[QUOTE=kladner;360491]:tu: Congratz back atcha! Where is most of your power going now? P-1?[/QUOTE]

P-1, DC, mixes of stuff. Might pull everything to DC soon.

[QUOTE=kracker;360486]Congratz! (I mean congratz for you and your power company) :smile:

On another news, I have the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dc/graph/2-11/"]second[/URL] position on DC-LL quite well but LaurV will probably pass me quick unless I switch back to DC... :razz:[/QUOTE]

Pssst there is someone else in your rear view mirror too ... :shark:

[QUOTE=petrw1;360503]Pssst there is someone else in your rear view mirror too ... :shark:[/QUOTE]

:edit: You too? Fine. :devil:

[QUOTE=kracker;360486]LaurV will probably pass me quick unless I switch back to DC... :razz:[/QUOTE]
It hurts my heart to say it :smile:, but I won't be able to do that for a while. In fact, I have now about 1/5 of the power on DC, and 1/5 of the power on P-1 (you may have already remarked that I even almost stopped the P-1 for the last week, and you will overtake me... within today, on the P-1 lifetime top list on PrimeNet - you already recovered the ~300 GHzDays difference which was between us). Day before yesterday I put two 580 cards to do mfaktc_0.18_lowest_expos (raising all from 60 to 61 bits!) for few days, because that is the only work type which occupies only ~40% of the GPU (0.18 still sieves on the CPU, taking a full core), letting the rest of it free for daily work: we had to do lots of things about "SPS IPC Drives 2013" (google it) and all people around are still crazy about it... Bosses are still there, shouting at us over the phones and mails... Sh!tty times...

So, no time, no resources. Maybe next week to resume...

[QUOTE=LaurV;360505]It hurts my heart to say it :smile:, but I won't be able to do that for a while. In fact, I have now about 1/5 of the power on DC, and 1/5 of the power on P-1 (you may have already remarked that I even almost stopped the P-1 for the last week, and you will overtake me... within today, on the P-1 lifetime top list on PrimeNet - you already recovered the ~300 GHzDays difference which was between us). Day before yesterday I put two 580 cards to do mfaktc_0.18_lowest_expos (raising all from 60 to 61 bits!) for few days, because that is the only work type which occupies only ~40% of the GPU (0.18 still sieves on the CPU, taking a full core), letting the rest of it free for daily work: we had to do lots of things about "SPS IPC Drives 2013" (google it) and all people around are still crazy about it... Bosses are still there, shouting at us over the phones and mails... Sh!tty times...

So, no time, no resources. Maybe next week to resume...[/QUOTE]

Actually I passed you in P-1 all-time late yesterday. For the most I've stopped P-1 for now.

Also 300 GHz days of CPU power is almost nothing for me if I wanted to :razz:


Yes, because of my stupid electric company, I've decided it best to stop(for now!) many of my lesser-efficient machines. :razz:

EDIT: Also remember most of the time I don't use GPU's, they are mostly CPU.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360505]Day before yesterday I put two 580 cards to do mfaktc_0.18_lowest_expos (raising all from 60 to 61 bits!) [/QUOTE]

I thought everything was TF'ed to 65 :huh:

[QUOTE=TheMawn;360512]I thought everything was TF'ed to 65 :huh:[/QUOTE]
Not in the lowest_expo_range. (Below [STRIKE]200k[/STRIKE] 300k expos, special mfaktc edition). In fact, "65" is only valid over 8M expos, or so. Under it, [URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/2/0/"]there are plenty of them[/URL] factored "lower", for which some people still search for factors (TF, ECM, ETC).

@LaurV,

I´ve been doing that type of work for a while now, and still am, so tell me what exponent range you are actually factoring, so we don´t step on each other toes. Or are you only doing unreserved assignments, and reserving your work as you go?

[QUOTE=lycorn;360519]@LaurV,

I´ve been doing that type of work for a while now, and still am, so tell me what exponent range you are actually factoring, so we don´t step on each other toes. Or are you only doing unreserved assignments, and reserving your work as you go?[/QUOTE]
Whoops... I took everything done to 60, except the first 3 which are under 2000. Oliver's build of mfaktc.18 only accepts exponents over 2k. So, there[URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/3/0/"] were 417 exponents[/URL] when I checked in yesterday, and about 30 of them were done yesterday (auto report, misfit). For today,[STRIKE] I have to go home and see... [/STRIKE] [edit: wrong, I can not access my computer but still can see [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=1&exp_hi=300000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=60&txt=1&B1=Get+Data"]this gimps page[/URL], copy/paste in a text editor which shows the line numbers, only 320, so about 100 expos were done already, so about 40 hours left to finish all of them... ]

The point is that I checked Chris' Visualization page and saw activity in the last month, but nothing in the last week. I assumed no one is working there. The active assignment page of PrimeNet which I still can access, is not relevant, because many people (all??) have ECM-only assignments for this range (it is not possible to get other type of assignment, except P-1, which is already too high to be profitable).

So, sorry if I stepped on your toes. For me there was about 60 hours of work totally, so exactly what I was needing to "give a short break" to my cards. I wanted to do this for long time, although I am sure it is futile work: according with the qty of ECM done there, there should be no factor under 120-150 bits (40-50 digits?) or so. But is still fun...

OK, no big deal.
If you started by the 40K range, it´s perfect, as I have not done anything (yet) in that range. For the other ranges, I have only taken unreserved exponents.
But it´s odd that you have not noticed activity in the range, as I have been reporting work daily (10 - 15 exponents on average).
Just confirm you are going to do them all, and I´ll stop what I´m doing and move to other ranges/bit levels. After all, those small exponents are in better hands if done by a GTX580 :smile:.
I´ll probably take some 2.5M to 63 bits and move some CPU cores to ECM.

