[QUOTE=kracker;342139]It would be nice, if there was a graph for Dc and LL, along with P-1 in the monthly, weekly graphs, etc.:smile:[/QUOTE]

Sorry [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/graphs/lldc/year/"]this new graph[/URL] took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]overall graphs pages[/URL].

[QUOTE=chalsall;365432]Sorry [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/graphs/lldc/year/"]this new graph[/URL] took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]overall graphs pages[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Thank you! :smile: :bow:

EDIT: And I know you're the main in DC on that graph... :razz:

I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time. :sad:

[QUOTE=chalsall;365432]Sorry [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/graphs/lldc/year/"]this new graph[/URL] took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]overall graphs pages[/URL].[/QUOTE]

What ranges are those graphs for? Pulling data ~weekly from the Classic GIMPS status page[SIZE="2"][SUP]TM[/SUP][/SIZE], I have been seeing changes of ~100-150 per day for the TwoLL column and ~190->115 in the OneLL column.

The attached graph has the rate of change in #/day on the left, P90 years on right. The data are taken ~168 hours (plus minus 8 hours) apart.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;365450]I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time. :sad:[/QUOTE]

This is quite a statistical anomalie, isn't it? Should have found 4.

Could it be that P1 found most of them?

[QUOTE=petrw1;365470]This is quite a statistical anomalie, isn't it? Should have found 4.

Could it be that P1 found most of them?[/QUOTE]
It happens quite often: I have a boxxen doing 65->66 bits for 317-319M range, 1 factor out of 308 reported thus far, found after 249 unsuccessful attempts. I "should" have a good 4.7, but remember- probability has no memory...

[QUOTE=ixfd64;365450]I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time. :sad:[/QUOTE]

Using LaurV's logic you are unlucky so you should stop doing any TF.:davieddy: While you have been unlucky the chance of not finding a single factor in 300 trials is ~1.3% if no P-1 is done and ~5% if P-1 is done. So it does happen once in a while.

[QUOTE=garo;365495]Using LaurV's logic you are unlucky [/QUOTE]
no, it is just that the Luck is in my area now, and I did efforts to tie him on the tree in front of my window. I will release him now, so other poor guys can find some factors too, and so we won't lose them from the project... :smile:

If you want to find a lot of factors, head over to [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/"]James' site[/URL] and do some trial factoring > 1000M. You will find a factor about every minute...though no credit is given for work less than 2[SUP]70[/SUP]

What is the odds for ten consecutive factorisations? I had the pleasure of experience it once when running the smallest unreserved candidates in 87M... :fusion:

[CODE]Manual testing 87159607 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 118248780529848276167 0.2861
Manual testing 87159043 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 79623647161085679929 0.1883
Manual testing 87158009 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 116601936487970901887 0.2826
Manual testing 87152669 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 93398301198481141913 0.2278
Manual testing 87147239 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 121514141280299682623 0.2929
Manual testing 87146783 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 106194288573916474753 0.2595
Manual testing 87098653 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 131304203500302387847 0.3122
Manual testing 87084973 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 87337664541318196823 0.2113
Manual testing 87081901 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 87871100901379849463 0.2128
Manual testing 87077693 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 116960802185084904127 0.2837[/CODE]My only explanation is that someone must have saved the factorizations for one massive submission or missed them all together. They must have timed out just before I grabbed them.

Ps, I know the probabbility, somewhere close to 0.015^10 = 0.58*10^-20 so someone set me up or <deity> has a sick sense of humor.

Göran

The "phenomenon" is quite common, and it happens to any of us who do TF in bunch, at least is happening to me every time when I submit :smile:. It is due to the fact that - when you submit a long list of factorization results - the server (PrimeNet) is "sorting" the list, taking the NF results first, then it goes again through the list taking the F results second. Therefore, if you have 100 factors in your list, they will appear "consecutively" in your results report, but the exponents themselves are *[B]not[/B]* consecutive (look and see!). So, no magic.