57/4819 here in the past year, barely above 1%, so going 100 or much more between factors would not be surprising.

Looking at my overall statistics for gpu72, found 1501/52920 exponents. Been doing whatever assignments Chris gives me. Roughly 2.83%, we have similar percentages kladner.

If we look here:
 

[url]https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php[/url]

[QUOTE]… Looking at past factoring data we see that the chance of finding a factor between 2X and 2X+1 is about 1/x. ...[/QUOTE]

So TF 73-74 should be 1/74 or 1.35%

Overall GPU72
[url]https://www.gpu72.com/reports/factor_percentage/[/url]
is close to that with LLTF

But closer to 1% in DCTF.
I believe that is because most all the exponents we are DCTF'ing have had P-1 done;
and the factors this finds will reduce the DCTF percentage somewhat

My 2 cents worth.

[QUOTE=petrw1;499710]I believe that is because most all the exponents we are DCTF'ing have had P-1 done; and the factors this finds will reduce the DCTF percentage somewhat.[/QUOTE]

That's my take on it. LLTF is almost always done before P-1; DCTF almost always after.

And that reminds me... I really need to update that report to reflect the deeper depths we're now working.

[QUOTE=kriesel;499689]57/4819 here in the past year, barely above 1%, so going 100 or much more between factors would not be surprising.[/QUOTE]
And now, 2 factored out of 26 in the past day, plus 1 factored of 3 P-1 for good measure. Statistics gonna vary, especially with small sample sizes.

I'm running mfaktc on a borrowed MSI gaming laptop with a GeForce GTX 1070 video card. There was a moment today when mfaktc got stuck on a class. However, this wasn't a complete freeze because mfaktc processed the next set of classes when I pressed Ctrl + C. I had to press Ctrl + C a few more times (with classes being processed each time) before mfaktc correctly exited. Has anyone encountered this issue?

It's worth mentioning that the cursor on this laptop sometimes freezes for a short time. I have no idea if these issues are related.

I've seen that kind of behaviour after a display driver crash-and-recover.
For me I just restart the assignment, because the average runtime of my assignments is about 3 seconds. I'm not sure if it may be advisable to restart from a known-good checkpoint (or the entire assignment), others may have better advice on that matter.

[QUOTE=petrw1;499495]So because I like to be sure I reran 14 in that range that were TF65-66 (took about 10 seconds each). I found all the factors listed PLUS for exponent 56548031 I found:
--- The factor listed
--- The additional factor TJAOI found
--- AND another factor even TJAOI missed
[url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=56548031&full=1[/url]
[/QUOTE]

TJAOI didn't miss that factor, he simply hadn't reached it yet.

When TJAOI works on a bit level, he finds factors in increasing numerical order.

From your link, TJAOI found the factor 46877384547124608047 on 2018-10-03. Recently he has been finding factors like [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=18216343&exp_hi=&full=1"]51742865878987223449[/URL] on 2018-12-05. Your factor was 60339186474018340969, which you found on 2018-11-03. TJAOI will complete the 66-bit level when he reaches 2^66 = 73786976294838206464. All of these factors are within the range of TF 65–66.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;502470]I've seen that kind of behaviour after a display driver crash-and-recover.
For me I just restart the assignment, because the average runtime of my assignments is about 3 seconds. I'm not sure if it may be advisable to restart from a known-good checkpoint (or the entire assignment), others may have better advice on that matter.[/QUOTE]

They must be big exponents, my 1060 is taking 32 minutes per test - down in the 400k range.

[QUOTE=Gordon;502600]They must be big exponents, my 1060 is taking 32 minutes per test - down in the 400k range.[/QUOTE]

The 400,000 range?

Since [B]James Heinrich[/B] went to SSL, his batch file does not appear to let a person select a range. So, I used it as is. Yesterday evening, I was running in the 1210M range on this 1080. It was taking about 0.65 seconds at 1,100 Ghz-days/day on each assignment.

I use [I]MSI Afterburner[/I] to under-clock it sometimes. At 75% capacity, it can still run nearly 1,000 GHz-days/Day, with much less heat output. 61°C versus 72°C. I prefer not to run it [U]hot[/U].

[QUOTE=storm5510;502607]Since [B]James Heinrich[/B] went to SSL, his batch file does not appear to let a person select a range.[/QUOTE]Nothing should have changed. If you're having trouble, please email me directly and we can sort it out.