but with 384 it did. Is this system missing a lot more factors because of this? Thanks for the guidance...

I think it's like this: There are a certain number of k's for which one factor is between B1 and B2, while the other factors are <B1. Imagine a list:

K1
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
etc...

Lets assume that this is a list of Ks with a factor >B2, in order. Now, bear in mind that this is a very very rough analogy, but I [i]believe[/i] it's something like with 480 RPs, you are able to check every second K on that list with E=12. But with RPs <480, you can check if every third K is a factor. You can see then that with different RPs you check different K values, and it happens that this particular factor can be found with those given bounds and the right number of RPs. This is also why I said that BS is "random" with respect to what factors with K > B2* it can possibly find. Your computer is working just fine.

*Of course here I mean (one factor of K)>B2, but shorthand FTW!

Edit: Let me re-emphasize that this is a very stretched analogy based on a rough idea of the math. Anyone who's studied it is probably able to be more precise/accurate.