I don't completely think that is right. If I do only LL (and I had no gpu etc) that wouldn't make me selfish, right? As long as I don't complain what others like to do?

[QUOTE=LaurV;334147]
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,[/QUOTE]

Davieddy does the only sensible work for his CPU.

It is in a sense the least gratifying.
Every 2 months you are informed that Mxxxxxxxx is not prime.

Double checks at least give you the satisfaction of the agreement of the residue with the first test.
However, I consider that the DC front has been pushed too high.
If it were ~ 1/3 of the LL front, your chance per year of finding a prime would be at least comparable to first time tests, and an incentive for new recruits to GIMPS.

[B]Now just shut your bleedin' mouth.[/B]

To say I am sufficiently qualified to discuss the feasible/desirable TF bit level would be an understatement.

David

PS I don't broadcast my CV on "social media".
One reason for this is a vestige of modesty.
And I hope the quality of some of my posts speaks for itself.

[QUOTE=davieddy;334151]To say I am sufficiently qualified to discuss the feasible/desirable TF bit level would be an understatement.[/QUOTE]
I am sufficiently qualified to discuss different subjects, but it would be totally impolite or insane to discuss them in a math-related forum...

Why don't you do some other type of work, which is "more rewarding" and better suited for your old processor? Not necessary gimps, say aliquots. They don't pay do they? I would comment nothing, and really appreciate you if you would do aliquot (or other non-gimps) related work, AND comment about TF and gpu72. I would appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

But advising people to do TF, and what kind of TF to do, and to which bitlevel, but saying in the same time that you only do LL ([U][B]first time[/B][/U] LL on your rubbish computer!) it sounds totally hypocrite[SUP]TM[/SUP], it is like you asking us to provide good, well TF-ed exponents for you, lay the red carpet in front of your feet, so you be able to find your prime, but in the same time willing to sacrifice nothing, to give nothing back to the community.

This is what anger the most people here, not your knowledge. It is your attitude.

[QUOTE=LaurV;334153]I am sufficiently qualified to discuss different subjects, but it would be totally impolite or insane to discuss them in a math-related forum...

Why don't you do some other type of work, which is "more rewarding" and better suited for your old processor? Not necessary gimps, say aliquots. They don't pay do they? I would comment nothing, and really appreciate you if you would do aliquot (or other non-gimps) related work, AND comment about TF and gpu72. I would appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

But advising people to do TF, and what kind of TF to do, and to which bitlevel, but saying in the same time that you only do LL ([U][B]first time[/B][/U] LL on your rubbish computer!) it sounds totally hypocrite[SUP]TM[/SUP], it is like you asking us to provide good, well TF-ed exponents for you, lay the red carpet in front of your feet, so you be able to find your prime, but in the same time willing to sacrifice nothing, to give nothing back to the community.

This is what anger the most people here, not your knowledge. It is your attitude.[/QUOTE]

I think it would help if you read my posts before engaging your gob.
I once said to Chris "You aren't listening".
"No. Not to you" was his reply.

I think we have slightly changed our tune since then.
Perhaps you might consider doing likewise.

D

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulNSlES1Fds"]Explanation[/URL]

Personally, I find p-1 more rewarding on the cpu than the LL, just because it's needed so badly to keep ahead of the wave. The MaxHighMemWorkers setting in local.txt really lets you do that with onlly a couple gigs of ram. My pc at work only has 2 gigs of ram, has MaxHighMemWorkers at=1, and allocated p95 256MB of memory in the day and 1.5 GB of memory at night. So it crunches stage 1s while I'm at work and stage 2s at night.

Just my 2 cents, regarding cpu work.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;334182]Personally, I find p-1 more rewarding on the cpu than the LL, just because it's needed so badly to keep ahead of the wave. The MaxHighMemWorkers setting in local.txt really lets you do that with onlly a couple gigs of ram. My pc at work only has 2 gigs of ram, has MaxHighMemWorkers at=1, and allocated p95 256MB of memory in the day and 1.5 GB of memory at night. So it crunches stage 1s while I'm at work and stage 2s at night.

Just my 2 cents, regarding cpu work.[/QUOTE]

Note that stage 2 takes longer than stage 1, so this only works well when your "night" is longer than your "day" (for a work PC this should be, but for a home PC maybe not).

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;334182]Personally, I find p-1 more rewarding on the cpu than the LL, just because it's needed so badly to keep ahead of the wave. The MaxHighMemWorkers setting in local.txt really lets you do that with onlly a couple gigs of ram. My pc at work only has 2 gigs of ram, has MaxHighMemWorkers at=1, and allocated p95 256MB of memory in the day and 1.5 GB of memory at night. So it crunches stage 1s while I'm at work and stage 2s at night.

Just my 2 cents, regarding cpu work.[/QUOTE]

I must turn off my PC at work :sad:

Luigi

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;334188]Note that stage 2 takes longer than stage 1, so this only works well when your "night" is longer than your "day" (for a work PC this should be, but for a home PC maybe not).[/QUOTE]


Sure, you're right. I only brought it up because my work machine has low memory - maybe I rambled too much. At home I have it set up differently, with 2 high mem workers most of the time, and 4 when cores go idle every few weeks.

Remedial couse for the culturally deprived
 

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2cnRCCHR1k]Sic 'em Pigs[/url]

When Oliver launched mfaktc, MiniGeek noted that it was ~100 times faster at TF than a CPU.

Most of us realized a few obvious things immediately.

1) It had rendered CPUs redundant for TF
2) GPUs could TF a few bits more

The only question left was "How many more bits?"
This is what I have been addressing.

David

link blocked in the United States by EMI.