[QUOTE=LaurV;333683]re: MISFIT [STRIKE]updating[/STRIKE] reporting results every 4 hours (there is long discussion after, related to different subject, which I have yet to read)

Why would one wants to report results every hour??? The 332M not many people are there (I see only myself and another one or two), the 35-45M DC will be gone in a month (DCTF type of work will disappear in the future, as is reaching the tail of LLTF, which is tf-ed one bit higher, therefore soon will be no DCTF anymore, gone, kaput, basta!). The most needed work, LLTF, is reaching the bitlevels where one assignment takes a hour or more on a GOOD card.

So, why one would want to report faster then he can finish assignments? Let MISFIT to report every 4 hours. I mean, 6 times per day is pretty quite often! I thought I am the most pettifogger here...[/QUOTE]
I don't understand what you mean here, how will the 35M-45M DC be gone in a month?

[QUOTE=bcp19;333971]I don't understand what you mean here, how will the 35M-45M DC be gone in a month?[/QUOTE]

That was a figure of speech. In the most optimistic case they will be gone in 4-6 months, and in the most pessimistic, in one year and half. But they will be gone. GPU72 shows about 200 days or so, but this number means nothing, it is too low, because not all participants do DCTF, and it is too high because it does not consider that more and more people join the fray, with newer, more performing, GPUs (see the Titan discussion).

The idea was that DCTF [COLOR=Red][B]will be gone[/B][/COLOR], sooner or later. The exponents which are LL-ed now have already TF done [B]one bit higher[/B] than the DCTF would do. So, they [B]will not need DCTF[/B] (except in the case when some 4-5 times faster hardware/software appears, to justify TF-ing "one bit higher" at least, for "only one LL saved" - which now is not justified).

In the future will be no "DCTF" type of assignment.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;333963]You returned with a comment about how you felt about bitlevels. Thrilling. You might even be right, but nothing about how you feel refutes anything I said. I simply read the dial on the clock, and did some basic math so you and others wouldn't have to.[/QUOTE]
My statement about upping the bitlevel when the exponent increases by 2[SUP]1/3[/SUP]assumes your implication that 73-74 takes twice as long as 72-73 for a given exponent.

I didn't say or imply you were wrong.

There are indeed some simple generalizations which can be made.
By using the term "comfortably ahead" I was attempting to avoid cheap remarks from Chalsall and his chums.

No such luck:(

David

[QUOTE=LaurV;333978]GPU72 shows about [STRIKE]200 days or so[/STRIKE],[/QUOTE]145 days from 35M to 46M, including ALL PrimeNet candidates, which GPU72 does NOT yet own.

[QUOTE=bcp19;333970]For the most part, you should ignore davieddy. He has harped on for well over a year now about the work done by those of us who choose to use GPUs to try and keep ahead of the wavefront. +Somewhere in his brain though is a cross-circuit between us being useful and his not being able to be snide about our minor problems. Simple logic shows we(GPU72) have done wonders in making sure the majority of exponents are TF'd to a point where people can expect that most reasonable factors have been found, but we are faulted by davieddy every time a single exponent gets by us, no matter what the reason.

As my dad often says: It's a thankless job (especially where davieddy is concerned) but someone has to do it.[/QUOTE]
David Eddy has been monitoring GIMPS progress for ~8 years and has carefully thought about optimizing the strategy involved.

I find bcp19's remarks highly offensive.
See my "polite fight" with Chalsall for an idea of how to conduct a constructive discussion.

D

[QUOTE=davieddy;333983]David Eddy has been monitoring GIMPS progress for ~8 years and has carefully thought about optimizing the strategy involved.

I find bcp19's remarks highly offensive.
See my "polite fight" with Chalsall for an idea of how to conduct a constructive discussion.

D[/QUOTE]
Good, I wasn't trying to be polite. I've only been a member for a bit over a year, and in that time, I have risen to #6 on the top producers list and to #10 overall since the project started. I have put a lot of time and effort and moeny into this project and I find it highly insulting that you belittle it the way you do. This is a volunteer project, but often times your posts make me feel like you think you are entitled here.

