[QUOTE=petrw1;266424]I have started to move PCs over to P-1 with the goal of having at least 20 cores and sustaining a rate of 10 completions per day by early August.

I'll let the masses know how well this plan works but as long as the thruput is decent I plan to keep it this way at least for the remainder of 2011.[/QUOTE]

First week update: Full complement of cores in place as of evening of August 11:

76 P-1 completions (6 factors) in 7 days on 24 cores: 10.86 per day

However, sadly with today being my official last day of work it will only be a matter of time before I lose at least 1 dual-core and 2 more that I borged.

[QUOTE=petrw1;269476]First week update: Full complement of cores in place as of evening of August 11:

76 P-1 completions (6 factors) in 7 days on 24 cores: 10.86 per day

However, sadly with today being my official last day of work it will only be a matter of time before I lose at least 1 dual-core and 2 more that I borged.[/QUOTE]
It's still a dozen LL tests saved in that time....nice job !

Two week update:

168 P-1 completions (10 factors) in 14 days on 24 cores: 12 per day.

With a max of 17 on August 19th

[QUOTE=petrw1;270123]Two week update:

168 P-1 completions (10 factors) in 14 days on 24 cores: 12 per day.

With a max of 17 on August 19th[/QUOTE]
Congrats, sounds like a great machine. What size are the exponents you are testing? How many GHz-days per day does the machine crank out?


On a side note, if you are interested in some Ruby code that will magically find the k-values for your factors, see [url]https://github.com/gkubaryk/mersenne/[/url]

Right now, you have to manually scrape results from mersenne.org/results and paste them into full.tsv. My factors are in the pre-existing full.tsv; many are P-1, but some are TF or ECM.

I hope somebody finds the code useful for something. Feel free to improve upon it or suggest ideas on how it could be improved.

[QUOTE=KingKurly;270125]I hope somebody finds the code useful for something.[/QUOTE]It will be tied in with my site, as soon as I can get my server recompiled with a newer version of PHP and supporting gmp (arbitrary-precision math).

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;270136]It will be tied in with my site, as soon as I can get my server recompiled with a newer version of PHP and supporting gmp (arbitrary-precision math).[/QUOTE]

If you need it, I wrote a barebone Mersenne factoring applet in PHP using GMP.

Look [URL="http://www.moregimps.it/mersenne-test"]here[/URL] to have a look. :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;270140]If you need it, I wrote a barebone Mersenne factoring applet in PHP using GMP.[/QUOTE]I also have written some code, that works for either gmp or bcmath (whichever is available). And it works fine running locally, but my production server doesn't support it. :no:

[b]edit:[/b] they lied to me! It doesn't support bcmath, but it [i]does[/i] support gmp! :w00t:
(new code, coming right up...)

[QUOTE=ET_;270140]If you need it, I wrote a barebone Mersenne factoring applet in PHP using GMP.

Look [URL="http://www.moregimps.it/mersenne-test"]here[/URL] to have a look. :smile:

Luigi[/QUOTE]
Luigi,

How does one read that table? It says that the average factor bit depth is 46.2003, but all of the exponents listed seem to have been factored to at least 61 bits.

Also, the ordinal series skips numbers (1,3,4,8,11,...). I take it that the skipped numbers are the ones for which factors have been found?

Maybe the answer to the first question has to do with the answer to the second question (that factors were found at low bit levels)?

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;270162]Luigi,

How does one read that table? It says that the average factor bit depth is 46.2003,[/QUOTE]As I understand it, this would less-confusingly(to the uninitiated) be labeled "Average bit-length (base 2 logarithm) of factors found so far".

Thus, this average refers to factors that have been found.

[quote]but all of the exponents listed seem to have been factored to at least 61 bits.[/quote]"to have been factored to at least 61 bits" is our common slang for "to have been searched (so far, unsuccessfully) for factors of length up to at least 61 bits".

Thus, this average refers to the extent to which factor-searches have so far proceeded [I]unsuccessfully[/I].