I am definitively *not* going to take them over 61 bits. Not this time :smile: So, 61 to infinity are yours :razz: I am just very bored by the "60" column in Chris' tables (can't see over the "72" because of it!), and wanna get rid of it! I hope someone will find factors, SNFS, ECM, whatever, for the remaining 3. Otherwise I may try doing them with Pari. :w00t:

I didn't "start with 40k", but split the list in 8 parts - the number of instances of Mfaktc running, this version consumes very little GPU and you need to start lots of instances, to get a reasonable occupancy of the card. This is because the sieving can only be done with very few primes, otherwise if you sieve with primes higher than 2*p+1 (when p=3 mod 4) or 6*p+1 (when p=1 mod 4), you risk to eliminate (lose) factors, so the CPU-GPU handshake is not very productive.

So the range is split in 8 (by MISFIT) and each subrange worked independently.

(I added links to the previous post)

[QUOTE=lycorn;360524]Just confirm you are going to do them all[/QUOTE]
Sure, just to be clear, I am going to raise all of them to 61, except the first 3, which are beyond (under) the limit of the Mfaktc version I have.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360527] I am just very bored by the "60" column in Chris' tables (can't see over the "72" because of it!), and wanna get rid of it! I hope someone will find factors, SNFS, ECM, whatever, for the remaining 3.
[/QUOTE]

Great minds think alike! :whistle:

So that´s it. I´ll move somewhere else. It´s actually a good thing you´ve decided to give it a go. That 40K range, in particular, would have killed me :smile:.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360529]Sure, just to be clear, I am going to raise all of them to 61, except the first 3, which are beyond (under) the limit of the Mfaktc version I have.[/QUOTE]

I've been chugging , admittedly slowly in that range for several years. It is the best work for my ancient PC. It does the best up to 62. As long as you first checked what is assigned I am fine. All my current work is in the 100K range going to 61 bits.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360523]
The point is that I checked Chris' Visualization page and saw activity in the last month, but nothing in the last week. I assumed no one is working there. The active assignment page of PrimeNet which I still can access, is not relevant, because many people (all??) have ECM-only assignments for this range (it is not possible to get other type of assignment, except P-1, which is already too high to be profitable).
.[/QUOTE]
I have been reporting a meagre 1-3 per day all year along with Lycorn's 10 or more
[url]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_delta_7/3/0/[/url]

I think this is the assignments page you want.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/assignments/?exp_lo=20000&exp_hi=300000&execm=1&exdchk=1&exfirst=1&exp1=1&B1=Get+Assignments[/url]

But again I have no problem if you do them. There is lots to go around for all of us. I never would have finished this alone.

Ok, everything I doooo, I do it for youuuu...

I found 21 reserved for you, in your list.. Because you gave me so nice list, I went through my worktodo and eliminated everything which is marked with an "x" in the following code snippet, this means they are yours, and you can continue to work them. I see you will be done in 8-10 days, which is not much.

For those which are not marked with an "x"... well, I didn't find them. As I grabbed all the "sixties", reserved or not, that would mean you were already too late, they are most probably done and reported, and you can eliminate them from 60 to 61 (better check first if they were really reported [edit: yep, [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=106213&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]they were[/URL]]). You are anyhow welcome to do 61 to 62, 63.. infinity, if you want... :razz:

[CODE]106213
110863 x
111919
116483
117259
118967
132439
134437 x
135977 x
136987 x
138727
139273
139397 x
140417 x
143093 x
143687 x
145879
146021
159979 x
160091 x
160093 x
[/CODE]From my side, I will finish the remaining of them (put the third card too, there are [STRIKE]281[/STRIKE] 273 of them yet to go) and move to something else, because this activity is not very "rewarding", the credit is too low, much less than a card can give if I work it on the LL front or doing DC/P-1 with it, and additionally, there will be (most probably) no factor to be found, due to the lots of ECM done there. Additionally, it does not help GIMPS at all (to find new primes, which is its main goal) because this range is long-ago settled.

My quest was only against that "60" column in Chris' tables, if he should split the table when I asked him last year :razz: then now I wouldn't waste resources, and do some useful work at the LL front :razz:

Thx...enjoy

Oh and for the record if you and Lycorn hadn't helped I could have been done by 2021 :razz:

Correct. And if you and I hadn´t helped, LaurV would probably be taking 2 or 3 more days...:smile:

Good idea, LaurV. If you need help, I could probably divert my laptop for a few days.

In order to clear up another range I've quickly written up a small Java program to convert factoring effort reports into mfaktx lines, so I'll get a set of lines to clean up 800M - 900M to 66 (even though it's pretty pointless work, that range is really close to being done but the leftovers that are only TFed to 65 are sparse and OCD says it should be fixed).

If someone wants the lines when I have them (Mawn perhaps?), I could quite easily send them over, there are only 6,000 or so and they will take probably 5 or so seconds per exponent on a GTX 670 or whatever you guys use.

Because people keep asking, I have asked Oliver about distributing the 0.18_low_expos version of mfaktc to third parties. He says like that (the "effort" of bolding few of the words is mine, he said them, but I took the liberty to [B][U]stress[/U][/B] them, because I very much agree):

[quote=TheJudger]
Technically it is GPL and you can do what you want with it. My advice is: [B][U]use this version "with care", e.g. only on exponents which the official release version can't do.[/U][/B] This is on my todo list because it was requested so many times. I'll add some testcases, do some runs with full debugging enabled and if it works I'll enable it for regular releases. If it doesn't work (without simple fixes) I'll ignore the requests for low exponents, [B][U]I still think it is not really useful.[/U][/B] ;)
[/quote]

So, here it is attached.

[B][U]Be warned that:[/U][/B] (or subjective motivation why it was not released to the public, beside of the other motivations explained before).

[B]1. The program is SLOW.[/B] Still, few times faster than the CPU, but because of the technical/mathematical details explained so many times (sieving large primes for small expos, large candidate base for small expos, etc), [U]do not expect[/U] to get the same performance like you would get with the "regular Mfaktc 0.20 working at the LL front". You will get about 1/20-1/50 of that performance, depending on your card. If you are "in" for the credit, this program [U]is not for you[/U] (read the next point too: CPU performance is also hurt).

