[QUOTE=chalsall;291217]Whoops... Not my best day... :cry: Although there's nothing "secret" about the Status field. It's 4 if owned by Spidy for LL/DC assignment.[/quote]Oh. I thought that was the trust level. And considering all the work that has gone into this, you can be way more than excused for a few minor mishaps that don't cause damage. :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;291217]

Yeah, I know. I'm holding anything above 29.5M. (If you saw lower candidates available earlier today, it was because I was doing maintaince on another sub-system, and had turned off the returning script.)[/QUOTE]
Not only today, but also most of yesterday (Mon) as well, that's how I came to that conclusion. Oh well, all is well in this corner of the internet.

Fun Shtuff
 

Hit the sweet spot:
[code][Worker #2 Feb 28 19:53:42] Optimal P-1 factoring of M54628073 using up to 10000MB of memory.
[Worker #2 Feb 28 19:53:42] Assuming no factors below 2^73 and 2 primality tests saved if a factor is found.
[Worker #2 Feb 28 19:53:42] Optimal bounds are [U]B1=500000, B2=10000000[/U]
[Worker #2 Feb 28 19:53:42] Chance of finding a factor is an estimated 3.57%[/code]
Don't you just love round numbers? :smile:

Edit: And in other news, check this out: [url]http://gpu72.com/reports/worker/829a683f5d991e17d4cca0453117d491/[/url]
My rank in all individual work types are all higher than my overall rank :smile:
@kracker: I'm sorry I rather one-upped you (three upped you?), but I think it was for a decent cause :razz:
Seeing as this is likely to change in the next few days, I've attached a screenshot for reference, but of course it's much cooler at the proper link.

Hey chalsall,

On the available TF Assignments page:

[CODE]
Note: The yellow cells are the (approximate) factoring depth we release candidates back to PrimeNet at.
For LLTF we release at 73 above 58.52M, and for DCTF we release at 70 above 29.69M
[/CODE]

If possible, & when you get a chance, can you break the 58M and 29M blocks into two sections each so we can see the actual available exponents <58.52M & <29.69M and >=58.25M & >=29.69M? It would make it easier to see which ones are available for higher TF and which ones are just needing P-1.

Thanks.

Try [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/p-1/"]this[/URL] or [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/nop-1/"]that[/URL].

Now Xyzzy can't break the graphs...
 

Just a quick update...

During a break today I codified the Assignment Completion Adjustment algorithm discussed earlier, and ran it against all the Workers' data. I'm quite pleased with the results.

The algorithm simply looks at each person's data grouped by days, and when there are several days of no results and then a large batch, it spreads the results over the preceeding empty days. Importantly, no adjustment is made such that the Adjusted date is earlier than the Assigned date.

This has resulting in improved graphs for just about all of our top twenty or so users. And you can actually now see meaningful data in [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/7e6a2e592a37a719fac4f765eb0f6ca8/"]Xyzzy's[/URL] graphs. :smile:

Equally important in my mind is it has also resulting in smoothing of the Overall Graphs -- no longer are the graphs compressed because some large producer hasn't checked in for a week or so. This is particularily evident in the new [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/quarter/"]Quarterly Overall System Progress Graphs[/URL].

And, to be clear, this is not destroying any data; the graphs are working on a conditional -- if the Adjusted field is > 0, that date is used. Otherwise the Completed field is. This means if people insist on it the original noisy graphs could be made available as well.

[QUOTE=chalsall;291326]This has resulting in improved graphs for just about all of our top twenty or so users.[/QUOTE]Very nice, I like it, thanks. :smile:

Even more Brent-Suyama 0_o

[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?factordetails=3546977485247966555997217[/url]

:mellow:


Edit: For every other expo, E=12, but P95 doesn't report E when a factor is found.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;291359]Even more Brent-Suyama 0_o

[URL]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?factordetails=3546977485247966555997217[/URL]

:mellow:[/QUOTE]

So this post got me to thinking about which factors I've found with Brent-Suyama 0_o

So I found this one: [URL="http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=52733041"]M52733041[/URL] (Edit: not Brent-Suyama 0_o :redface:)

But, it's only 68.831 bits... why wasn't this found in trial factoring? Is it because James factored to 62 and bdot started at 69?

[QUOTE]
Edit: For every other expo, E=12, but P95 doesn't report E when a factor is found.[/QUOTE]

That's probably because it no longer matters how well it was TFd or P-1d since a factor was found. I was asking the other day about getting 'more' information from PrimeNet on exponents with factors found, but apparently it gets removed from the database to save room.

That k is within B2 bounds...? Although that it wasn't TFd is a bit funky.

[QUOTE=flashjh;291361][URL="http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=52733041"]M52733041[/URL] But, it's only 68.831 bits... why wasn't this found in trial factoring? Is it because James factored to 62 and bdot started at 69?
...apparently it gets removed from the database to save room.[/QUOTE]Data from me and Bdot are there because of manually-submitted results.txt, otherwise I wouldn't know who did what when. PrimeNet keeps a record of all LL tests performed (1st time, DC, TC+, etc) but just a record of how far an exponent claims to have been factored, but not who did it when. We just have to trust PrimeNet's record that it was TF'd unsuccessfully by a series of people from zero to wherever it says it is now. That's accurate far more than 99% of the time, but inevitably a few failures slip through. Whether that's from TF client error, network error, PrimeNet error or pure malice can't easily be determined.

I'm sure this problem is spread in small quantities throughout the data (random errors of various kinds). But I did find a [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=283553&postcount=1022]large cluster of missed TF factors[/url] when I redid P-1 on many small exponents in the M6-M9 range. Short of re-TF'ing everything, there's not much that can be done to validate a no-factor TF, so just ignore it and assume it's valid.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;291386]PrimeNet keeps a record of all LL tests performed (1st time, DC, TC+, etc) but just a record of how far an exponent claims to have been factored, [U]but not who did it when[/U].[/QUOTE]

That's not entirely true.

If you do a [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=54103603&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]Exponent Status[/URL] query on PrimeNet, the report will show you who did what factoring when, so long as it was after the PrimeNet V5 migration.

All historical knowledge seems to be thrown away (or at least, becomes inaccessable) once a factor is found.