[QUOTE=proxy2222;446209]DC 38M is done :wacky:[/QUOTE]

Cool... I missed this yesterday but it looks like George (or James?) made the updates on the milestone page. Thanks! :smile:

[QUOTE]All exponents below 69,000,000 tested at least once.[/QUOTE]
:tu:

On the [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/"]primenet status page[/URL] in the column 'Composite LL-D', the remaining number of exponents which have been double checked but not yet factored is about to drop below 22.000 per every range of 1 million.

The number of exponents that have been factored in the range from 0 up to the lowest exponent that has not yet been double checked, currently at about 38M, has been pretty impressive. Additional trial factoring, P-1 factoring and ECM decreases the number of exponents without known factors substantially.

[QUOTE=petrw1;445923][URL]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/[/URL]

More than 50 Million GhzDays Work Done
More than 20 Million GhzDays Work Saved
- This is pretty close to the total LL done in the last 365 days.
- Though saved can be P-1, DC and LL[/QUOTE]

The idea being, of course, that the 50 million GHz-days did not really cost 50 million GHz-days, due to the speed differential between GPUs and CPUs. IIRC, the formula to compare apples to apples, so to speak, was to effectively divide the number of GPU GHz-days by 100/3 = ~33.3 to get an idea of the equivalent CPU GHz-days.

Thus GPU72 has saved more than 20 million GHz-days of work at an equivalent cost of roughly 50/33.3 = 1.5 million GHz-days. Now *that* is an impressive return on investment!

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;449339]IIRC, the formula to compare apples to apples, so to speak, was to effectively divide the number of GPU GHz-days by 100/3 = ~33.3 to get an idea of the equivalent CPU GHz-days.

Thus GPU72 has saved more than 20 million GHz-days of work at an equivalent cost of roughly 50/33.3 = 1.5 million GHz-days. Now *that* is an impressive return on investment![/QUOTE]

Looking at GPU productivity figures for TF vs LL, the top of the line GPUs show a ratio of TF Gd/d vs LL Gd/d of somewhere between 13-18.5, so an average ratio of 16 might be more accurate. That'd still mean only 50/16 ~= 3 million expended for a gain of 20mil - impressive, as you say. However, this might be skewed if there are lots of shallow-but-wide searches, as it will inflate the ROI.

70M milestone
 

[url]www.mersenne.org/assignments?exp_lo=67000000&exp_hi=70000000&execm=1&exdchk=1[/url]

70M milestone being held up by 2 abandoned assignments.
Are we really going to wait 26 days for it to expire ?

[QUOTE=srow7;449382][url]www.mersenne.org/assignments?exp_lo=67000000&exp_hi=70000000&execm=1&exdchk=1[/url]

70M milestone being held up by 2 abandoned assignments.
Are we really going to wait 26 days for it to expire ?[/QUOTE]

No doubt anonymous will poach them and a few forumers have already done checks and they are not prime.

Why do they have to be poached? It should have become apparent a few weeks ago that they were in the high nineties of advance and going nowhere.

When there is a negative ETA for more than a full week they should be recycled.

IMHO

[QUOTE=srow7;449382]Are we really going to wait 26 days for it to expire ?[/QUOTE]Sure, why not? Why so impatient?[QUOTE=rudy235;449394]Why do they have to be poached? It should have become apparent a few weeks ago that they were in the high nineties of advance and going nowhere.

When there is a negative ETA for more than a full week they should be recycled.[/QUOTE]Then primenet breaks its promise of time granted to complete. If you make a promise then keep it, else you look like an a:censored:e. We have no idea of the status of the systems running those numbers.

[QUOTE=srow7;449382][URL="http://www.mersenne.org/assignments?exp_lo=67000000&exp_hi=70000000&execm=1&exdchk=1"]www.mersenne.org/assignments?exp_lo=67000000&exp_hi=70000000&execm=1&exdchk=1[/URL]

70M milestone being held up by 2 abandoned assignments.
Are we really going to wait 26 days for it to expire ?[/QUOTE]

The "Expires (days)" column is incorrect. They will expire next tuesday (2016-12-20) because they have not reported in for 30 days and will get reassigned to somebody else.

[QUOTE=proxy2222;449435]The "Expires (days)" column is incorrect. They will expire next tuesday (2016-12-20) because they have not reported in for 30 days and will get reassigned to somebody else.[/QUOTE]

Thanks!
I think that promises should be kept. I do feel however that there is an implied promise on the part of those who take an assignment. That one needs to be kept too.