[QUOTE=James Heinrich;324092]Starting at about 57M, I'd say that's true.

According to my chart:
46M-56M = 2[sup]73[/sup]
57M-72M = 2[sup]74[/sup]
73M-90?M = 2[sup]75[/sup][/QUOTE]

Another item to consider. Prior to 0.20 most people ran multiple instances of mfaktc on one card to max out the card. The aggregated throughput went up, but the time to factor went down. With 0.20 you only run one instance so factoring say " 77M 73,74 " might take around 80 minutes instead of say "140 minutes" with 0.19 running 4 instances.

When you look at the cut-off for running LL tests this reduction in processing time widens the gap making higher factoring more viable.

(I'm sure you already know all this....)

[QUOTE=Prime95;324091]Question: Look at row 47M, the cyan color indicates we should TF to 2^73, but the 2LL column indicates the TF breakeven is 72.3 bits. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE]I have changed how the last-two-columns breakeven points are calculated and displayed. Do they make more sense now?

I agree, it shouldn't be 72.. it should be higher maybe only a little... (atleast for mfaktc)

But for mfakto, they stay the same, for reasons easily known. :smile:

[QUOTE=kracker;324100]I agree, it shouldn't be 72.. it should be higher maybe only a little... (atleast for mfaktc)

But for mfakto, they stay the same, for reasons easily known. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Another thing to consider is that we currently are only [I]just[/I] keeping (slightly) ahead of the LL wavefront. I don't think it makes sense to change the "release level" until and unless we pull further ahead. And certainly we should not be pulling in candidates below 60M for further TFing.

Having said that, anyone who wants to can request candidates which are currently held for P-1'ing and take them up to 74. Or simply pledge to take regular TF candidates to 74 instead of 73.

[QUOTE=chalsall;324146]Another thiing to consider is that we currently are only [I]just[/I] keeping (slightly) ahead of the LL wafe-front.[/QUOTE]It's easy to forget that for every exponent you take 2[sup]73[/sup]-2[sup]74[/sup] you could take [I]two[/I] from 2[sup]72[/sup]-2[sup]73[/sup] or [I]four[/I] from 2[sup]71[/sup]-2[sup]72[/sup]. Extra TF is nice and all that, but not if we fall behind the wavefront.

I've noticed that most assignments in the 60M range are released after they're factored to 73 bits, yet others are still reserved for trial factoring after being factored to that level. Is there any reason for this inconsistency?

[QUOTE]=ixfd6Is there any reason for this inconsistency?[/QUOTE]

The ones held back are for P-1, the system releases some because only about a 1000 are kept at a time.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;324173]I've noticed that most assignments in the 60M range are released after they're factored to 73 bits, yet others are still reserved for trial factoring after being factored to that level. Is there any reason for this inconsistency?[/QUOTE]

The system keeps a cache of 1000 candidates TFed to 63 (or higher) for P-1 assignment.

[QUOTE=chalsall;324146]Another thiing to consider is that we currently are only [I]just[/I] keeping (slightly) ahead of the LL wavefront. I don't think it makes sense to change the "release level" until and unless we pull further ahead. And certainly we should not be pulling in candidates below 60M for further TFing.
[/QUOTE]
That's the most sensible suggestion I've heard from you (which isn't saying much).

Now how about fast reliable LL testers allocated 60M expos, leaving the tail to new/slower participants?

D

[QUOTE=chalsall;324175]The system keeps a cache of 1000 candidates TFed to 63 (or higher) for P-1 assignment.[/QUOTE]
63?

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;324196]63?[/QUOTE]

s/63/73/ ....