[B]2. The program uses the CPU for sieving.[/B] You can use the ini files from the last version (0.20 or +, i.e. you don't need to create new ini files for it) to set the number of iterations, gpu number, if you have many, etc, but everything related to "gpu sieving" will be ignored. That part is developed long after this program was released. So, you will see the performance halving/doubling if you start/stop P95, or if your CPU is free/busy, etc. It is more suitable for when the CPU is free, or you want to keep it not very busy/hot for different reasons.

[B]3. [/B]Due to the point above, [B]the program may not maximize your card[/B]. This is good when you want to control the heat and power consumption, but will result in even lower credit for you. So, use GPU-Z to see how much your card is used, and if you want to squeeze the gpu, you will need to launch more copies of the program in the same card (bad part: each will use a CPU core; good part: logical core is enough). Put them in different folders, with its own ini, cudart (btw, see below), worktodo file, etc, and eventually [U]use Misfit[/U] to control all those instances. You may need 3-4-5 instances to max a gtx580, depending on your CPU, and if you have 4 cards inside the box, it will be a hell to control 20 instances without Misfit. Here is where Misfit is the king, and that is why it was done. New kids here are spoiled with new mfaktc versions which can filter with the GPU and max a card alone, without using the CPU at all, so the utility of Misfit is lost somehow, but the things were not always the same. A batch file is in the zip, just in case you want to use it as startup or inside of misfit, but first you look inside and edit the paths/names to your folders. The "questioning" in the beginning is very helpful, don't delete it, or you may end up launching it multiple times, they will all work in the same folders, creating a mess... ("don't ask us how we know" (TM))

[B]4. You will need the suitable cudart library. [/B]It says which one when you started it, you can dld the library from the forum's ftp, or from cudaLucas site, regular mfaktc sites, etc, there is nothing magic about the library. Put it in the same folder(s) as the program. [edit: I put one in the zip, but in case you don't trust it... (I was thinking two times before putting it, first because of the size, second because of the safety. I added a checksum file)]

[B]5. [/B]As pointed by Oliver above, and by others many times (me included) [B]you will not help GIMPS[/B] too much by working lowest_exponents. From GIMPS point of view, their status is cleared long time ago. You may be the cool guy to find a big factor for a small exponent, which may be same hard as finding a new mersenne prime (:razz:) considering the ECM done for those expos. That would be cool indeed :w00t:

[B]6. Profit...


[/B][Xyzzy: if you want , you can move the file in the right folders, to clean the space used by my quota]

Thx a bunch.
Have already tried it. I trusted "your" library, and it worked fine.
Will put it to use one of these days, upon finishing some work currently underway.

Getting the thread back on track to its intended porpoise.

All exponents below [B][COLOR="Pink"]26,572,589[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]44,944,841[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 16,699

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Purple"]30402457[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="Purple"]43[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 462
Countdown to proving M([COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]32582657[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]44[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 16,598

462 is a bit too much work to expect a "Christmas miracle" this year (or even a tidying up by the end of the year.)

462 DC before Christmas is super easy. We just need a few people on board. I'd be cool for doing a reserved exponent for no credit (and then giving whoever owns the assignment the credit when they submit the assignment IF they ever do) to clear up the ones which are probably being perpetually reserved.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;360836]462 DC before Christmas is super easy. We just need a few people on board. I'd be cool for doing a reserved exponent for no credit (and then giving whoever owns the assignment the credit when they submit the assignment IF they ever do) to clear up the ones which are probably being perpetually reserved.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I can do up to 100 DC a month, so I really don't think 462 is impossible by current whole output.

Hell, I'd even be up for giving [I]them[/I] the credit.

Merry Christmas! I did you assignment for you and here's your credit. This would be a really good way to clear up these "stuck" assignments.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;355173]All exponents below [B][COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]26,114,633[/COLOR][/B] have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below [B][COLOR="Sienna"]44,576,437[/COLOR][/B] have been tested at least once.

Countdown to testing all exponents below M([B][COLOR="Blue"]57885161[/COLOR][/B]) once: 21,382

Countdown to proving M([COLOR="Purple"]30402457[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="Purple"]43[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 924
Countdown to proving M([COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]32582657[/COLOR]) is the [COLOR="MediumTurquoise"]44[/COLOR]rd Mersenne Prime: 23,274[/QUOTE]

This quote is from October 3rd - I just want to point out that progress has been pretty steady on this first double-check milestone since then, and current GIMPS strategy has been to only hand out the lowest available double checks to "most trusted" participants. Rather than poach large numbers of assignments from long time participants who have worked diligently to obtain this "most trusted" status, why not work to make sure that all three of these milestones are reached some time in 2014, a very reasonable and attainable goal IMO? In a couple of months, it may be obvious that a handful of these assignments are indeed stuck, but why duplicate effort and possibly alienate some loyal contributors in the meantime?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;360836]462 DC before Christmas is super easy. We just need a few people on board. I'd be cool for doing a reserved exponent for no credit (and then giving whoever owns the assignment the credit when they submit the assignment IF they ever do) to clear up the ones which are probably being perpetually reserved.[/QUOTE]
The real problem is the hanged exponents. Under no circumstances will George or Chris encourage poaching them... :sad::smile:
(edit, sorry, I see it was already addressed)

Well, I just checked the top 5 or 6 in the list and they were assigned to either me, chalsall or monst.

Would taking all 461 exponents to 70/71/72 bits be considered poaching? That could eliminate a couple 20 exponents, I'm sure. (And by sure, I mean that I'm guessing without checking the average bit-depth for the actual assignments)

[QUOTE=kracker;360851]Well, I just checked the top 5 or 6 in the list and they were assigned to either me, chalsall or monst.[/QUOTE]

27 here. Not all scheduled in December but I could do some rearranging.

