[QUOTE=Ungelovende;263792]M222xxxxxx from 2^64 to 2^71
mfaktc 0.17
Win7 64/gtx570x2
ca 7750 tests - 121 factors found[/QUOTE]

That is scary -- expected is 848 factors

Hmmm.
Lost here.
"Test" means?
7750/67 = 116

David

[QUOTE=Prime95;263797]That is scary -- expected is 848 factors[/QUOTE]
I counted 2^64 to 2^65 as one 'test'. 2^65 to 2^66 on the same exponent as another 'test' :smile:

[QUOTE=Ungelovende;263800]I counted 2^64 to 2^65 as one test. 2^65 to 2^66 on the same exponent as another test :smile:[/QUOTE]

Whew!! You did get the expected number of factors. Maybe Xyzzy is just an unlucky bloke. Let's see how his next batch does.

[QUOTE=Prime95;263801]Whew!! You did get the expected number of factors. Maybe Xyzzy is just an unlucky bloke. Let's see how his next batch does.[/QUOTE]
I was half hoping for a compliment on my "fielding"
skill there.

David

Ok some stats from me. The current batch I'm looking at is 380M, I've broken down the range to 3x seperate sections:

a) 2^65 to 2^74
b) 2^74 to 2^76
c) 2^76 to 2^77

I find doing this method gives the best efficiency of compute time with my hardware.

So across my farm, no-factor/factor-found is:

a) 612/85
b) 170/1
c) 342/5

Why (c) is greater than (b), is initially I did other combos before I settled in on this plan. (i.e. 75-76, and 73-76), but I always did 76-77.

(c) seems to fit in with the 1 in 70 expectation although it might be low sample size. I've leave it up to readers with more maths ability than me to work out if (a) is within expectations.

I have 11x instances of mfaktc running, so stats are a little hard to collate :)

I've been running since April. If I have time I can get some stats on another range I looked at - 100M.

-- Craig

[QUOTE]Maybe Xyzzy is just an unlucky bloke. Let's see how his next batch does.[/QUOTE]The attached image summarizes our work to date, including today's dump. We will attach the raw data in the next post.

[COLOR=White].[/COLOR]

Some more data...

[code]
Range start | Range end | Level | Tests | Factors | 1 / ...
-------------+-------------+-------+-------+---------+---------
27,270,697 | 28,129,921 | 67-68 | 3,702 | 38 | 97.42
29,132,821 | 29,687,591 | 66-67 | 1,419 | 12 | 118.25
29,132,821 | 30,757,057 | 67-68 | 1,790 | 17 | 105.29
- - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - - + - - - + - - - - + - - - -
27,270,697 | 30,757,057 | total | 6,911 | 67 | 103.15
-------------+-------------+-------+-------+---------+---------
40,149,029 | 47,437,847 | 68-69 | 690 | 14 | 49.29
[/code]P-1 had not been done on any of the 690 exponents from the last range but on all from the other ranges.
A test would be a single bit level, obviously. I have no idea why the last range yielded so many factors. :no:

[QUOTE=Prime95;263801]Maybe Xyzzy is just an unlucky bloke.[/QUOTE]

I've had a streak of 863-or-some-such NF results once. Chat hippens. :wink:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;263649]1:115 here.

53M range. 69 to 70 or 70-71.

The sample size is > 9000 tested.

:sad:[/QUOTE]

Xyzzy: I did a quick view to your results.txt posted on June 14th. I've focused on the M53.xxx.xxx exponents and checked the exponent status of the first 4 no factor M53.xxx.xxx: all of tham had P-1 done before your TF attempt to 2^70.
[url]http://mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=53332333&exp_hi=53332600&B1=Get+status[/url]

What is the expected factor rate once P-1 has been done with reasonable B1/B2 bounds?

Oliver

Xyzzy, there are two things that I recommend to you if you think something is broken.[LIST=1][*]run the long selftest (mfaktc.exe -st) under the same circumstances as your daily work (number of instances, settings in mfaktc.ini, ...)[*]"rediscover" some allready known factors which were initially [B]not[/B] discovered by mfaktc.
E.g. yesterday I ran some of my [B]recent P-1 factors in the M53.xxx.xxx range[/B] (23 factors from 2^68 to 2^71) with 0.17. I did "full length runs", not like the selftest just a small range in the class where the factor falls in. Everything worked fine. :smile:[/LIST]
Oliver