[QUOTE=LaurV;288834]And additionally ye forget to mention that all DCTF had P-1 done, but only few of LLTF had P-1 done. For DC front the expos were already filtered, many of them were eliminated by P-1-found factors, and only the "tough" one remain into the list. That is why I said in the past there is no worth to do DCTF over 69 bits. One can find a factor every 2 days, or in the luckiest case, every day and half, but he would need only 24-26 hours to clear the exponent by doing DCLL. That is why I concentrated on LL-tests at DC front, and not DCTF.[/QUOTE]

I'm not in the project just an onlooker but it sounds as though the project is getting what it's doing for GIMPS back in the DCTF range, so basically I think the original plan was to do what's happening in the DCTF range for the LLTF range. so that gimps can skim the top of the pond so to speak the problem is getting the rates to equalize so one doesn't surpass the other in the wrong areas.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;288709]
Also, while I have a post going, I should point out that the sum of the [URL="http://gpu72.com/reports/available/"]yellow column[/URL] has been slowly creeping up all night. It was at ~465 like 5 hours ago. We gonna need a lot more P-1.[/QUOTE]

AAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
It's at 567!!! What are we ever going to do? We need (A LOT) more P-1...

[QUOTE=Dubslow;288861]AAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
It's at 567!!! What are we ever going to do? We need (A LOT) more P-1...[/QUOTE]

There is only one thing to do. TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

[QUOTE=kladner;288768]Wow! The last LL-TF factor found here was on 12/24/2012.:huh: There have been quite a few in the DC range, though.[/QUOTE]

First, a correction: The date given above should have been 1/24/2012.:doh!: The day and year were correct. I screwed up the month.

On that date, one mfaktc worker found a 48M factor in the 71-72 range.
This day had fairly typical production for the period when I was running the GPU split between LL and DC TF.
[CODE]1/24/12
48M factor 71-72

LLTF levels/exp.
2 69-72
1 70-72
2 69-71 -includes the run which found a factor in the 71-72 range.
1 69-70

38 NF DC range, 68-69[/CODE]Since then, until yesterday (2/09), when the last DCTFs cleared the second worker, it had found 11 factors in the 29M and 30M range. On three occasions it found 2 factors in one day.

Prior to 1/24/12 I have to go back to 1/15/12 to see another LLTF factor. In that period, 5 DC factors were found, with another 2 days with 2 factors each found. Note that the first DC range results appear on 1/19/12: 4 days later.

All I'm really saying is that during the ~3 weeks I have done DCTF work, DC has kicked out a lot more factors than LLTF. I understand that this flies in the face of the overall statistics. But that's what happened for me.

[QUOTE=kladner;288910]
All I'm really saying is that during the ~3 weeks I have done DCTF work, DC has kicked out a lot more factors than LLTF. I understand that this flies in the face of the overall statistics. But that's what happened for me.
[/QUOTE]

Tell me about it... I haven't found 1 LLTF factor since 2012/01/17, I don't know how many times I rebooted my PC or ran the self test to see that everything was fine (I even updated my drivers)... Well I actually found 6 but not from GP272 assignment.

In all I'm at 731 consecutive attempt without a factor! :cry:

While during that time I was able to do do 167 P-1 attempts and found 10 P-1 factors. :smile:

[QUOTE=diamonddave;288915]In all I'm at 731 consecutive attempt without a factor! :cry:[/QUOTE]

That is a bit strange... According to the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/"]system's stats[/URL], you should see a factor on average every 105.4 attempts (27815 / 264) just going from 71 to 72.

It's within plausible unlikelyness. Maybe not just do a self test, but find a 50M expo with a factor in the proper range...

[QUOTE=chalsall;288916]That is a bit strange... According to the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/factoring_cost/"]system's stats[/URL], you should see a factor on average every 105.4 attempts (27815 / 264) just going from 71 to 72.[/QUOTE]

Well I did find 10 factors in my last 1000 attempts, they just happened to be bunched up I guess.

Actually it might be worse because some attempts had 2 bit level :cry:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;288920]It's within plausible unlikelyness. Maybe not just do a self test, but find a 50M expo with a factor in the proper range...[/QUOTE]

Good idea.

