For these cards (like all GCN ones) it may even be more beneficial to just factor to 73 bits (as long as we have assignments there), as they're more efficient in that range. You can request the "to: 73" level from GPU72 as well, using the "What makes sense" option.

[QUOTE=Bdot;377578]For these cards (like all GCN ones) it may even be more beneficial to just factor to 73 bits (as long as we have assignments there), as they're more efficient in that range.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, and it's useful because it helps build up a buffer for Spidy's "rip-cord" for if and when we need to release candidates early (although it's becoming less and less of an issue). Oh, and I think it's safe to say that we will [I]always[/I] have such work available and needed. :wink:

[QUOTE=Bdot;377578]You can request the "to: 73" level from GPU72 as well, using the "What makes sense" option.[/QUOTE]

Yes, from the manual assignment form, or using MISFIT or teknohog's "primetools".

Be sure to use "What makes sense", or any other option except "Let GPU72 Decide" (LGD), as LGD sets the "Pledge Level" (currently to 74).

Can I ask a favour of someone with an AMD card on Linux using teknohog's primetools? I've got a fork where I've added support for taking into account checkpoint files when using the cache-by-ghz-days option, but I haven't been able to test it with mfakto checkpoint files (just mfaktc).

To test, clone or merge [url]https://github.com/MarkRose/primetools[/url] and execute the mfloop.py script as you normally do but with the -g option for caching GHz-days of work (a value of 1 will most likely not fetch any new work, if you have anything in your worktodo.txt file) and the -d option to print debugging info. It should state the percent completion from the checkpoint file.

Thanks!

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;377609]Can I ask a favour of someone with an AMD card on Linux using teknohog's primetools? I've got a fork where I've added support for taking into account checkpoint files when using the cache-by-ghz-days option, but I haven't been able to test it with mfakto checkpoint files (just mfaktc).

To test, clone or merge [url]https://github.com/MarkRose/primetools[/url] and execute the mfloop.py script as you normally do but with the -g option for caching GHz-days of work (a value of 1 will most likely not fetch any new work, if you have anything in your worktodo.txt file) and the -d option to print debugging info. It should state the percent completion from the checkpoint file.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Is there a reason for Linux? I use primetools(experimenting) in Windows.

[QUOTE=kracker;377612]Is there a reason for Linux? I use primetools(experimenting) in Windows.[/QUOTE]

I thought Windows users used MISFIT. No, there is no reason for Linux. If primetools is working, then by all means please try my fork :)

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;377622]No, there is no reason for Linux.[/QUOTE]

There are many reasons for Linux. It works reliably, for example.... :wink:

[QUOTE=chalsall;377626]There are many reasons for Linux. It works reliably, for example.... :wink:[/QUOTE]

lol yes. I defenestrated 11 years ago and that was one of the reasons why :)

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;377609]Can I ask a favour of someone with an AMD card on Linux using teknohog's primetools? I've got a fork where I've added support for taking into account checkpoint files when using the cache-by-ghz-days option, but I haven't been able to test it with mfakto checkpoint files (just mfaktc).

To test, clone or merge [url]https://github.com/MarkRose/primetools[/url] and execute the mfloop.py script as you normally do but with the -g option for caching GHz-days of work (a value of 1 will most likely not fetch any new work, if you have anything in your worktodo.txt file) and the -d option to print debugging info. It should state the percent completion from the checkpoint file.

Thanks![/QUOTE]
:smile:

[QUOTE=kracker;377658]:smile:[/QUOTE]

Okay, thanks. Could you please paste the contents of that or another checkpoint file? I'll work on a fix.

Two examples:
[code]
60000011 73 74 4620 mfakto 0.14-MGW: 60 0 6D868427
[/code]
[code]
68223611 71 72 4620 mfakto 0.14-MGW: 3736 0 8ED07642
[/code]

MGW could be/will be usually "Win", I just built my binary with MinGW.

[QUOTE=kracker;377673]Two examples:
[code]
60000011 73 74 4620 mfakto 0.14-MGW: 60 0 6D868427
[/code]
[code]
68223611 71 72 4620 mfakto 0.14-MGW: 3736 0 8ED07642
[/code]

MGW could be/will be usually "Win", I just built my binary with MinGW.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see the problem. In mfakto files, it has an mfakto field that is not present mfaktc.

Can you please pull and test again? I've committed a change.