Comparing the first average to the second means nothing except that we tend to stop searching for factors of a particular Mersenne number once we find one. Given this tendency, one naturally expects the first average to be smaller than the second, but not much else can be derived from the comparison.

[quote]Also, the ordinal series skips numbers (1,3,4,8,11,...). I take it that the skipped numbers are the ones for which factors have been found?[/quote]Yes. Cryptic, isn't it? :-)

[quote]Maybe the answer to the first question has to do with the answer to the second question (that factors were found at low bit levels)?[/quote]... only because we search at low bit levels before we search at high bit levels. If we, instead, started all our searches at the high bit levels and proceeded downwards, then not only would we be less efficient and have much slower success, but also the first average would exceed the second one. :-)

Thanks, cheesehead, that's basically what I thought. What you wrote tells me that I'm [B]starting[/B] to "get" this. :smile:

A little more expansive header for "Average factor bit depth" as you suggest would do the trick, although maybe the part about base 2 logarithm wouldn't be needed. On my end, though, it would also help not to sneak a rushed peek at these things when I'm up against a deadline... :blush:

Rodrigo

[QUOTE]168 P-1 completions (10 factors) in 14 days on 24 cores: 12 per day.[/QUOTE]We cannot match those results, but we are having fun with our single dedicated P-1 quad. 30 P-1 completions (3 factors) in ~22 days on 4 cores: 1.36 per day.

[CODE]50412209 2011-08-26 21:12 B1=590000, B2=15340000 3.7019
51113527 2011-08-26 07:26 B1=595000, B2=15618750 3.7548
58287167 2011-08-25 12:28 B1=695000, B2=20850000 5.5105
56513189 2011-08-24 16:06 B1=670000, B2=18425000 5.0319
57924211 2011-08-23 23:05 B1=695000, B2=20676250 5.4815
57766439 2011-08-23 04:49 B1=690000, B2=20700000 5.4709
57670663 2011-08-22 10:08 1401953857640293957991 2.1205
56668487 2011-08-22 04:04 B1=675000, B2=19912500 5.2955
57320369 2011-08-21 10:08 B1=685000, B2=20378750 5.4026
57260837 2011-08-20 15:38 B1=685000, B2=20378750 5.4026
52411727 2011-08-19 09:50 B1=615000, B2=16605000 4.1285
56843989 2011-08-18 16:26 B1=670000, B2=18592500 5.0599
57231017 2011-08-17 22:37 69911626448940121794289287223 5.4026
52197337 2011-08-17 03:48 B1=610000, B2=16470000 4.0949
56226403 2011-08-16 10:17 B1=665000, B2=18287500 4.9943
56759347 2011-08-15 16:38 B1=670000, B2=18592500 5.0599
50604727 2011-08-14 21:01 B1=590000, B2=15340000 3.7019
55051891 2011-08-14 06:53 B1=655000, B2=17685000 4.5345
56280281 2011-08-13 12:58 B1=665000, B2=18287500 4.9943
50106383 2011-08-12 19:11 B1=585000, B2=15063750 3.6494
52065053 2011-08-12 04:46 B1=610000, B2=16470000 4.0949
54782447 2011-08-11 11:28 B1=655000, B2=17521250 4.5089
56668663 2011-08-10 17:56 B1=675000, B2=19912500 5.2955
56325371 2011-08-09 23:25 B1=670000, B2=19765000 5.2562
52075477 2011-08-09 05:19 B1=610000, B2=16470000 4.0949
56226479 2011-08-08 11:48 B1=665000, B2=18287500 4.9943
50205761 2011-08-07 18:42 B1=585000, B2=15063750 3.6494
52085237 2011-08-07 04:29 B1=610000, B2=16470000 4.0949
54673813 2011-08-06 09:51 B1=645000, B2=17576250 4.4904
50241299 2011-08-05 15:51 2801407650254375710199 3.6705[/CODE]