[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;326240]Chalsall, what kind of sample size are you looking for in the dctf 31M to 70 project? aka, we pretty much good to get back to regular lltf work, need another day, or aim for 5k or so? Seems like we churned out about 1200 yesterday.[/QUOTE]

I was looking for about 2000 to 3000 samples. But I trust James' analysis enough to take George's advice, and I'm just bringing in everything in 31M until it's TFed to 2^70.

We're now approximately 10 days ahead of the DC wave. It won't be a loss if a few candidates in 32M (which are already at 2^70) are assigned for DCLLing before the regular DCTFers finish 31M.

So, thanks for the work everyone! :smile: But at the end of the day, LLTFing is far more important.

[QUOTE=chalsall;326246]I was looking for about 2000 to 3000 samples. But I trust James' analysis enough to take George's advice, and I'm just bringing in everything in 31M until it's TFed to 2^70.

So, thanks for the work everyone! :smile: But at the end of the day, LLTFing is far more important.[/QUOTE]

OK, I'm done here then; I have a group of LLTF queued up waiting to finish. I checked 200 DCTF 31M and found one factor.

Aye, I think I have another 20 hours or so of dctf queud up, then it's back to regularly scheduled programming. :)

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;326167]I have updated my chart page to both be a little easier to read, and to address the above concerns:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=13[/URL][/QUOTE]

So I was looking at James' fabulous chart, and it's reccomendations to using mfactc. At 60M, for example, it reccomends 74.674 for first timers.

Since 74.674 isn't actually a legal value for mfactc, shouldn't the lines have a ceiling, floor, or round function applied?

Very nice work James!

That chart fits my timing perfectly (in spite of the fact I never sent benchmarks to the site!)

Meantime, [B]I switched to the jinxed side[/B]: after finding 3 factors in 200 trials, and considered myself on the lucky side, I got another 100 assignments, finished them overnight, and did not find any new factor, so I have now 1 in 100 successful hits, therefore slower then DCLL-ing them.

But not much slower, in fact I am on the gray territory bcp19 was talking about, with only few minutes behind the line.

Therefore I will stay to this DCTF-ing activity for a while, but I can't take new assignments till tonight when I will reach home. I mean I can take the assignments, but no way to update the worktodo files if I am not in front of that computer, so for the next 6 hours I still do LMH-TF.

After that, I will let chalsall to argue with Uncwilly for a while :bump2: :razz:

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;326270]Since 74.674 isn't actually a legal value for mfactc, shouldn't the lines have a ceiling, floor, or round function applied?[/QUOTE]No, it's intended as an analysis only, to help those who generate assignments for the rest of us (George/Primenet and Chris/GPU72) decide what cutoff points make the most sense. And to a lesser extent anyone who is crafting their own set of assignments. When generating actual assignments you would of course want to use only integer bit levels, but the choice of method of rounding is left to the user.

As an aside, I don't see any reason why mfakt* [i]couldn't[/i] work with non-integer bitlevels in assignments, but it could make tracking of factored status of exponents considerably more complex so I understand why that functionality perhaps [i]shouldn't[/i] be exposed.

Not very clear from your post if you want to round() them or not. Please don't! Let the decimals there, they are very helpful for guys like me who tune their FFT's. For this range and 580 and CuLu the default 1600k FFT (as I said in the past) is not the optimum, it can be tuned (up) to get about 3%-6% faster DC results. When "balancing" the work (like between DC and TF), those decimals could be really important (I don't know how, yet, but I may find a use of them in the future). I like the graphic with decimals!

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;326270]Since 74.674 isn't actually a legal value for mfactc, shouldn't the lines have a ceiling, floor, or round function applied?[/QUOTE]

No, they shouldn't. There's at least two reasons:

First, on bigger scale basis, a project like GPU72 may choose to take all candidates in your range to 74, and then start taking random candidates to 75, until the average is 74.674. That process might even factor in candidates that will never reach 74 and ones that have exceeded 75 already.

Second, it's a flaw of PrimeNet and related software that it deals with bit levels. k values, as used elsewhere, are a much better option, and will allow you to hit 74.674 (or whatever) pretty much spot on. mfaktc actually can be limited to searching only a certain range of k values, which is what the self test does. That feature is not available to the end user though, I think, and you wouldn't be able to submit such results to PrimeNet anyway, found factors aside.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;326167]I have updated my chart page to both be a little easier to read, and to address the above concerns:
[URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=13[/URL]

[/QUOTE]
Awesome chart! You've taken what I visualize in my head and turned it into something others can understand.

@Chalsall: How many days ahead are we with all the 32M exps available and how many 31M exps are left to take to 70?

Still on the jinxed side, I took another 200 expos, from which I did 40. No factor. From a [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dctf/70/week/"]total of 340 done[/URL] - only 3 factors. So, before going deeper in the sh.. mud, I better stop.

So, I will do all this batch to the end, and I will stop and go to more profitable tings, if no factor is found. That will be 500 trials with 3 factors only, much behind the return I would have doing DC.

If I find a factor on the way, I will stop immediately and unreserve the rest of the expos, to make sure I get "maximum of efficiency" (factors found, over trials). Continuing to get "no factors" will just get me deeper in the jinxed side. If I find a factor right now, then I may continue, because I am again in the gray area. But as this does not show... I will go to sleep and let the batches think. 12:45 AM here.

I would have already cleaned 4 expos (two rounds DC in two cards), and being well into the half of the fifth/sixth clearance if I would do DC all this time. Sorry Chris, but with this scores, Uncwilly's side is more tempting...

[QUOTE=LaurV;326361]Sorry Chris, but with this scores, Uncwilly's side is more tempting...[/QUOTE]

Don't apologize . We appreciate what you've done.

But may I suggest that perhaps doing current LLTFing makes more sense than going back to Uncwilly? (Sorry Uncwilly, but as George himself said, 332M is for the foolhardy... :smile:)