TheMawn, I've been a participant for 15 years and I request that you don't poach my DC assignments under 30402457. They will all be completed in the next two months.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;360827]462 is a bit too much work to expect a "Christmas miracle" this year (or even a tidying up by the end of the year.)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=philmoore;360849]This quote is from October 3rd - I just want to point out that progress has been pretty steady on this first double-check milestone since then, and current GIMPS strategy has been to only hand out the lowest available double checks to "most trusted" participants.[/QUOTE]Yes, we have been making good steady progress on the bottom end. I see no need to change anything. If for the past 6 months there had been 25 until the milestone, I might expect one of GIMPS "Christmas Miracles". But, with the steady march (I have been watching for us to be at 1/2 of the Oct 3rd value), I think that your right to look for the completion of multiple milestones in 2014. I am guessing that the 462 will be down to 0 by Pi Day '14. Remember that 100.1 kph > 100 kph.:cheesehead:

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;360857]Would taking all 461 exponents to 70/71/72 bits be considered poaching? That could eliminate a couple 20 exponents, I'm sure. (And by sure, I mean that I'm guessing without checking the average bit-depth for the actual assignments)[/QUOTE]
This might be a good use of resources if you assume that anyone alienated by having their long-running DC rendered worthless when a factor is found nonetheless continues to contribute to the project with the same enthusiasm as before. But I don't think the assumption holds.

[QUOTE=richs;360865]TheMawn, I've been a participant for 15 years and I request that you don't poach my DC assignments under 30402457. They will all be completed in the next two months.[/QUOTE]
+1 !
While it's true that I've participated for far less time, I do however also relate to this sentiment strongly.

2M-2.5M 62bit-63bit
 

Any hope for those ~3,2K low-hanging fruits from 2M to 2.5M, which need a push from 62 to 63 bits [URL]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/3/2000000/[/URL]? I am sure some factors will pop up. With your resources this will be a half day work. I occasionally do several expos in this range, but it will be nice if the heavy guns shoot once.

[QUOTE=bloodIce;360886]Any hope for those ~3,2K low-hanging fruits from 2M to 2.5M, which need a push from 62 to 63 bits [URL]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/3/2000000/[/URL]? I am sure some factors will pop up. With your resources this will be a half day work. I occasionally do several expos in this range, but it will be nice if the heavy guns shoot once.[/QUOTE]

I have a pea-shooter available. :)

Those are in the "normal mfaktc" range, so it would be no big effort. I made a list with all of them which are not reserved, about 3K. One non-OC, gtx580 can do two in 5 minutes (yes, you need two copies to max the card, the exponents are still small for big GPU sieving jobs, and the total GHZd/d maximum is about 340, or 360 with CPU sieving, but you waste also cpu core) so there would be 3000*5/4=3750, about 62 hours on two cards. You can't get the 440 GHzd/d like for the LL front. I may give it a run these days.

[QUOTE=LaurV;360892]Those are in the "normal mfaktc" range, so it would be no big effort. I made a list with all of them which are not reserved, about 3K. One non-OC, gtx580 can do two in 5 minutes (yes, you need two copies to max the card, the exponents are still small for big GPU sieving jobs, and the total GHZd/d maximum is about 340, or 360 with CPU sieving, but you waste also cpu core) so there would be 3000*5/4=3750, about 62 hours on two cards. You can't get the 440 GHzd/d like for the LL front. I may give it a run these days.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to do some of them too, but it seems that GPU72 can't handle them. I guess I should reserve them on Primenet...

Edit: No way :smile: I should find another way to get them.

Luigi

BTW, a shared list of valid exponents would be nice to work with...

[QUOTE=ET_;360893]I'd like to do some of them too, but it seems that GPU72 can't handle them.[/QUOTE]

GPU72 can handle just about anything... :wink:

If there is demand, a "Great Internet Mersenne Factor Search" option could be easily added. Just like we did for the 332M range. This would actually take me very little time.

I must be understood that the GIMFS effort would not help GIMPS in any way, since it would only involve searching for factors for MP candidates which have already been proven to be composite (read: two matching LLs).

But as as part of the ethos of the GIMPS community, those participating are free to do whatever they want with their own time, kit and money so long as it doesn't negatively impact other participants.

A show of hands who wants this? Please include desired ranges.

[QUOTE=ET_;360893]I'd like to do some of them too, but it seems that GPU72 can't handle them. I guess I should reserve them on Primenet...

Edit: No way :smile: I should find another way to get them.

Luigi

BTW, a shared list of valid exponents would be nice to work with...[/QUOTE]
Here is a misfit list, the other (717 exponents) are already queued in my 4 copies of mfaktc. I won't do more of them (for the immediate future) so please feel free do divide the list between any potential contributors.

Now I have 2 distinct answers!

@Chalsall: If you plan to add small mersennes' trial-factoring, be sure to add a warning for the user, to choose a mfaktc version below 20 using "less classes".

@LaurV: I'm going to wait for Chalsall's response, then I'll do my part on this (and other) range(s).

A big thank you to both of you! :bow:

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;360906]@Chalsall: If you plan to add small mersennes' trial-factoring, be sure to add a warning for the user, to choose a mfaktc version below 20 using "less classes".[/QUOTE]

1. Copy. Could I further ask you to give exact language for the warning? Possibly with a link (perhaps to a specialized thread in this forum) explaining why, and how to optimize the environment for this specialized kind of work?

2. Could you, LaurV, and anyone else who wants to play in this space let me know what ranges you want to work, and to what TF level?

3. Could you and LaurV please continue to work the space you've assigned between yourselves? I will endeavor to bring online into GPU72 the ranges for this kind of work you provide from #2 above in the interim.

4. Sorry for the shortness. In multitasking mode.

+1 on small ranges. :smile: Would love to work on some.

[QUOTE=chalsall;360912]1. Copy. Could I further ask you to give exact language for the warning? Possibly with a link (perhaps to a specialized thread in this forum) explaining why, and how to optimize the environment for this specialized kind of work?

2. Could you, LaurV, and anyone else who wants to play in this space let me know what ranges you want to work, and to what TF level?

