Thanks to everyone who riffed off of my question/speculation. There are certainly some interesting items in there. I'm still doing air cooling on everything, but I rather wish I'd looked harder to liquid cooling before I got the current massive HSF. It works quite well, outperforming a single 120mm closed loop radiator which I tested briefly, but it does dump the heat inside the case instead of outside.

There are now over 800,000 registered CPUs on PrimeNet. :showoff:

I have 39 registered CPUs, but only 12 of them are doing work. (One of those 12 one is "Manual testing", representing two graphics cards.) Another one is turned off, but the rest of them are not real. 11 of them appeared while I was benchmarking Amazon's EC2 Cloud servers, and hiring each server for just an hour. The rest are either CPUs from computers I upgraded, or when I had to reinstall the OS due to a disk crash and the CPU appeared as a new one.

But at least it shows that people are upgrading. :smile:

[QUOTE=patrik;345083]I have 39 registered CPUs, but only 12 of them are doing work. (One of those 12 one is "Manual testing", representing two graphics cards.) Another one is turned off, but the rest of them are not real. 11 of them appeared while I was benchmarking Amazon's EC2 Cloud servers, and hiring each server for just an hour. The rest are either CPUs from computers I upgraded, or when I had to reinstall the OS due to a disk crash and the CPU appeared as a new one.

But at least it shows that people are upgrading. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Indeed, I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the 800,000+ registered CPUs are either V4 transfers, duplicates, one-time use systems, or simply downright dead systems.

In the last 30 days, only ~25,000 registered systems have been active. This number is generally stable from one month to the next. So only ~3% of the total field of registered systems are actually active.

Imagine what kind of throughput we'd have if all 800,000 systems were actively contributing!

We might be led to conclude that (hopefully a majority of) newer registrations will actually become successful contributors to the project.

As of today:

[URL]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_tabular_data/0/0/[/URL]

Just over 28M candidates factored! (55.07% of total)

[QUOTE=lycorn;346699]As of today:

[URL]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_tabular_data/0/0/[/URL]

Just over 28M candidates factored! (55.07% of total)[/QUOTE]
As much as I hate to be "that guy", don't consider Mersenne.info as canon for statuses. For example:
[url]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_tabular_data/3/33000000/[/url]
with regards to the "No LL" column- all have had at least one LL, confirmed by
[url]http://mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url]

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;346703]As much as I hate to be "that guy", don't consider Mersenne.info as canon for statuses. For example:
[url]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_tabular_data/3/33000000/[/url]
with regards to the "No LL" column- all have had at least one LL, confirmed by
[url]http://mersenne.org/report_milestones/[/url][/QUOTE]

Definitively.

To be clear, Mersenne.org, Mersenne.info and GPU72.com are completely separate. The latter grew out of the former (about 20 months ago), but they're all on different servers, and code bases. They are completely independent.

At the end of the day, Primenet is canonical.

How does the visualisation tool collect data for exponent status? I had previously assumed it just parsed a copy of the PrimeNet summary page daily, but evidently that's not the case if it throws out errors like the one that c10ck3r pointed out. After all, it seems to be accurate for the most part?

[QUOTE=blahpy;346715]How does the visualisation tool collect data for exponent status? I had previously assumed it just parsed a copy of the PrimeNet summary page daily, but evidently that's not the case if it throws out errors like the one that c10ck3r pointed out. After all, it seems to be accurate for the most part?[/QUOTE]

I have a machine here in Barbados which "spiders" Primenet every day at ~0400 UTC.

What is being pointed out as a mistake is something which my code did about a year ago (much to my surprise -- thank god I don't have daughters) which I haven't yet had time to figured out because I didn't really consider it that important.

Terribly sorry. Not the end of the day... Anyone who really is serious about this could answer this themselves if they wanted.

Rather busy at the moment....

[QUOTE=chalsall;346716]
Terribly sorry. Not the end of the day... Anyone who really is serious about this could answer this themselves if they wanted.

Rather busy at the moment....[/QUOTE]

I don't think anyone was complaining, I simply asked out of curiosity.

From what I have observed, GIMPS Visualization (mersenne.info) provides a rather accurate information. I already knew about that 33M thing, but I think it´s a one-off error. You may sometimes have a delay of several days until a particular 1M range gets updated if no factors are found in that range, but hey...