[QUOTE=kladner;362706]I must also note that I just received another boot to the rear in P-1. As anticipated, LaurV, as himself, has roared past me and is now rapidly closing in on Uncwilly and Chuck.[/QUOTE]

I stopped doing P-1 a couple of weeks ago and switched those cores to DC.

We are pretty over-powered in the P-1 department these days so I hope his won't start a P-1 stats war. We could do with more GPU TF though. While we have "just" managed to TF everything to 74 being handed out for LL, abut more power would give us some much needed breathing room.

Well, LaurV had the power of himself, chalsall and me(although not all) combined.

[QUOTE=kracker;362716]Well, LaurV had the power of himself, chalsall and me(although not all) combined.[/QUOTE]

I had some inkling of that, but did not search back to read the posts. So that's america64, eh?

[QUOTE=Chuck;362711]I stopped doing P-1 a couple of weeks ago and switched those cores to DC.[/QUOTE]

Same here maybe a week back. Six cores are now doing DC, and only two are left doing P-1.

[QUOTE=kladner;362764]I had some inkling of that, but did not search back to read the posts. So that's america64, eh?[/QUOTE]

No, that's LaurV. What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.

[QUOTE=kracker;362771]No, that's LaurV. What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear. I don't unassign often, but did just recently quite a few times during a change of work type. I had no idea an unassign counted as "done".

I thought you were saying that america64 is LaurB on steroids.

[QUOTE=garo;362714]We are pretty over-powered in the P-1 department these days so I hope his won't start a P-1 stats war. We could do with more GPU TF though. While we have "just" managed to TF everything to 74 being handed out for LL, abut more power would give us some much needed breathing room.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that?

:davieddy:

[QUOTE=kracker;362771]What I didn't mention about the bug, is that when you unassign, the gpu72 system counts it as "done". Thus, "free" credit on gpu72... That is what happened looking at that user.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reminding me about this bug. I'll try to squash it over the holidays. And, also, figure out the regression on the Overall Worker's page which is causing some oddities.

[QUOTE=chalsall;362822]Thanks for reminding me about this bug. I'll try to squash it over the holidays. And, also, figure out the regression on the Overall Worker's page which is causing some oddities.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. :smile:

[QUOTE=lycorn;361034]I would like to propose that we collectively engage in an effort to take to 65 bits all exponents that are below that level.
I have identified 3 different situations:

1. [B]Exponents lower than 1 MB, regardless of the current bit level they are factored to[/B]:
These cases have to be dealt with using the mfaktc version that works with small exponents. All caveats mentioned by TheJudger and LaurV in this thread shall be taken into account.

2.[B] Exponents > 1MB, factored to 63 bits or less:[/B]
GPU sieving doesn´t work for these bit levels, so either it is disabled in the config file or we use 0.19 or lower.

3. [B]Exponents > 1 MB, and factored to 64 bits:[/B]
For these exponents, mfaktc 0.20 shall be used.
[/QUOTE]

For "fun" I have been tracking progress to taking all exponents to 64 bits since September, 2010.

[CODE]September 2010: Just over 435,000 GhzDays of work left.
Some exponents still at 58 bits.
No exponents over 9,000,000.

December 2013: about 337,350 GhzDays of work left.
All but 3 to 61 bits.
No exponents over 8,000,000.
The top 5 producers do more than this in 1 year.

About 22% of the work completed.[/CODE]