[QUOTE=flashjh;291708]Speaking of this...


I've had much success with this pre-build. Any chance for a final version?[/QUOTE]

Not too soon. Oliver pointed out to me that the variable SieveSizeLimit causes the siever to run ~3% slower on Linux. On Windows this was not measurable (the Windows binary does not seem to be highly optimized anyway).

I need to do lots of measuring, trying out things ...
On the other hand, I could end up offering two (or more) different binaries for different CPUs ... would also allow to turn on CPU-specific optimizations in the compiler.

[QUOTE=Bdot;291849]Not too soon. Oliver pointed out to me that the variable SieveSizeLimit causes the siever to run ~3% slower on Linux. On Windows this was not measurable (the Windows binary does not seem to be highly optimized anyway).

I need to do lots of measuring, trying out things ...
On the other hand, I could end up offering two (or more) different binaries for different CPUs ... would also allow to turn on CPU-specific optimizations in the compiler.[/QUOTE]

I do not let the sieve size change on any of my PCs. I feel it is faster when I lock it down.

2 factors found (*yay*) in my last test-batch of 100 exponents GPU272, and still searching.
I'm wondering whether to submit them any time soon or not :)). (Just to play naughty...)

[QUOTE=sonjohan;291972]I'm wondering whether to submit them any time soon or not[/QUOTE]Delayed submission of results does not much other than increase risk of duplicated/wasted work. Submit results as often as is convenient.

I was just toying around. I think I got about 40 exponents or so done.
I'm happy to have found factors actually. It always leaves me with a bad feeling not finding anything.

Having an entire report with nothing but the same 'no factors found' gives me the impression mfaktc was just bored and copy-pasted the same sentence over and over again.

[QUOTE=sonjohan;291975]Having an entire report with nothing but the same 'no factors found' gives me the impression mfaktc was just bored and copy-pasted the same sentence over and over again.[/QUOTE]

I had never thought of it in those terms, but I know the feeling. The above creates an amusing image, though, of The Judger's wicked software :devil: messing with your head.

[QUOTE=sonjohan;291975]Having an entire report with nothing but the same 'no factors found' gives me the impression mfaktc was just bored and copy-pasted the same sentence over and over again.[/QUOTE]
As [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=279949&postcount=252"]I said before[/URL], I was hating the number 77 with all multiplies. Well, right when I succeeded to learn them by heart, mfaktc changed to v0.18, so now I start hating 73 with all his multiples, and learning them by heart.... 146, 219, 292, 365...:smile:

Not sure if that was discussed (and maybe fixed) before, but I now have the second instance of running DC work on 40-something-M exponents.

[code]
LL test successfully completes double-check of M45358927
CPU credit is 72.8027 GHz-days.
[/code]My other example was [B][URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=43007599"]43007599[/URL][/B] that I TF'd to 72 (with highest priority!) way after the first LL-check was done. And I see it still has "Assigned LL testing to "GPU Factoring" on 2011-02-07". AFAICS this one should be returned to primenet until the DC front reaches 43M.

Though it is not directly wasted resources, it still is not quite what I intended to do ...

Both still appear as LL TF / LL instead of DC TF / DC in my completed results / work done reports which makes me think GPU272 takes the size of an exponent and does not look at the status for categorizing work done on them?

Chalsall, maybe that is already done, but if not, could you please check that LL / LL TF assignments do not already have an "Unverified LL" test done on them?

I know when I made a post about 45000017, that one had in fact been tested once, but the first one had an error code, so PrimeNet marks it out for LL (not DC) assignment. Despite the error code, my test matched and so any trace of "Suspect LL" was thus erased. I'm guessing that's what happened here (and since the "Suspect" is erased on good DC, there's no way to be sure).

Edit: For reference, [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=45000017&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]here's my expo[/URL], for which I'm sure the first test was "Suspect" before I turned my test in.

[QUOTE=Bdot;292078]Chalsall, maybe that is already done, but if not, could you please check that LL / LL TF assignments do not already have an "Unverified LL" test done on them?[/QUOTE]

G72 does go by the WorkType given by PrimeNet. LLs are reserved with a different spider than DCs, and are listed in the database as 100s and 101s, respectfully.

However, because "Spidy" is designed to collect expired exponents, there is the risk that the original assignee will complete the work after PrimeNet reassigns it to us. In addition, as Dubslow points out, PrimeNet will immediately reissue LL work when the previous effort's results were "Suspect". This knowledge disappears if the second LL test turns out to match the suspect results.

To minimize unnecessary work being done on assignments, Spidy now checks with PrimeNet once an hour, and will update it's knowledge when a LL turns into a DC. Or, worse, a DC turns into a "Proven". In the case of TF/P-1 candidates, the system will return any which are not assigned, and mark for return any which are currently assigned when they complete to whatever level they're pledged to.

In addition, I'm going to add a notice to people's "View Assignments" page if they're doing a "real" LL test on a candidate which becomes a DC, or (even worse) are doing a DC test which is no longer needed. Unfortunately there are currently a total of four -- I'll PM the individuals impacted as well.

I'm afraid there's not much beyond this I can do. There are simply going to be a (very) few cases where such situations occur.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;292123]I know when I made a post about 45000017, that one had in fact been tested once, but the first one had an error code, so PrimeNet marks it out for LL (not DC) assignment. Despite the error code, my test matched and so any trace of "Suspect LL" was thus erased. I'm guessing that's what happened here (and since the "Suspect" is erased on good DC, there's no way to be sure).

Edit: For reference, [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=45000017&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status"]here's my expo[/URL], for which I'm sure the first test was "Suspect" before I turned my test in.[/QUOTE]
OK, this may have happened with the 45M exp of mine. But the 43M one still shows a clear "Unverified LL" state, yet GPU272 handed it to me as LL TF. It's not a big deal. I just think that it was not intended that way, and maybe can be caught by the system.

Chalsall, thanks a lot - that should cover most of these cases very well! And it is one more reason to concentrate on LL instead of DC ... then you'll still get the credit when you turn in the result (which may then be a DC one).

Do you have an explanation why 43007599 is still assigned as "LL testing to "GPU Factoring" on 2011-02-07"?