[QUOTE]And there's another confounding/confuzzling factor: Xyzzy, are you counting successes of of your stats page, or from your "results.txt" file?[/QUOTE]We keep track of all our work locally. Our results are attached. We plan to submit a very large batch of work in the next day or so, so it will be interesting to see if the trend continues.

:max:

[QUOTE=Christenson;263721]I've said it before, and I'll say it again: What a broken operating system!
What if we made mfaktc more like P95 and gave it a window and all, rather than ran it from the console? Or are we still back to hacking the drivers?[/QUOTE]

It's got nothing to do with the OS. Conspiracy theories aside, it apparently works with tesla products but not GT/GTX cards.

It's a software call. Regardless of how it's called (cmd line app or win gui app). With the current drivers, there's _no_ (zero zilch nada) work around other than vnc. Much more knowledgeable people than me have said this.

Remoting in with VNC works (albeit slower than mstsc), I have VNC server on 4x Win boxes (2x WinXP and 2x Win7). I can restart mfaktc remotely at a whim. No problemo. VNC is free for private use.

Move onto another subtopic. Case closed.

-- Craig

[QUOTE=Batalov;263650]I've already tried launching "sleep 30; mfaktc" in a Cygwin shell and then disconnect. Some time later you connect and see the same result.
My guess is that the other driver is not initiated (lazily, which is I guess usually a good thing), until I would go and login there physically.[/QUOTE]

Use TeamViewer [URL="http://www.teamviewer.com/"]http://www.teamviewer.com/[/URL] instead of remote desktop. It's free for private use, and I just connected from work to my home computer and started mfaktc.

[QUOTE=Prime95;263713]That is concerning. What hit rates are others getting for single bit levels of TF?[/QUOTE]

Here are the stats from my last 1448 tests, 76M range:

From 66 to 67 - 16 tests, 0 factors
From 67 to 68 - 123 tests, 1 factor
From 68 to 69 - 124 tests, 2 factors
From 69 to 70 - 310 tests, 1 factor
From 70 to 71 - 303 tests, 5 factors
From 71 to 72 - 286 tests, 4 factors
From 72 to 73 - 272 tests, 1 factor

So that's 14 factors in 1448 tests, adjusted for mfaktc reporting TF's as P1's.

Doug

[QUOTE=drh;263776]So that's 14 factors in 1448 tests[/QUOTE]

Like Xyzzy 1 in 100 hit rate instead of the expected 1 in 70. It's way too soon to conclude there is a bug, keep the data coming.

From the machine I have access to right now ::

From 65 to 66 - 27 tests, 0 factors
From 66 to 67 - 14 tests, 0 factors
From 67 to 68 - 15 tests, 0 factors
From 68 to 69 - 45 tests, 1 factors
From 69 to 70 - 26 tests, 0 factors
From 70 to 71 - 15 tests, 0 factors
From 71 to 72 - 4 tests, 0 factors

Too few results to be useful as-is, but maybe helps in the aggregate?

mfaktc, 0.16, 0.16p1, 0.17; Win7-x64 with cudart64_32_16.dll, i7-840QM.

From 65 to 66 - 136 tests, 2 factors found, 2.1 = 136/65 expected, 82457xxx to 82481xxx.
From 66 to 67 - 151 tests, 6 factors found, 2.3 = 151/66 expected, 78417xxx to 82481xxx.
From 67 to 68 - 146 tests, 1 factors found, 2.2 = 146/67 expected, 79014xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 68 to 69 - 148 tests, 1 factors found, 2.2 = 148/68 expected, 79583xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 69 to 70 - 130 tests, 1 factors found, 1.9 = 130/69 expected, 80086xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 70 to 71 - 127 tests, 4 factors found, 1.8 = 127/70 expected, 81234xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 71 to 72 - 123 tests, 0 factors found, 1.7 = 123/71 expected, 81234xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
--------------------------------------------
total - 961 tests, 15 factors found, 14.2 expected more-or-less.

small sample size, but seems reasonable(?).

[QUOTE=Prime95;263778]Like Xyzzy 1 in 100 hit rate instead of the expected 1 in 70. It's way too soon to conclude there is a bug, keep the data coming.[/QUOTE]

Yep.
We "expect" 16 hits in 1120 tests. Standard deviation 4 hits.

But isn't there much more data accessible now?

[QUOTE=Christenson;263736]
But, anything we can do to reduce the pfaffing around needed to run mfaktc increases the available TF testing. Then we can think about P-1, and seeing if its worth doing multiple LLs in parallel on GPUs.

[/QUOTE]

Oliver has modestly described mfaktc as a "proof of concept".
Since it is obviously more than that, someone should surely
ensure it is bug-free, and is incorporated into GIMPS in a user-friendly way.

David

PS Or even "optimize" it?

[QUOTE=davieddy;263790]Oliver has modestly described mfaktc as a "proof of concept".
Since it is obviously more than that, someone should surely
ensure it is bug-free, and is incorporated into GIMPS in a user-friendly way.

David

PS Or even "optimize" it?[/QUOTE]

I'm working on that user-friendliness, just not as quickly as we all might like. P95, how do we get the server to recognize a "factor found" result from mfaktc on the manual testing page?

[QUOTE=Prime95;263778]keep the data coming.[/QUOTE]
M222xxxxxx from 2^64 to 2^71
mfaktc 0.17
Win7 64/gtx570x2
ca 7750 tests - 121 factors found