3. Could you and LaurV please continue to work the space you've assigned between yourselves? I will endeavor to bring online into GPU72 the ranges for this kind of work you provide from #2 above in the interim.

4. Sorry for the shortness. In multitasking mode.[/QUOTE]

1 - The idea came from this posts in the GPU Trial factoring FAQ thread:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=273900&postcount=363[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=273908&postcount=364[/url]

Also, there is a brief interlude [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=309914&highlight=classes#post309914"]here[/URL].

I think LaurV and The Judger may have more infos about it.

As the range to be tested is short, it would be optimal to:
a) Compile (or get) mfaktc-019 with "MORE_CLASSES" undefined.
b) Run more than one instance of the program to maximize GPU throughput

2 - Once I get my hands on a working executable (I should have v0-.19 surce code to recompile) I will take the first 100 exponents of the list, just to be sure there is space for others.

3 - Of course! See section 2... :smile:

4 - Me too (C)

Edit: Forgot to ask: what should I do after completimg mmy first range? I.E. how to contact a server?
Edit 2: Never mind, I realized it is sufficient to send the result via the manual results page.


Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;360939]2 - Once I get my hands on a working executable (I should have v0-.19 surce code to recompile) I will take the first 100 exponents of the list, just to be sure there is space for others.[/QUOTE]

No one has yet directly answered my question.

What range(s) do you guys want GPU72 to facilitate? And to what level?

Multiple ranges and depths can be worked simultaneously. But I need to know what you want.

Please present these requests in CSV format, or something similar. E.g. "10M,11M,65".

[QUOTE=chalsall;360940]No one has yet directly answered my question.

What range(s) do you guys want GPU72 to facilitate? And to what level?

Multiple ranges and depths can be worked simultaneously. But I need to know what you want.

Please present these requests in CSV format, or something similar. E.g. "10M,11M,65".[/QUOTE]

I have no particular requests, though I'm eager to contribute GPU time. From what I read, I think the actual step would be clearing the range 2M-3M up to 64 bits, but I have no plans ready to discuss. :sorry:

Luigi

[QUOTE=chalsall;360940]Please present these requests in CSV format, or something similar. E.g. "10M,11M,65".[/QUOTE]

Sorry all, that was overly short...

At the same time I was typing that I was also trying to explain to a North American that Barbados is a sovereign state, and not a protectorate of the United States....

My 2 cents ... that small range could be cleared faster by a big GPU than the time it takes to talk about it. I vote we keep GPU72 more focused and less special cases.

[QUOTE=ET_;360939]
a) Compile (or get) mfaktc-019 with "MORE_CLASSES" undefined.
[/QUOTE]
Why use .19 instead of .20? I can compile something if you let me know what you need.

[QUOTE=flashjh;360946]Why use .19 instead of .20? I can compile something if you let me know what you need.[/QUOTE]

I'm on Linux... :-)

I chose 0.19 because I read somewhere that you could not use v0.20 for this task. I'm glad I was found in error :smile:

Do you just undefine the MORE_CLASSES definitin on mfaktc and run the sieve on the GPU?

Edit: never mind, I figured it out by myself: it was on params.h, and there is still a typographic glitch on the screen.

Luigi

Sorry, eating dinner. Yes, but remember that the GPU sieve doesn't work for less than 2^64 right now. Oliver plans to integrate all the 'repetitive' code from the kernels into one function (or something like that) so that mfaktc supports GPU sieve at all bit levels. I've also asked for a MORE_MORE_CLASSES version, if you will, for when we get to very large iteration times so that we don't have to wait so long for a save file and a screen update. All possibilities in the future.

Edit: What is the 'typographic glitch on the screen'?

[QUOTE=petrw1;360944]My 2 cents ... that small range could be cleared faster by a big GPU than the time it takes to talk about it. I vote we keep GPU72 more focused and less special cases.[/QUOTE]
I vote with this. I don't want any "special range" for now, and I only work these small expos when I need my CPU/GPU to do other (real life work) things. Mfaktc does not work optimally on such small expos/bitlevels, because it can't use the "_gs" kernels (gpu sieve), it will use kernels without "_gs" which sieve on CPU. The disadvantage is that you only get half of the "credit" the card can do, and you also waste 1-2 CPU cores, but the advantage is that you only use half of the resources, you produce less heat, consume less electricity :razz: and your system can rotate PCB's and acad parts with reasonable speed...

Edit: re: using v0.18 or v0.19: that affirmation I did for exponents under 1M, which we were testing that time. Here we are talking about exponents of 2M+, so v0.20 [B][U]can be used[/U][/B] but for such exponents, it will only do GPU sieving only from 65 bits up (see my previous posts, and the first paragraph of this current post). In fact, the "less classes" version (not to be confused with "lowest expo" version) of mfaktc would be theoretically the best choice: it has to be the fastest (about 10-20% faster!) for so "short time" assignments, due to lower [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_%28computing%29"]overhead[/URL] with the management of the classes.

[QUOTE=flashjh;360978]

Edit: What is the 'typographic glitch on the screen'?[/QUOTE]

The program says "class xxx/4620" even if it computes only 420 classes.

Luigi

And here we go...
 

The first 100 expos of the list are done, the results attched.

Who's going to go on?

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;361002]The program says "class xxx/4620" even if it computes only 420 classes.

Luigi[/QUOTE]
And you can't fix this from the ini file? (there were plenty of options for printing there, you can also use numerical in print format).
Don't [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=309945"]ask me[/URL] how I [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=309954"]know for[/URL] a long time! :razz:

[QUOTE=LaurV;361008]And you can't fix this from the ini file? (there were plenty of options for printing there, you can also use numerical in print format).
Don't [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=309945"]ask me[/URL] how I [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=309954"]know for[/URL] a long time! :razz:[/QUOTE]

Gotcha! :geek:

BTW, did playing with NumStreams and CpuStreams add efficiency? I could try myself, but I'm so lazy... :smile:

L.

