[QUOTE=chalsall;325405]Very sophisticated....[/QUOTE]
A rough indication would suffice.
What I found so far: ~10,700 LL tests are assigned in the 60M-65M range. (PrimeNet Work Distribution Map) and compare that to the TF Tabular Data of the 60-70M range, which shows ~28,300 exponents are TF-ed to 73 bit.
So GPU72 is about 28,300-10,700=17,600 exponents ahead, right? But I've got no idea of the amount of exponents that are assigned for LL testing each day and the amount that are TF-ed to 73 bits each day.

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;325413]But I've got no idea of the amount of exponents that are assigned for LL testing each day and the amount that are TF-ed to 73 bits each day.[/QUOTE]

You do actually have access to that information....

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;325413]But I've got no idea of the amount of exponents that are assigned for LL testing each day and the amount that are TF-ed to 73 bits each day.[/QUOTE]

Does this help?
The number of exponents in the 60-70M range either LL'd or Factored in the last month.
[url]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_tabular_delta_30/2/60000000/[/url]

[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]

Not much .... and more is needed. Thx

[QUOTE=chalsall;325401]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....

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

I am doing LLTF almost exclusively. My point - lost in translation perhaps - was that I think there is more utility in taking 31M 69->70 than taking 33M 70->71. This was in response to your query whether we should take 33M to 71 (and then 32M and then 31M).

[QUOTE=garo;325694]My point - lost in translation perhaps - was that I think there is more utility in taking 31M 69->70 than taking 33M 70->71. This was in response to your query whether we should take 33M to 71 (and then 32M and then 31M).[/QUOTE]

Sorry... I was having a bad day...

George doesn't think coming back down is worth it, but Pete does think it's worth going further a bit further up. That's what we're now doing.

Since the DC wavefront is now in 31M, I think it would make sense for the time being to just deal with 33M, and then if we have time come back down into the high 32Ms.

I'm working on a report which will show us all just how many days we are ahead of each wavefront, so we can make a more informed decision as to where we transition.

New "temporal" Workers' reports...
 

At the suggestion of kracker, I've created some new reports...

Please see the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/day/"]Workers' Overall Progress for the last Day[/URL], [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/week/"]Week[/URL], [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/month/"]Month[/URL] and [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/quarter/"]Quarter[/URL].

These can be accessed as sub-menus on the Workers' Progress -> Overall Work menu.

Once on the time-constrained page, you can then drill down to the different work-types to see, for example, how much [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dctf/71/month/"]DC TFing has been done to 71 in the last month[/URL].

Please let me know if anyone sees any SPEs....

Edit: Funny... Within five minutes of my posting this here GoogleBot is busy indexing the several hundred "new" pages which resulted from this.... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;325696]George doesn't think coming back down is worth it....[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps, something I wrote was worded poorly. Garo's statement makes sense.

In general:

1) I'm in favor of any TF work that eliminates exponents faster than the same GPU card can eliminate exponents with CUDALucas testing.
2) In prioritizing the TF work, I favor assignments that save the most LL work. That is, TFing from 2^69 to 2^70 is more important than TFing from 2^70 to 2^71 since it eliminates exponents faster. When TFing to the same bit level, TFing a larger exponent is better since it is faster to TF and saves more LL time when a factor is found.
3) All the prioritization is moot if you have enough GPU resources and are ahead of the wavefront. Prioritization is only a consideration when catching up to the wavefront or when we don't have enough resources to stay ahead of the wavefront.

Hope that makes sense!

[QUOTE=Prime95;325705]I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps, something I wrote was worded poorly. Garo's statement makes sense.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you George. I was going by this:

[QUOTE=Prime95]No. James' table improperly estimates the DCTF crossover. Since these exponents have already had P-1 done, TF to 2^71 will find fewer factors than LLTF. James should be able to compute a "proper" crossover based on finding approximately 1 factor per 100 DCTF exponents (GPU72 should be able refine this approximation by calculating how many factors are being found DCTFing to 2^70).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Prime95;325705]3) All the prioritization is moot if you have enough GPU resources and are ahead of the wavefront. Prioritization is only a consideration when catching up to the wavefront or when we don't have enough resources to stay ahead of the wavefront.[/QUOTE]

But, at the same time, it doesn't make sense right now to take the lowest available 31M candidates to 70 if that means that higher candidates will be assigned for DCing which are only at 69.

[QUOTE=Prime95;325705]Hope that makes sense![/QUOTE]

Yes.

May I suggest, then, that I start bringing in some candidates in the 31M range to take to 70, and work down until we meet the wavefront? 32M is already at 70, so we can then repeat the process -- work down from the top and take as much of it as we can to 71.

Does that make sense to everyone? (This assumes, of course, that we have people interested in doing this work.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;325698]GoogleBot is busy indexing the several hundred "new" pages which resulted from this.... :smile:[/QUOTE]Just be glad [i]your[/i] server doesn't have details pages for more than 200-million exponents... :max:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;325711]Just be glad [i]your[/i] server doesn't have details pages for more than 200-million exponents... :max:[/QUOTE]

LOL... That's what "robots.txt", ".htaccess" (and for really nasty and/or stupid spiders and you have root access, iptables) are for.... :wink: