[QUOTE=blip;383908]Can someone confirm this? I can put some 590s to work.[/QUOTE]

I can confirm that.

We are a little underpowered in the LLTF region.

We are a little overpowered in the DCTF region.

We're still not doing that terribly badly (read: almost no LLs are being issued below 73 "bits" for "Cat4", and never for Cat1, 2 or 3 below 74) but more TF'ing would be very valuable.

It is really amazing to see, returned TFings are reallocated for LL almost immediately.

I now have two 590s working on LL-TF.

[QUOTE=chalsall;384000]We are a little underpowered in the LLTF region.

We are a little overpowered in the DCTF region.

We're still not doing that terribly badly (read: almost no LLs are being issued below 73 "bits" for "Cat4", and never for Cat1, 2 or 3 below 74) but more TF'ing would be very valuable.[/QUOTE]From watching the classic status page, it looks like the issue is greater through put of LL tests. Last 3 weeks have been the best in a while (about November of 2013). This is a good thing.

I tried to reinstall my GPUs. They both died. :sad:

[QUOTE=ET_;384040]I tried to reinstall my GPUs. They both died. :sad:[/QUOTE]

Wow! That seems a bit much of a coincidence. Could there be some other factor at work than the cards failing?

[QUOTE=kladner;384046]Wow! That seems a bit much of a coincidence. Could there be some other factor at work than the cards failing?[/QUOTE]

I used both 24/7 on the same computer for many months, and then detached the GTX580 when the computer started complaining.

I ran the system for 6 months without Nvidia drivers, using the GTX 275 only for the display. As the 275 had a rattling noise (I suspect the hub of the fan), I exchanged the GTX275 with the 580. The PC freezed after a short while. And kept freezing when I reinstalled back the GTX 275.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;384039]From watching the classic status page, it looks like the issue is greater through put of LL tests. Last 3 weeks have been the best in a while (about November of 2013).[/QUOTE]

I don't /think/ this is it... Over the last thirty days we've been averaging about 266 LLs completed a day; this is down from about 300 a day a year ago.

I suspect the issue is the Cat 4 "churners", combined with the fact the Cat 4 range increases by about 386 candidates a day (266 + 120). (The extra 120 is because George has Primenet increasing by this amount until it reaches a 100,000 candidate offset for Cat 4 (we're currently at 76,520); note the ~38,000 available Cat 3 candidates -- these are all TFed to at least 74, and P-1'ed.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;384050]note the ~38,000 available Cat 3 candidates -- these are all TFed to at least 74, and P-1'ed.)[/QUOTE]
We have foreseen that. Remember when I said (here, on the forum) that in case Cat4 TF-ed to 74 are not available, we should assign the highest Cat 3 instead? I think nothing was done in this direction, and I still think that is better for the project if a user gets a well TF-ed exponent for LL, than if he gets a higher one improper TF-ed. Of course, the exact "odds" here depend of the churning rate.

[QUOTE=chalsall;384050]I don't /think/ this is it... Over the last thirty days we've been averaging about 266 LLs completed a day; this is down from about 300 a day a year ago.

I suspect the issue is the Cat 4 "churners", combined with the fact the Cat 4 range increases by about 386 candidates a day (266 + 120). (The extra 120 is because George has Primenet increasing by this amount until it reaches a 100,000 candidate offset for Cat 4 (we're currently at 76,520); note the ~38,000 available Cat 3 candidates -- these are all TFed to at least 74, and P-1'ed.)[/QUOTE]

That makes a lot of sense to me.

It looks like only 2100 candidates in the Cat4 range were brought to 74 bits in the last week. That leaves us with a shortfall of 600 on a weekly basis, or about 86 a day. That's about 4 THz-d/day in needed additional trial factoring throughput.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;384054]That leaves us with a shortfall of 600 on a weekly basis, or about 86 a day. That's about 4 THz-d/day in needed additional trial factoring throughput.[/QUOTE]

Yes. The good news though is only about 7% of all Cat 4's actuallycomplete, so we will get another shot at most of those sub-optimally TFed.

Also, so everyone knows, if "Spidy" seeks that anything is about to be released at below 73 it will release a bunch at 73 (or 74 if we're holding any at that level awaiting P-1'ing). Thus, very very few (if any) should be being assigned for LL'ing (or P-1'ing) at below 73. (And, again, nothing is being assigned at below 74 in the Cat 1 through 3 ranges.)

But, definitely, some more LLTF'ing would be useful and appreciated (even if at the expense of DCTF'ing -- we've got at least a six month buffer there at the moment).

[QUOTE=LaurV;384052]We have foreseen that. Remember when I said (here, on the forum) that in case Cat4 TF-ed to 74 are not available, we should assign the highest Cat 3 instead? I think nothing was done in this direction, and I still think that is better for the project if a user gets a well TF-ed exponent for LL, than if he gets a higher one improper TF-ed. Of course, the exact "odds" here depend of the churning rate.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but... That would involve some additional specialized code by George et al.

Another option would be to simply stop increasing the Cat4 offset by 120 a day, and perhaps drop it back to down to 75,000 (a tiny drop; just a round number). The TF'er could probably (just) sustain the Cat4 demand if that happened.

I understand the desire for the 100,000 offset -- it will make the curves cross for expiry at almost exactly 360 days -- but perhaps for the next few months or so we "hold" at "O minus 25,000"? (Hey, NASA regularly does that kind of thing, why can't we? :wink: :smile:)