First victory! :w00t:

[CODE]FACTORS FOUND: 1
PROCESSING RESULT: M2186747 HAS A FACTOR: 6816375925079296039
[TF:62:63*:MFAKTC 0.20 75BIT_MUL32]
CPU CREDIT IS 0.5339 GHZ-DAYS.[/CODE]

[QUOTE=LaurV;361016]First victory! :w00t:

[CODE]FACTORS FOUND: 1
PROCESSING RESULT: M2186747 HAS A FACTOR: 6816375925079296039
[TF:62:63*:MFAKTC 0.20 75BIT_MUL32]
CPU CREDIT IS 0.5339 GHZ-DAYS.[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Congrats! :smile:

I'll take 100 more for tonight.

Luigi

Good job!
 

[QUOTE=LaurV;361016]First victory! :w00t:

[CODE]FACTORS FOUND: 1
PROCESSING RESULT: M2186747 HAS A FACTOR: 6816375925079296039
[TF:62:63*:MFAKTC 0.20 75BIT_MUL32]
CPU CREDIT IS 0.5339 GHZ-DAYS.[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Congratulations, LaurV! One down :smile:. If you finish these 700 and ET crunches the 200, then more than a quarter of the work is done. It would have taken me above two months continuous dedication to TF 900 of those expos. And to both of you it took less than 24 hours as I see. Good work guys :smile:.

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.

For all the above situations, CPUs may obviously be used. This might interest people with old hardware/32-bit OS. Old Athlons, or Intel Core architecture, are good examples.

GPUto72 could control the flow of assignments/reports, as suggested above in the thread.
While that is not implemented, if it will ever be, the exponents may be obtained by copying them from appropriate "Factoring Limits" Primenet pages, and the manual test pages may be used to report results. Also, during this interim (pre GPUto72) phase I would urge all participants in this quest to [U]reserve[/U] all assignments they are working in, and to [U]only request non-assigned exponents[/U], so we don´t step on each other toes.

Opinions? Suggestions? Critics (just spare me of "It´s of no use for GIMPS purposes")? :wink:

P.S.: I´m currently doing some 2.52 M to 63. Please be so kind as to... :smile:

P.S. 2: Suggestions on what to do about cracking the three tough nuts below 2K also welcome. There are currently no ways to put a GPU at it, and even CPU TF will not work (at least from Prime95 version 25 onwards). Let´s just sit and wait for SNFS to do it, or?...

I'm starting on 2347031. That's where you left off, right? (after the 100 for tonight)

I believe we should split off to a new thread. Exciting mini-project... :smile:

[QUOTE=flashjh;361035]I'm starting on 2347031. That's where you left off, right? (after the 100 for tonight)[/QUOTE]

Correct! How may exponents (so that I will update the remainders)?

Luigi

[QUOTE=LaurV;360987] In fact, the "less classes" version (not to be confused with "lowest expo" version) of mfaktc would be theoretically the best choice: it has to be the fastest (about 10-20% faster!) for so "short time" assignments, [/QUOTE]

Hmmm... not quite. IIRC, the "Less Classes" variant was recommended for assignments of the type 300/400M+ from 65 to 66, or something of that sort, because those ones yes, they are really short.
Taking, say, 1.1M from to 62 to 63 bits is [U]not[/U] a short assignment, so I don´t think it qualifies for the use of that particular version.

[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:
...[/QUOTE]

A couple concerns:
1. We don't want to steal valuable GPU72 resources on the LL wavefront.
2. ECM in this range probably already found most factors up to 65 bits.
3. And more effecient to find ths rest?

[QUOTE=lycorn;361039]Hmmm... not quite. IIRC, the "Less Classes" variant was recommended for assignments of the type 300/400M+ from 65 to 66, or something of that sort, because those ones yes, they are really short.
Taking, say, 1.1M from to 62 to 63 bits is [U]not[/U] a short assignment, so I don´t think it qualifies for the use of that particular version.[/QUOTE]

Correct.

From the tests I did, the timings of v0.19 with or without MORE_CLASSES are roughly the same, both CPU-limited.

Anyway, I am running 2 instances of mfaktc 0.19 and four other sieving applications during the night, and let the scheduler do its job... :razz:

Luigi

[QUOTE=petrw1;361040]A couple concerns:
1. We don't want to steal valuable GPU72 resources on the LL wavefront.
2. ECM in this range probably already found most factors up to 65 bits.
3. And more effecient to find ths rest?[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

As long as we are just a bunch of maniacs in a miniproject, All we need is a list of exponents and a reservation thread.

Now, who will take the charge of creating and updating the list? :smile:

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;361038]Correct! How may exponents (so that I will update the remainders)?

Luigi[/QUOTE]
I have the rest spread accross my machines. I'll post when they're done :smile:

[QUOTE=petrw1;361040]A couple concerns:
1. We don't want to steal valuable GPU72 resources on the LL wavefront.
2. ECM in this range probably already found most factors up to 65 bits.
3. And more effecient to find ths rest?[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree... But some people appear to be interested/amused by this kind of work.

In this effor, I will only be a facilitator of the range(s) some within this community wish to work; This is to try to minimize "toes being stepped on".

My week is already almost fully programmed, but I should have some cycles this weekend. This is actually really easy for me to do, so it will be online by EOD Sunday.

Please determine what ranges Make Sense[SUP](TM)[/SUP], or are at least desired, by Saturday noon (Barbados Time, +1 of EST).

[QUOTE=chalsall;361044]I don't disagree... But some people appear to be interested/amused by this kind of work.

In this effor, I will only be a facilitator of the range(s) some within this community wish to work; This is to try to minimize "toes being stepped on".

My week is already almost fully programmed, but I should have some cycles this weekend. This is actually really easy for me to do, so it will be online by EOD Sunday.

Please determine what ranges Make Sense[SUP](TM)[/SUP], or are at least desired, by Saturday noon (Barbados Time, +1 of EST).[/QUOTE]

:bow:

Luigi

[QUOTE=chalsall;361044]

In this effor, I will only be a facilitator of the range(s) some within this community wish to work; This is to try to minimize "toes being stepped on".

