Check what bounds p-1 has been run to against the numbers that have not been TFed to 61 bits. There will certainly be no factors smaller than B1. That might save some time.

Chris

[QUOTE=chris2be8;370316]Check what bounds p-1 has been run to against the numbers that have not been TFed to 61 bits. There will certainly be no factors smaller than B1. That might save some time.

Chris[/QUOTE]

There are no exponents that fit this criteria. See above.

[QUOTE=lycorn;370296]Tackling 61 bits will be way harder a job, though...[/QUOTE]

Can GPU's not do that? I could clear 15,000 67->68 overnight with my hardware alone...

[QUOTE=TheMawn;370331]Can GPU's not do that? I could clear 15,000 67->68 overnight with my hardware alone...[/QUOTE]

Try 61 and see what happens :wink:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;370331]Can GPU's not do that? [/QUOTE]

Yes they can, and many exponents have already been cleared in that range by GPUs. The thing is, efficiency at these low bit levels is way lower than above 64 bits. First, because GPU sieving is only enabled above 64 bits, and second, the kernels used, particularly for exponents < 1M, have not been extensively optimized.
That said, GPUs are in any case much faster than CPUs, but we can by no means expect them to perform these tasks at the speeds they use to.
As an example, my GTX560Ti TFs a 950,000 exponent from 61 to 62 bits in ~14 minutes.
Also note that even if GPU sieving was enabled and the kernels optimized, the tests would take longer anyway, because these exponents are much smaller than the "mainstream" ones. A 1M exponent, tested to the same levels and in the same conditions than a 60M, would take roughly 60 times more, The fact that we are testing to lower levels partially makes up for this, but still...

I have to admit the Primenet Summary page looks [B]really[/B] nice. I hadn't checked it in a while, but the tails have sure been trimmed down! Still waiting for the 20M range to join 0M and 10M with their separate headings for ECM factoring :smile:

Also, looking at the milestones, you can see how much of a difference the new rules have already made:
[QUOTE]March 26, 2014: All exponents below 48,000,000 tested at least once.
March 17, 2014: All exponents below 47,000,000 tested at least once.
March 13, 2014: All exponents below 46,000,000 tested at least once.
February 14, 2014: All exponents below 30,000,000 double-checked.
February 4, 2014: All exponents below 29,000,000 double-checked.
January 12, 2014: All exponents below 28,000,000 double-checked.
January 9, 2014: All exponents below 27,000,000 double-checked. [/QUOTE]

As of now, all exponents below 50,000,000 have been tested at least once but that hasn't been noted on the site, yet.

That's nine millions in the last four months. The previous nine before that:

[QUOTE]December 11, 2013: All exponents below 45,000,000 tested at least once.
November 9, 2012: All exponents below 44,000,000 tested at least once.
August 27, 2012: All exponents below 25,000,000 double-checked.
April 23, 2011: All exponents below 22,000,000 double-checked.
January 7, 2010: All exponents below 20,000,000 double-checked.[/QUOTE]

The[SIZE=2] "Countdown to testing all exponents below M(57885161) once" fell below 10000 (at 9,957).
I hope that the milestone will be reached soon enough :)
(It doesn't seem too far away, although there'll probably be some exponents lagging behind.)

edit: I just refreshed the page and now the countdown is at 10,150. :confused:
[/SIZE]

I just changed the web page to only consider error-free LL tests in "all exponents below x are tested once" calculations. This was done so that it matches the rules when getting first-time assignments.

Wow some progress
 

Jan4: Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44rd Mersenne Prime: 12,721
Apr9: Countdown to proving M(32582657) is the 44th Mersenne Prime: 5,509

3 Months and about 65% done.
Dare I say by Fireworks day it could easily be done.!!!

[QUOTE=petrw1;370739]3 Months and about 65% done.
Dare I say by Fireworks day it could easily be done.!!![/QUOTE]Not a chance without some serious amount of "poaching" of the stragglers.

Even with the new assignment rules?

(I did not check anything, I am just honestly asking, you know, we put some hopes in these new rules...)