Bluntly, I respect chalsall, I'm starting to respect R.D. since he's calmed down a lot lately, I don't respect you.

[QUOTE=bcp19;334100]Good, I wasn't trying to be polite. I've only been a member for a bit over a year, and in that time, I have risen to #6 on the top producers list and to #10 overall since the project started. I have put a lot of time and effort and moeny into this project and I find it highly insulting that you belittle it the way you do. This is a volunteer project, but often times your posts make me feel like you think you are entitled here.

Bluntly, I respect chalsall, I'm starting to respect R.D. since he's calmed down a lot lately, I don't respect you.[/QUOTE]

I've always had the opinion that even though others insult us, it is no reason to "return the favor".

[QUOTE=kracker;334101]I've always had the opinion that even though others insult us, it is no reason to "return the favor".[/QUOTE]

Very good point. Since when is a community of workers motivated to insult so much. I actually show threads from this forum to people at work as a tool to ensure cross team communication stays positive.

Of course an occasional insult is to be expected. Some, on the other hand, seem to thrive from it.

Good or bad it proves entertaining.

[QUOTE=kracker;334101]I've always had the opinion that even though others insult us, it is no reason to "return the favor".[/QUOTE]
Maybe I am just touchy where davieddy is concerned.

A year or so ago, I was having to search through the database to get an idea of what to work on for my GPU, having to manually create worktodo's since I was working outside the normal areas primenet assigned exponents. When the idea of GPU72 was brought forward and chalsall made it work, it saved me a lot of time and effort in finding the exponents I wanted to work on. Even though I now have tools like MISFIT to aid me, I am still a bit of a throwback, I prefer to manually get my assignments while letting it send my results for me.

During all of this, chalsall has taken a lot of grief, a fair amount of kidding and gotten a lot of praise for his efforts. Sadly, the person who suggested making this system is also the person who has given it the most grief. Herculean efforts were made to not only ensure new exponents handed out were properly TF'd, but to also grab and TF those exponents recycled through primenet as well. Having a basis in programming (I started out going for a CompSci major before joblessness ended my education and I joined the military and ended up an Electronics Technician), I have a very good idea what lengths chalsall has gone to in the creation of GPU72.

We have finally arrived at a point where we are somewhat ahead of the wave, but unfortunately not far enough ahead to guarantee all new LL assignments are "properly" TF'd. To then see "insults lobbed from the cheap seats" while ignoring all the time and effort taken to bring us to the point we are now at is a slap in the face to all of the people who brought us this far.

Maybe the whole problem is that the same thing is repeated over and over like a broken record. GPU72 has helped find over 12,000 factors saving over 4 million GHz days of work (2 years in terms of curtisc effort) yet we are still getting dinged for a single LL "not properly TF'd" being assigned.

In a little over a year, GPU72 has pushed the wavefront almost a year beyond where it would be if there had been no GPU72. Yet all we hear is "you missed one".

Maybe I'm tired of turning the other cheek.

[QUOTE=bcp19;334123]Maybe I am just touchy where davieddy is concerned.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the kind words above bcp19, but please don't sweat it.

Those who matter know [B][I][U]we're[/U][/I][/B] collectively doing the best we can with the resources available.

Maybe I won't put it into the same words like he did, but I am with bcp here. I don't post in the threads related to subjects I don't know, or to projects I don't contribute to, in spite of the fact that I read all posts (ex: obd, opn, sierpinski, riesel, msieve, crus, boinc, etc). I claim that other people do the same: [B]don't spit out your venom about the work you never do[/B]. At least, doing TF is helping other people find primes, but we do this for fun, and not from altruism. People who only run LL tests like Davieddy (he said it himself so many times) are selfish, are motivated only by EFF's/GIMPS money, or fame, etc, and they should shut up when it come to me, I mean ME, choosing what kind of work I do, and how high I want to TF, if I want. At least, we [B][U]ARE[/U][/B] trial-factoring.