Here are fifty you can test with:

[CODE]+----------+------------------------+---------------+
| Exponent | Factor | BitLevel |
+----------+------------------------+---------------+
| 44317369 | 2272152083654155841399 | 70.9445495605 |
| 45365491 | 2158533078164308867183 | 70.8705444336 |
| 46037293 | 1971068856035884695647 | 70.7394714355 |
| 46559237 | 1977934284625254635321 | 70.7444839478 |
| 46685371 | 2146610330000968110343 | 70.8625488281 |
| 46863241 | 4364930190253621432999 | 71.8864517212 |
| 46993159 | 1330531357296759134879 | 70.1724929810 |
| 47260573 | 1743533387286218260247 | 70.5625076294 |
| 47560171 | 1181823099220441081631 | 70.0015029907 |
| 47633413 | 1790083758666281158159 | 70.6005172729 |
| 47806417 | 3521146432239008772113 | 71.5765380859 |
| 47927531 | 2355381346990999547839 | 70.9964523315 |
| 48095011 | 3029315848378018189801 | 71.3594818115 |
| 48834119 | 2934281118499418456407 | 71.3134994507 |
| 48956057 | 3305929575479275129607 | 71.4855422974 |
| 49022137 | 1487672435909624906681 | 70.3335494995 |
| 49117553 | 1627917615725480286791 | 70.4635162354 |
| 49229507 | 2106693543295212625697 | 70.8354721069 |
| 49374713 | 3331038078186391131217 | 71.4964599609 |
| 49435723 | 3815810590186900365521 | 71.6924819946 |
| 49924067 | 3776282376041628861521 | 71.6774597168 |
| 49944373 | 2474194250049603381857 | 71.0674514771 |
| 50239463 | 1745949344651080378721 | 70.5644989014 |
| 50549153 | 1623413742346393982417 | 70.4595184326 |
| 50710841 | 3262620573998896985551 | 71.4665222168 |
| 51533983 | 3997382094836556464167 | 71.7595443726 |
| 51971147 | 2121383824190682239183 | 70.8454971313 |
| 52119871 | 3882653254679473450247 | 71.7175292969 |
| 52222231 | 1688806059582527360879 | 70.5164947510 |
| 52248761 | 3708847255636615579439 | 71.6514587402 |
| 52268947 | 2164495094754430986599 | 70.8745193481 |
| 52311811 | 1717095357726153258793 | 70.5404586792 |
| 52312411 | 1952122654783344353833 | 70.7255325317 |
| 52407793 | 2357049987780116445823 | 70.9974746704 |
| 52453741 | 2498484590663080295807 | 71.0815429688 |
| 52454057 | 2409990193721325905647 | 71.0295181274 |
| 52457381 | 2061913063008875827129 | 70.8044738770 |
| 52483367 | 1236324007342449172201 | 70.0665435791 |
| 52565963 | 3665573401554550494847 | 71.6345291138 |
| 52644311 | 3766067728646690119423 | 71.6735458374 |
| 52757329 | 3520990875781027910761 | 71.5764694214 |
| 52776673 | 1282574177694372975761 | 70.1195297241 |
| 52883993 | 1360342975683617703487 | 70.2044601440 |
| 52972313 | 3166736005990831004767 | 71.4234848022 |
| 53004071 | 1418169247727039506759 | 70.2645187378 |
| 53327473 | 1229478248730006387337 | 70.0585327148 |
| 54903491 | 3099550058950900989607 | 71.3925476074 |
| 54919057 | 3046222617434999481671 | 71.3675079346 |
| 58055993 | 3171218011593327976087 | 71.4255294800 |
| 58950481 | 1291456699548445340951 | 70.1294860840 |
+----------+------------------------+---------------+
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;288923]Good idea.
Here are fifty you can test with:
[/QUOTE]
I'll check those tonight when I get home... will keep you guys posted

thx

[QUOTE=Dubslow;288861]AAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
It's at 567!!! What are we ever going to do? We need (A LOT) more P-1...[/QUOTE]

Or it could just be that flash went crazy. Crisis solved (for now).


(And really only by handwaving anyways, but I'm a physicist, so that's okay :smile:)