[QUOTE]all power and telephony runs are underground, [B][U]as is the server room[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

Got sump pumps and generator?

[QUOTE=petrw1;388703]Thanks found it....but man does it take a long time to run.....hours.[/QUOTE]

SENT.....

Sorry people for not contributing for a few weeks. I lost a box a while back.

I think most of its assignments are completed so I didn’t want to release “completed” work.

After ordering the wrong part and being out of town I noticed the assignments were going to expire, so I extended them. By having “expired” assignments, I can’t get new work for the other boxes. So I’m doing work around 100M directly from PrimeNet.

Hopefully, in the coming days or so, I can contribute to GPU72.

[QUOTE=Prime95;388506]petrw1, can you send James a CudaLucas benchmark? I'd like to know the TF breakeven points for this card.[/QUOTE]Based on only a single benchmark for Compute 5.2 (from [i]petrw1[/i]'s GTX 970) so I'm only mildly confident in the numbers, but as a rough guide:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=567[/url]

It looks kinda realistic to me, the 9xx series chips have 1/32 DP/SP ratio, and it can not be changed, like for Titans, to have it doing more SP or more DP (or can it? I didn't have one in my hands, all my information is from the web articles). These cards are kicking ass at factoring, but they a bad for TF.

Edit: well... :redface: for the energy they consume, they are not bad, actually, just they don't get a Titan's performance, but they are certainly competing against a 580 !

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;388751]Based on only a single benchmark for Compute 5.2 (from [i]petrw1[/i]'s GTX 970) so I'm only mildly confident in the numbers, but as a rough guide:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=567[/url][/QUOTE]

It looks like this card has even lower breakevens than the 570, though not by much. Some cards have TF/LL crossovers a full bit lower.

I'm contemplating moving GPU TF assignments to PrimeNet with the goal of having a system that needs less babysitting and is always making sure GPU TF is directed to where it is most profitable. This consists of these steps:

1) Calculate the "high water mark" for DC and LL and 100M LLs each night. From that make an educated guess as to where the high water mark will be in 90 days. This defines 3 areas for handing out GPU TF assignments -- all DC exponents up to the "expected high water mark in 90 days", all LL exponents up to the "expected high water mark in 90 days", and same for 100M LL.
2) Hand out TF assignments that will save the most LL work. I'll try to keep as many of the current GPU72 options as possible, like the ability to specify DCTF only, LLTF only, 100M TF only, specific exponent ranges, specific bit levels, etc. However, let PrimeNet decide should satisfy most users.
3) Real DC and LL assignments for CPUs will still give out the smallest exponent in their category which is highly likely to be the exponents least likely to benefit from more TF.
4) Make sure we don't hand out TF assignments above the crossovers in James' tables. I don't think we are near the crossovers right now.
5) Expire TF assignments in 60(?) days. Does that sound reasonable?
6) Create a Primenet web page to get these GPU TF assignments.
7) Have GPU72 return the assignments it hasn't handed out. Have GPU72 forward TF requests to PrimeNet.

Comments?

[QUOTE]5) Expire TF assignments in 60(?) days. Does that sound reasonable? [/QUOTE]

Thirty days should be more than enough. At least, that is the current GPU 72 period. I personally start checking what the status of a factoring job is if it gets to be 8-10 days old. I expect them to be gone before then. I know some people keep more work in the hopper than I do. Perhaps a longer time allowance would suit them better.

[QUOTE]6) Create a Primenet web page to get these GPU TF assignments. [/QUOTE]
make sure MISFIT can fetch from there
and that the misfit fetch options are compatable with the new page

[QUOTE=LaurV;388753] These cards are kicking ass at factoring, but they a bad for TF.[/QUOTE]

I know(?) You meant to say LL at the end of this quote.
I guess I might as well let it do what it does best. TF. :)

[QUOTE=petrw1;388792]I know(?) You meant to say LL at the end of this quote.
I guess I might as well let it do what it does best. TF. :)[/QUOTE]
Grr man, LL, sorry. Been in hurry.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;388751]Based on only a single benchmark for Compute 5.2 (from [i]petrw1[/i]'s GTX 970) so I'm only mildly confident in the numbers, but as a rough guide:
[url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=567[/url][/QUOTE]

Is there enough info in [url=http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=383456&postcount=2364]this post[/url] to add to the benchmarks? If not, perhaps TheJudger could send you what's needed.