[/QUOTE]

Precisely. It wil be just an automated version of the "list of exponents and reservation thread" mentioned by ET_. Good one about the bunch of maniacs, Luigi, I´m a proud member!:smile:

@petrw1: While it is certainly true that many of the factors <= 65 bits to be found in the <1M ranges were already cleared by ECM, don´t forget we have many exponents factored to only 63 and 64 bits in ranges as high as 8M and 10M, where ECM has been in very little use.
But note that the proposal was to "take exponents to 65 bits", the finding of factors being a side effect. So...
Gosh, I really became a pretty little maniac.:loco: :smile:

[QUOTE=ET_;361045]:bow:

Luigi[/QUOTE]

Please remember the rule: no bowing. :wink:

We're all awesome around here.... :smile:

Now... Can I get a list of areas worked/ing on now so I don't step on anyone?

Me, myself and I: 2.52M,62,63.
I noticed David Campeau has been actively working on 7M,64,65.
If everybody cares to reserve the expos and to only take unreserved, no stepping will occur.

[QUOTE=kracker;361051] a list of areas worked [/QUOTE]

For that purpose, GIMPS Visualization will be your friend. You´ll easily spot the number of exponents done to each level at any range, and drilling down the report you´ll end up in the "Factoring Limits" page of GIMPS. Once there, adjust the parameters to suit your needs and you´re set. Getting the reports in text format is great.

[QUOTE=lycorn;361057]For that purpose, GIMPS Visualization will be your friend. You´ll easily spot the number of exponents done to each level at any range, and drilling down the report you´ll end up in the "Factoring Limits" page of GIMPS. Once there, adjust the parameters to suit your needs and you´re set. Getting the reports in text format is great.[/QUOTE]

Just for fun, started 3(.0)M 63 to 64. On mfakto, strangely it is faster than exponents in the LL range... :loco: (170 GHz when it stabilized)

I'm working (slowly) on 4M to 64.

2^64
 

I think that it is more realistic and more even to have everything done to 64bits. We are talking about 150K expos, and about 20K of them are really hard to go to 64bits. Anyhow, it will be achievable goal if all expos>1,000,000 go to 64bits (~130K). One difficulty I see is that not everyone has access to the special LowEx mfaktc edition. It is a dream of mine to have it, but there are only chosen few to use it.
[I]
P.S.: I took some above 6,666,000 and plan (slowly) to go to 6,700,000 from 63 to 64.
[/I]

[QUOTE=bloodIce;361063]I think that it is more realistic and more even to have everything done to 64bits. We are talking about 150K expos, and about 20K of them are really hard to go to 64bits. Anyhow, it will be achievable goal if all expos>1,000,000 go to 64bits (~130K). One difficulty I see is that not everyone has access to the special LowEx mfaktc edition. It is a dream of mine to have it, but there are only chosen few to use it.[/QUOTE]It has been tested a lot and produces reliable results, but GPU sieve only works from 2^64 and up, right now :) I compiled a version that specifies my username in the results line, that way the work can be redone if something is missed. With TF it's not so critical as LL/DC though.

[QUOTE=bloodIce;361063]I think that it is more realistic and more even to have everything done to 64bits. We are talking about 150K expos, and about 20K of them are really hard to go to 64bits. Anyhow, it will be achievable goal if all expos>1,000,000 go to 64bits (~130K). One difficulty I see is that not everyone has access to the special LowEx mfaktc edition. It is a dream of mine to have it, but there are only chosen few to use it.
[I]
P.S.: I took some above 6,666,000 and plan (slowly) to go to 6,700,000 from 63 to 64.
[/I][/QUOTE]

If you work on Linux, "I may be of assistance" ((C) Starlost) with source code and compile guide.
You don't need the "LowEx version" to run expos > 2M.

Luigi

Yes, I am under Linux. I know that I do not need the LowEx for M>1,000,000, but I want to do some work in the 800,000 range. That is why I am very curious what happens with mfatkc bellow 1,000,000 and why the limit is not 100,000 or even 10,000.

[QUOTE=bloodIce;361077]Yes, I am under Linux. I know that I do not need the LowEx for M>1,000,000, but I want to do some work in the 800,000 range. That is why I am very curious what happens with mfatkc bellow 1,000,000 and why the limit is not 100,000 or even 10,000.[/QUOTE]

TheJudger may help here. From what I recall, the overhead needed to load all the multiprocessors was too high for a very opttimized program.

You could still have a "tweaked" version that is not as aggressive (i.e. work less efficiently), but till now it was not a high priority need.

If you had 16 cores, you could still test my Factor5 (it was a little more efficent in that configuration than Prime95 when I tested it on a Prescott). And maybe Ernst has his parallel version of Factor as well.

HTH

Luigi

My second range of 100 completed, and, well...

[code]
M2340673 has a factor: 6466054245513040351 [TF:62:63:mfaktc 0.19 75bit_mul32]
found 1 factor for M2340673 from 2^62 to 2^63 [mfaktc 0.19 75bit_mul32]
[/code]

Luigi

Congratulations for the factor. It seems that there are some of those left :smile:.
As for Factor5, in my hands if I run it on 4cores it is about 2,5x slower than Primer95 run on one core (so in total about 10x slower). If I compare it to mfaktc it will be even worse. It is an nice idea to utilize all cores for an expo, but Primer95 is still better. I might missed some setting though.

[QUOTE=bloodIce;361117]Congratulations for the factor. It seems that there are some of those left :smile:.
As for Factor5, in my hands if I run it on 4cores it is about 2,5x slower than Primer95 run on one core (so in total about 10x slower). If I compare it to mfaktc it will be even worse. It is an nice idea to utilize all cores for an expo, but Primer95 is still better. I might missed some setting though.[/QUOTE]

You are right, I forgot that my timings referrerd to Prime95 not multi-threaded, so that 16 threads of Factor5 were a bit faster than Prime95 single thread. I still may have some ideas for optimization, but they won't compare to the new Prime95.

We defiitely need a customized CUDA program for small expos...

Luigi

Just reserved a batch of 20 (2.51M,62,63).
I´m using an old Intel dual Core @1.8GHz. Not working 24/7, so it will take a couple of days.

[QUOTE=lycorn;361054]Me, myself and I: 2.52M,62,63.
I noticed David Campeau has been actively working on 7M,64,65.
If everybody cares to reserve the expos and to only take unreserved, no stepping will occur.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I use Prime95 to reserve unassigned expo in the 1M - 10M range that are at 64 bit. Then I switch my worktotdo file to mfaktc. If everyone reserve with Primenet, no one should step on any toes.

I'm also work at doing P-1 in that range (unfortunatly Primenet doesnt track those reservation). If anyone want to jump in to help there, we will have to coordinate the effort. To date I have found 312 factors in the last 3 months. I'm adding 5% more factor probability to the existing work, but I only get 2.3% success rate thus far. Probably because there was a lot of ECM work done in the range.

[QUOTE=lycorn;361039]Hmmm... not quite. IIRC, the "Less Classes" variant was recommended for assignments of the type 300/400M+ from 65 to 66, or something of that sort, because those ones yes, they are really short.
Taking, say, 1.1M from to 62 to 63 bits is [U]not[/U] a short assignment, so I don´t think it qualifies for the use of that particular version.[/QUOTE]
Correct. I tried it and you are right. Sorry :blush:

BTW, finished my range, [STRIKE]8[/STRIKE] 7 (sorry, wrong counting! one was from a different range) factors found.
[code]
M2186747 has a factor: 6816375925079296039 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2192387 has a factor: 4772503165120678223 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2232889 has a factor: 7490062285023913423 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2202533 has a factor: 4822443047224966873 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2246551 has a factor: 8939019228125586599 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2206759 has a factor: 8117337983834625703 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
M2212433 has a factor: 9227837650261017119 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20 75bit_mul32]
[/code]

I will not work in the 2M-3M range for the time being.

[QUOTE=blahpy;360581]In order to clear up another range I've quickly written up a small Java program to convert factoring effort reports into mfaktx lines, so I'll get a set of lines to clean up 800M - 900M to 66 (even though it's pretty pointless work, that range is really close to being done but the leftovers that are only TFed to 65 are sparse and OCD says it should be fixed).

If someone wants the lines when I have them (Mawn perhaps?), I could quite easily send them over, there are only 6,000 or so and they will take probably 5 or so seconds per exponent on a GTX 670 or whatever you guys use.[/QUOTE]

I have finished tidying it up.

[QUOTE=blahpy;361132]I have finished tidying it up.[/QUOTE]

Are you using GPU sieving? If so, I can take 1,000 exponents while a new list for low-factored 2M exponents comes out.

Luigi

[QUOTE=ET_;361134]Are you using GPU sieving? If so, I can take 1,000 exponents while a new list for low-factored 2M exponents comes out.

Luigi[/QUOTE]

I meant, I have taken those last 6,000 exponents up to 2^66 myself already :)

[QUOTE=blahpy;361135]I meant, I have taken those last 6,000 exponents up to 2^66 myself already :)[/QUOTE]

:redface:

Luigi

[QUOTE=bloodIce;360886]Any hope for those ~3,2K low-hanging fruits from 2M to 2.5M, which need a push from 62 to 63 bits [URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/3/2000000/"][COLOR=#0066cc]http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_tabular_data/3/2000000/[/COLOR][/URL]? I am sure some factors will pop up. With your resources this will be a half day work. I occasionally do several expos in this range, but it will be nice if the heavy guns shoot once.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ET_;361038]Correct! How may exponents (so that I will update the remainders)?

Luigi[/QUOTE]
All done. Found 12 factors :smile:
[CODE]M2353657 has a factor: 9158731620188823601 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2357167 has a factor: 6862040924454446641 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2357483 has a factor: 7205650442358613943 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2380241 has a factor: 8948578016786415841 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2386859 has a factor: 7761331228334735449 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2403913 has a factor: 5252674518907474873 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2410351 has a factor: 6458874527758286167 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2420417 has a factor: 6353821671263040703 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2422781 has a factor: 5029481903039574241 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2423581 has a factor: 4801187570656498871 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2451433 has a factor: 5573887011291003313 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
M2484739 has a factor: 6449682757245875783 [TF:62:63*:mfaktc 0.20-LessClass(flashjh) 75bit_mul32]
[/CODE]

Amazing work guys :bow wave: (I intentionally do not mention names because even those TFing one or two expos contribute, but special thanks to the big guns)! Together for less then 48 hours you did around 2,500 of those expos. I cannot believe it. There are some 625 left ([URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=2000000&exp_hi=2600000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=62&exassigned=1&B1=Get+Data"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=2000000&exp_hi=2600000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=62&exassigned=1&B1=Get+Data)[/URL]. And some 74 reserved, but the range is almost done.You found at least 12+7+1 = 20 factors. Yeah, not what you dreamt for, but around 0.8% is not that bad for a Pm1ed and slightly ECMed range. Most importantly, soon there will be no 62bit expos left (above the million). So at the and of the range we expect around 10 new factors.
I slowly progress with my >M6,666,000 to 64bits as I promised. I realised that those below 1M are not completely lost cause, but very hard (and this will be primary Prime95 job).

[QUOTE=lycorn;361123]Just reserved a batch of 20 (2.51M,62,63).
[/QUOTE]

... and just noticed that somebody, who shall remain unnamed, has finished it.:bangheadonwall:
Guys, don´t carried away! Please reserve your work and only take work not reserved by somebody else.

[QUOTE=bloodIce;361063] One difficulty I see is that not everyone has access to the special LowEx mfaktc edition. It is a dream of mine to have it, but there are only chosen few to use it.
[/QUOTE]

:hello: You may wish to read this post:

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=360585&postcount=895"]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=360585&postcount=895[/URL]