[QUOTE=petrw1;302861]From my possibly blind vantage point the column 'Range' is labelled '62M'[/QUOTE]

LOL... Thanks. I [I]was[/I] blind. I thought ckdo was referring to the 68, 69, 70... headers. Totally missed the "Range" column header. Never rely on the programmer to see all of their own mistakes....

[QUOTE=chalsall;302860]it's missing the 38M and 39M ranges because we haven't done any work there (yet).[/QUOTE]

Compare with [URL]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/[/URL] ...

[QUOTE=ckdo;302915]Compare with [URL]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/[/URL] ...[/QUOTE]

Ahhh... OK, the 38s were two tests I personally did (and had forgotten about). The 39 was actually a LL candidate we unexpectedly got. As I mentioned elsewhere, I never expected the LL and DC waves to cross, so the code was "cheating" by simply looking at the Exponent level; <40M was assumed to be a DC, >40M a LL.

The scheduled server outage I did a couple of weeks ago was to (among other things) add a field to the database to handle the crossing of the ranges. Obviously I haven't yet updated all of the reports to look at the new field to determine the actual work type.

Thanks for pointing this out.

We had a 39M? Sweet!

Maybe a little off but I think GPU to 72 needs a 2.1 or something like that :D

[LIST][*]Created get DC P-1 assignments function.[/LIST]Or something like that. :smile:

hmm
got
Pfactor=N/A,1,2,45697507,-1,73,2
Pfactor=N/A,1,2,45767269,-1,73,2
Pfactor=N/A,1,2,45912499,-1,73,2
Pfactor=N/A,1,2,46067621,-1,72,2

as DC P-1. I thought that DC was much lower.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;302981]I thought that DC was much lower.[/QUOTE]

What you got is correct for DC P-1, at least for "without P-1 done" (or, at least, not reported). diamonddave, KingKurly et al have obviously been diligent with this worktype.

There [I]are[/I] lower candidates with "P-1 done poorly", but we're not offering that (yet).

[QUOTE=chalsall;302997]What you got is correct for DC P-1, at least for "without P-1 done" (or, at least, not reported). diamonddave, KingKurly et al have obviously been diligent with this worktype.

There [I]are[/I] lower candidates with "P-1 done poorly", but we're not offering that (yet).[/QUOTE]
When you do offer those, what's the best way to redo the P-1 so PrimeNet will accept the results?

[QUOTE=flashjh;303065]When you do offer those, what's the best way to redo the P-1 so PrimeNet will accept the results?[/QUOTE]
Extend any of B1 or B2. This depends on your allocated mem.
You must be careful as PrimeNet will accept a result with a lower B1 and higher B2 too, in this case the old (stronger) result with higher B1 is somehow lost (it appears in the history, but not in the reports!!).

[QUOTE=flashjh;303065]When you do offer those, what's the best way to redo the P-1 so PrimeNet will accept the results?[/QUOTE]

Primenet will never refuse the result. They never had any P-1 done on them. Well, none reported.

[QUOTE=diamonddave;303078][QUOTE=flashjh;303065][QUOTE=chalsall;302997]There [I]are[/I] lower candidates with "P-1 done poorly", but we're not offering that (yet).[/QUOTE]When you do offer those, what's the best way to redo the P-1 so PrimeNet will accept the results?[/QUOTE]Primenet will never refuse the result. They never had any P-1 done on them. Well, none reported.[/QUOTE]This is in reference to "P-1 done poorly" exponents, so yes: PrimeNet will ignore the new result if the new B1 is smaller than the old B1, even if the old P-1 test had no stage2 and/or the overall probability was lower. For example, if an exponent was done moderately-well at B1=B2=105k, and you re-do P-1 at B1=100k,B2=2M, your new result would be ignored because PrimeNet decides which P-1 is "better" solely on B1.