[QUOTE=Christenson;278083]Ckdo: Chalsall's tool also seems to cover the 25-30M area...found out accidentally when looking for some low bit levels...I have finished the set you gave me, found one more factor.[/QUOTE]

Yup -- my spider is now grabbing expiring DCs which are less than 28M which have been TFed to less than 69 "bits".

Christenson, the fact that you (and some others) were assigned these by the Tool was actually a mistake -- I intended to only give them to those who explicitly asked for them (at [URL="http://gpu.mersenne.info/account/getassignments/dc/"]http://gpu.mersenne.info/account/getassignments/dc/[/URL]; available via a sub-menu on the "Get Assignments" menu).

If you, or anyone else, don't want to do the DC TF work assigned, I've also added a "Unreserve Assignments" function on the View Assignments report.

Chalsall-

Your ever-evolving spider becomes more amazing by the day. It's turning into a veritable Swiss Army Knife, or Leatherman Multipurpose Tool. It's been fun watching its development.

Thanks for all of your efforts!

Range limits for DC
 

ckdo was giving me exponents through the end of the 28M range; if fact I still have 603 of them still left to go. Should the DC TF range be extended another 1M?

Chuck

[QUOTE=chalsall;278169]Yup -- my spider is now grabbing expiring DCs which are less than 28M which have been TFed to less than 69 "bits".

Christenson, the fact that you (and some others) were assigned these by the Tool was actually a mistake -- I intended to only give them to those who explicitly asked for them.[/QUOTE]

Chalsall:
I wasn't upset..I was actually looking for the EASIEST (or most effective) TF assignments available...and all I need is one factor to have made a positive difference. Running a small batch of anything has a name for me: just for fun.:smile:...I'll have to go see if I have more than "no factor found" lines to turn in tonight.

The simplest (IMO) fix is to let the lower bound of the standard exponent range be 45M, as shown in the box where it's zero now. The most informative is to give approximate equivalent bit levels by exponent...That is, the 45M range at 72 bits is equivalent to the 25M range at 68 bits, taking into account that TF in the 25M range only knocks out 1 LL test when a factor is found, is twice as hard to do for the same bit level at 25M, and a quarter as much work is involved in the now-unneeded LL test at 25M in the first place.

****
That is, according to me, myself, and I,and noone else, the most effective GPU TF assignment is the one that will, on average, save the largest amount of LL testing for the least effort. That is, saving two LL tests counts double saving one LL test, and saving a 50M LL test counts double a 25M LL test. (Never mind RDS's NlogN*loglogN cost of multiplying, the change in loglogN is too small to matter). Likewise, a TF that takes double the number of candidates, because its exponent is half-sized, costs double, so halves the efficiency.

These are the *BEST* assignments to get out of your tool, 25 or 50 or 100 at a time!
****

And, before the music starts playing (let's have it nutcracker suite, please!) or someone gets the wrong idea, let me say that I like your tool and intend to continue using it, with or without upgrades.....

Does PrimeNet check factors that are submitted to it? I remember hearing that somewhere, but I want to make sure...

[QUOTE=Dubslow;278223]Does PrimeNet check factors that are submitted to it? I remember hearing that somewhere, but I want to make sure...[/QUOTE]Yes, It checks factors that are submitted to ensure that they are indeed factors of the associated exponent. The test takes a trivially small amount of time.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;278225]Yes, It checks factors that are submitted to ensure that they are indeed factors of the associated exponent. The test takes a trivially small amount of time.[/QUOTE]
With any luck (ask Eric!) the exponent won't have a factor:smile:

David

[QUOTE=Dubslow;278154]Hey Mr. P-1, either do you have a script to transform mfaktc results files to mfaktc worktodo files, or should I use awk or sed or something else to implement such a script?[/QUOTE]

After a decent amount of gnashing, I got a basic awk script to work. The last problem is that the results were reported for each bit, and most of them were two bits of work. I want to be able to write them as one line of work, to give the worker the option of doing the bit levels together or not. I got something that checks the previous line and can write a combined worktodo line, but the problem is the previous line is still there, i.e.

Factor=59234982,69,70
Factor=59234982,69,71

My current script is attached.

Umm...dubslow...the right tool for this isn't sed, or awk...it's perl.

Perl is a full programming language, so you can form a hash of all the work done in the file, then retrieve it in exponent order and look at your variables/parameters to decide whether to print Factor=x,69,70 or Factor=x,69,71 as you please.

Note that a hash in perl is a native data structure, so you are only fooling around with using it, not trying to make it work.

[QUOTE=Christenson;278253]Umm...dubslow...the right tool for this isn't sed, or awk...it's perl.

Perl is a full programming language, so you can form a hash of all the work done in the file, then retrieve it in exponent order and look at your variables/parameters to decide whether to print Factor=x,69,70 or Factor=x,69,71 as you please.[/QUOTE]

I agree with Christenson, Dubslow. They don't call Perl "The Internet's Duct tape" for nothing...

If you sent me a sample input file, and the desired resultant output in another file, I could throw together a little Perl script for you in a few minutes.

As you might be able to tell by now, I do Perl and RegEx for a living.... :smile:

[QUOTE=Christenson;278253]Umm...dubslow...the right tool for this isn't sed, or awk...it's perl.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. This task lies right in AWK's sweet spot. Dublsow, however (no disrespect) didn't do it the AWK way.

[QUOTE]Perl is a full programming language, so you can form a hash of all the work done in the file, then retrieve it in exponent order and look at your variables/parameters to decide whether to print Factor=x,69,70 or Factor=x,69,71 as you please.[/QUOTE]

AWK can do this as well.

Here's my script which fixes his problem. It could easily be modified to output the results in exponent order.

[code]#! /bin/awk -f

BEGIN {
FS="[ M^]"
ORS="\r\n"
}

$5 == expo {
bitb = $11
next
}

$5 ~ /[0-9]./ {
if ( expo ) print "Factor=" expo "," bita "," bitb
bita = $8
bitb = $11
expo=$5
}

END {
if ( expo ) print "Factor=" expo "," bita "," bitb
}[/code]