Thanks all. I'll still be able to compile.

So that's the top3 TF'ers left the project. (Well three of current top4)

Sorry to hear about everyone's loss. I lost my last grandparent (grandmother) early 2011.

-- Craig

[QUOTE=chalsall;324811]

If only we had a GPU P-1 program.... :wink:[/QUOTE]

Yes I'm definitely keen for this. And have been for sometime.

-- Craig

[QUOTE=flashjh;324932]Maybe this should be in the Unhappy Me Thread, but anyway.

Some not so good news is that my father-in-law is not doing well, but we knew this was coming for some time......
If anyone is interested in some great TF GTX 580s or a whole i7 system, PM me.[/QUOTE]


Jerry, I'm sorry to hear this. Your participation with the MISFIT project was fantastic. I hope this is not the last we see of FLASHJH.


thx

Scott

@flashjh: Sorry to hear that... best of wishes to you and your father-in-law.

[QUOTE=chalsall;324713]Just putting this out there for discussion...

However, it raises the question: for those who are doing DCTF work (where we're currently over 500 days ahead of the wave), should we bump the release level to 71, and perhaps bring back in some candidates in the 30M, 31M and 32M regions to go from 70 to 71?
If so, I'd suggest we simply increase the current release level for DCTF, and bring in a few candidates at a time at the top of 30M for processing, and work down until we meet the wavefront, Then start working upwards from 31M.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Unless my eyes are deceiving me, isn't most of 31M still stuck at 69? Shouldn't we be taking that up to 70 before thinking of taking other stuff up to 71?

[QUOTE=garo;325398]Unless my eyes are deceiving me, isn't most of 31M still stuck at 69?[/QUOTE]Yes, it is most at 2[sup]69[/sup]. Perhaps a picture shows that most clearly (each pixel column is 0.1M):
[url]http://mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_100M/[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;325398]Unless my eyes are deceiving me, isn't most of 31M still stuck at 69?[/QUOTE]

Language can be so important...

The DC candidates at 31M are not "stuck" at 69. That's where we took them before moving on. And before we found ourselves with new tech....

[QUOTE=garo;325398]Shouldn't we be taking that up to 70 before thinking of taking other stuff up to 71?[/QUOTE]

Are you volunteering? Knowing there's more important work (LLTFing) to do?

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;325400]Yes, it is most at 2[sup]69[/sup]. Perhaps a picture shows that most clearly (each pixel column is 0.1M):
[url]http://mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_100M/[/url][/QUOTE]

Or, complementary, [URL="http://www.mersenne.info/trial_factored_bar_graph_7/2/30000000/"]30-40M TF level[/URL].

[QUOTE=chalsall;324146]Another thing to consider is that we currently are only [I]just[/I] keeping (slightly) ahead of the LL wavefront.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chalsall;325401]Knowing there's more important work (LLTFing) to do?[/QUOTE]
Speaking of LL-TFing, how many exponents/days is GPU72 ahead or behind the LL frontline? I'm thinking about doing some LL-TFing once I complete the 131-132M range to 2^70 (probably in ~2 weeks) :smile:.

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;325403]Speaking of LL-TFing, how many exponents/days is GPU72 ahead or behind the LL frontline? I'm thinking about doing some LL-TFing once I complete the 131-132M range to 2^70 (probably in ~2 weeks) :smile:.[/QUOTE]

Very sophisticated....