[QUOTE=Dubslow;273130](Based on bit length and factors of q-1, I'd say it was found in P-1 stage 2.)[/QUOTE]Could be either P-1 or TF, but P-1 is more likely. If you knew the correct P-1 bounds, however, it would be 27x [i]less[/i] effort to find it via P-1 than TF (from zero). The factor would be found with default P-1 bounds.
[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=42717929[/url]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;273107]Just as an aside, the calculations in your worktodo balancer for seem off.[/QUOTE]

Use the source, Luke:

[code]
[COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#007700]if ([/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]preg_match[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]([/COLOR][COLOR=#DD0000]'#^Factor=(|N/A,|[A-F0-9]{32},)([0-9]{4,10}),([0-9]{1,2}),([0-9]{2})$#i'[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$line[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$matches[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700])) {
@list([/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$all[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$aid[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$exponent[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$tf1[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$tf2[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]) = [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$matches[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700];
[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$key [/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]= [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]count[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]([/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$GoodAssignmentsLine[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]);
[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$GoodAssignmentsLine[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700][[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$key[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]] = [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$line[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700];
[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$GoodAssignmentsWork[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700][[/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$key[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]] = (([/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$_REQUEST[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700][[/COLOR][COLOR=#DD0000]'easyis'[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]] == [/COLOR][COLOR=#DD0000]'small'[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]) ? [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$exponent [/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]: [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]CalcGHzDaysTrialFactor[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]([/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$exponent[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$tf1[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700], [/COLOR][COLOR=#0000BB]$tf2[/COLOR][COLOR=#007700]));
}[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[/code]It adds up the exponents. (And then it gets the hose again.)

[QUOTE=ckdo;273156]It adds up the exponents.[/QUOTE]That's what I get for adding features later on and not checking for side effects :redface: I've fixed it now.
(The original incarnation of the balancer did not have a variable definition of "easy", it was just the GHz-days effort, so adding it up made perfect sense.)

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;273098]I happily volunteer my time and PHP expertise to the effort. My own site already parses any and all data from results.txt, so I'm quite familiar with the issues involved.

Incidentally, I also volunteer my services to help [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16088]rework the reports[/url].

Please let me know what I can do to help in any way; PHP programming is what I've been doing for the last 11 years. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I support the suggestion that James is enabled to help you (George) and Scott with additional development work.

I would also be willing to donate my time to assist James (but without access). While I don't do PHP (except when I have to; and only then under protest -- I'm a Perl guy) I do do Regular Expressions (RegEx) and SQL for a living.

[QUOTE=chalsall;273177]I support the suggestion that James is enabled to help you (George) and Scott with additional development work.[/QUOTE]

James and I are working on the details.

[QUOTE=Prime95;273074]That is precisely why you're having trouble. If you submit the "no factor" and "has a factor" together you shouldn't have a problem[/QUOTE]

What if there're no "no factor lines".

BTW I started doing this after my regular submission were assigned to P-1. From my results page they seem to be at the lowest bit level of an assignment.

What if while reporting "has a factor" result at the lowest bit level of an assignment I swap the lines in manual submission like this:

[CODE]
found 1 factor(s) for M57841799 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win apsen barrett79_mul32]
M57841799 has a factor: 2692557022299923757047
[/CODE]

Would that work?

If not what would happen if I add false "no factor" line for previously completed bit levels in front. Like:

[CODE]
no factor for M57841799 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17-Win apsen 71bit_mul24]
M57841799 has a factor: 2692557022299923757047
found 1 factor(s) for M57841799 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.17-Win apsen barrett79_mul32]
[/CODE]

This is why I like the idea that each line is a complete, true, and accurate statement, thus:
[code]
M57841799 has a factor: 265255702299923757047 [mfaktc 0.18-Win Christenson]
found exactly 1 factor(s) for M57841799 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18-Win Christenson]
found at least 1 factor for M57841799 from 2^71 to 2^72 [mfaktc 0.18-Win Christenson]
[/code]
This way we know if you completed the bit level, what you found, and how you found it, no scrambling of lines from results.txt.

[QUOTE=Prime95;273179]James and I are working on the details.[/QUOTE]It looks like I'll be able to help George revise the parsing logic in the near future. Don't expect anything changed today or tomorrow, but if we can collectively decide on a standardized format for the results (by the end of this week, let's say), I'll see if I can get the results parser to understand it all correctly within a few weeks.

Hey Oliver:

Just noticed an overflow in the class-by-class status reporting....suddenly got a huge number of seconds reported for the time field that had nothing to do with what was happening on my wristwatch. This is on Linux 64, mfaktc-0.17, under xubuntu 10.10. The box has been up for about 4 days, and runing mfaktc for most of that time.

Eric



This hapened

Hi Eric,

I know this bug. It doesn't matter how long mfaktc is running (actually I've noticed this rarely while developing with some *very short* runs)

I'll take a look at this.

Oliver

[QUOTE=ckdo;273156]Use the source, Luke:

It adds up the exponents. (And then it gets the hose again.)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;273176]That's what I get for adding features later on and not checking for side effects :redface: I've fixed it now.
(The original incarnation of the balancer did not have a variable definition of "easy", it was just the GHz-days effort, so adding it up made perfect sense.)[/QUOTE]
It seems that the fix broke the 'easy' definition part. It sorts inverted.:ick: