[QUOTE=davieddy;334644]and the fact that Primenet will start releasing candidates assigned after the "big announcement" in a couple of weeks or so.
[/QUOTE]

Did I miss the memo or do you have some insider info?

P.S. Does anyone know why the comment I quoted from Chris got attributed to David?

[QUOTE=petrw1;334834]Did I miss the memo or do you have some insider info?[/QUOTE]

For the record, I have access to no more information than anyone else does from Primenet. However, one of my Spiders reports than many candidates assigned during the "surge" following the "big announcement" (read: M48) have been abandoned.

It's the usual "Oh, that sounds like fun. I'll probably be able to make more money finding the next MP than I'm currently making bitcoin mining." [User downloads the software, gets a LL assignment.] "It's going to take HOW MANY WEEKS to do ONE assignment!!! Scr3w this!"

But, with larger numbers of candidates.... :wink:

[QUOTE=petrw1;334834]Did I miss the memo or do you have some insider info?[/QUOTE]Don't worry, I also misread that statement as there being an upcoming "big announcement". There isn't. The [url=http://mersenne.org/various/57885161.htm]big announcement[/url] happened nearly 60 days ago, and after said announcement there as a surge in exponents assigned, and it's expected that many (most?) of them have likely been abandoned after the initial assignment and will expire after 60 days of inactivity.

[QUOTE=chalsall;334841]For the record, I have access to no more information than anyone else does from Primenet. However, one of my Spiders reports than many candidates assigned during the "surge" following the "big announcement" (read: M48) have been abandoned.[/QUOTE]
The number of exponents assigned to LL in the 100M digit range have plateau and are likely to start shrinking soon, too.:badspelling:

The default level has been raised to 74 bits, but entering 75 or higher still gives me a message saying that factoring beyond [I]73[/I] bits is unadvised.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;335119]The default level has been raised to 74 bits, but entering 75 or higher still gives me a message saying that factoring beyond [I]73[/I] bits is unadvised.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing that out. SPE in the Javascript; forgot to update it to the new levels. Fixed.

BTW, those using MISFIT with the "What Makes Sense" et al options (rather than "Let GPU72 decide") might consider raising their pledge level to 74.

We have to reduce our output for a while, thermal issues. As we said many times, April is the hottest period of the year here, we already started to get [URL="http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/TH/Chiang_Mai.html"]30C overnight[/URL], and we just received our electricity bill for March... :rant:

[QUOTE=LaurV;335368]April is the hottest period of the year here, we already started to get [URL="http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/TH/Chiang_Mai.html"]30C overnight[/URL][/QUOTE]We're also having a warm spell here, today marks the second day in a row that daytime highs reached above 0C. Even the river's starting to melt. Nevertheless, we'll attempt to continue at full capacity. :wink:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;335376]We're also having a warm spell here, today marks the second day in a row that daytime highs reached above 0C. Even the river's starting to melt. Nevertheless, we'll attempt to continue at full capacity. :wink:[/QUOTE]

Oh man, with the river turning liquid I don't know how you wil be able to keep the throughput up! lol!

It's warming up here, too - I had to add a second radiator to my computer to keep the cpu below 80C.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;335376]We're also having a warm spell here, today marks the second day in a row that daytime highs reached above 0C. Even the river's starting to melt. Nevertheless, we'll attempt to continue at full capacity. :wink:[/QUOTE]
I heard Curtisc had looked into water cooling for his many systems, which is why Iceland looks the way it does today.

The X-axis labels on the [url=http://www.gpu72.com/graphs/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]work-done-by-user graph[/url] at the bottom of [url=http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]Individual Overall Statistics[/url] is too busy, all the numbers are running over top of each other.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;335376]Nevertheless, we'll attempt to continue at full capacity. :wink:[/QUOTE]So much for that. The pump on my [url=http://www.corsair.com/hydro-series-h100-extreme-performance-liquid-cpu-cooler.html]Corsair H100[/url] just died. :cry:

So now, being currently far away from well-stocked computer stores, I need to wait a week to have a new cooler shipped. I may stay away from liquid cooling for now for reliability reasons. I'll probably switch back when the H100 comes back from RMA, but I might not be able to send it away for a long time.

My throughput will be down at least 50% for now.

Does that pump or radiator have threaded points to mount barbs? You could maybe get a Laing from one of their resellers and use that rather than try to get the whole thing replaced. It beats the hell out of any pump I've ever used before that, and I've been using the current laing for years - it takes a chemical beating.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;335858]Does that pump or radiator have threaded points to mount barbs?[/QUOTE]No, closed-loop liquid coolers are designed as just that: non-user-serviceable integrated (waterblock+pump / radiator) units.

Aye, I thought as much. Hopefully they can get it fixed up for you.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;335615]The X-axis labels on the [url=http://www.gpu72.com/graphs/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]work-done-by-user graph[/url] at the bottom of [url=http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]Individual Overall Statistics[/url] is too busy, all the numbers are running over top of each other.[/QUOTE]

Fixed.

[QUOTE=chalsall;336013]Fixed.[/QUOTE]Not to be nitpicky, but the first graph on the overall individual statistics page has an unresolved variable:[quote]GHz Days per Day of Work Saved by %s[/quote]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;336029]Not to be nitpicky, but the first graph on the overall individual statistics page has an unresolved variable:[/QUOTE]

Interesting.

Could you please provide a URL which demonstrated that?

[QUOTE=chalsall;336032]Could you please provide a URL which demonstrated that?[/QUOTE][url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/[/url][code]<img src="/graphs/worker/ghzdays_saved/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/" alt="GHz Days per Day of Work Saved by %s" width="800" height="300" border="0"/>[/code]Sorry, I thought I said in the ALT tag, but looking back at my post I guess I didn't actually say that.
It's just the first graph that has the broken alt text, the other two show my name as expected.

That's pretty odd, you'd think if it was broken for one it would be broken for all three. For what it's worth, when I click on that link I see stats for James Heinrich on all three. When I click on my own, I see Aramis Whlye in all three places.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336061]when I click on that link I see stats for James Heinrich on all three.[/QUOTE]On the graph image, yes. But it's in the ALT text of the image where I (by chance) noticed the %s placeholder (or part of a malformed printf?).

Ah yes, Sure enough.

[SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]<[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515]img [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]src[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="/graphs/worker/ghzdays_saved/6d32b653513b288d722acb30e6dd7975/" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]alt[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="GHz Days per Day of Work Saved by %s" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]width[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="800" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]height[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="300" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]border[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="0"></[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515]a[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]>[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]<[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515]img [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]src[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="/graphs/worker/ghzdays/6d32b653513b288d722acb30e6dd7975/" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]alt[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="GHz Days per Day of Work Done by Aramis Wyler" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]width[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="800" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]height[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="300" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]border[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="0"></[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515]a[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]>[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]<[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515][SIZE=2][COLOR=#a31515]img [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]src[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="/graphs/worker/6d32b653513b288d722acb30e6dd7975/" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]alt[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="Work Done by Aramis Wyler" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]width[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="800" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]height[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="400" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000][SIZE=2][COLOR=#ff0000]border[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]="0">[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0000ff]
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;336060]Sorry, I thought I said in the ALT tag, but looking back at my post I guess I didn't actually say that.[/QUOTE]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out -- a cut-and-paste (then edit) error. Fixed.

It seems on [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/d0a0a9610115a8227c686f0d8951998b/"]my[/URL] bottom graph, the dates are squished together.

Looks like we finally ran out of numbers < 63M. My 580 puttered out around 2pm EST. I switched both cards to bitdepth 74, though the 480 still has a few 73s left.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336504]Looks like we finally ran out of numbers < 63M. My 580 puttered out around 2pm EST. I switched both cards to bitdepth 74, though the 480 still has a few 73s left.[/QUOTE]

I have a couple of dozen 62.9M's in queue. A few days more to clear them.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336504]Looks like we finally ran out of numbers < 63M. My 580 puttered out around 2pm EST. I switched both cards to bitdepth 74, though the 480 still has a few 73s left.[/QUOTE]

There are 206 candidates in the 62M range which are "pledged" to only 72. Plus another 99 between 60M and 63M TFed to less than 73 which we might get access to (they're currently assigned by Primenet).

But, yes, overall we're effectively done (or, at least, fully assigned) below 63M.

Betting pool!
 

It's getting close enough that we could probably make a betting pool on when the DC-TF would finish, if it weren't so easy to manipulate. I'd guess June 1.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;336595]When is the projected date where DC-TF should be effectively finished?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336598]It's getting close enough that we could probably make a betting pool on when the DC-TF would finish, if it weren't so easy to manipulate. I'd guess June 1.[/QUOTE]

If you mean some June 1 in the 2020s, that's entirely possible. :whistle:

[QUOTE=ckdo;336615]If you mean some June 1 in the 2020s, that's entirely possible. :whistle:[/QUOTE]

Heh!

With regard to TF DCs, I'd love to see newcomers work on them, though I disagree that they are the best work. I say that because raising the 33m range to 71 actually takes just as long as raising the 65M range we're in to 72 - the exponent is twice as large, and so the time to factor is half as long. So really, going to 72 in the current range is faster and more usefull than going to 71 in the DC range.

Now actually LL'ing the DCs themselves, that's another story - newcomers can have at, but that's not what anyone is talking about. We're talking about finishing their TF set because that is finite. Doublechecking the LL test itself is an infinite set of work.

Aside from all that - that the basic premise that TFDC is in any way more appropriate for newcomers because it's both more work and less fruitfull - newcomers don't line up to do TFDC work. There's nothing in it for them. People want to find primes, people want to see accomplishments, and that means tunning LL tests. People that do TFDC work are in it for the long haul, and aren't taking work away from anyone.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;336629] I say that because raising the 33m range to 71 actually takes just as long as raising the 65M range we're in to 72 - the exponent is twice as large, and so the time to factor is half as long. So really, going to 72 in the current range is faster and more usefull than going to 71 in the DC range. [/QUOTE]
Hmmm I don't have a GPU but my entire farm could do about 10 a day of either category. That's it.

I have no advice on whether or not you should work on either - it's your hardware and power, and I do not believe that the existance of specialized hardware reduces the usefullness of general purpose hardware in a project who's scope exceeds the capacity of both combined.

But if you are trying to choose one or the other (DCTF or LLTF) I would not feel like other people were trying to take your work away by working on either (or both) of those groups themselves. It's just bitterness looking for a place to fester to suggest that in a project where processing time runs from minutes to months up and down the range of numbers that anyone is taking away the work 'most suited' to anyone else. GHD is the same for factoring 20M to 68 as factoring 80M to 70 and 320M to 72. There's more than enough work to go around, it's not going to run out.

So everyone knows...
 

For the record, I have grown tired of this game with David.

I have moved all of his recent posts from this thread, and the related replies, to [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18089"]Davieddy's World[/URL].

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me -- but at least honest, sincere and logical discussion is expected.

2 Notes:
First, it's Euler's birthday. Google has a nice doodle.
Second, I took a chunk (7 days) of dc work to test a bit about what I had said wrt the dc tf work being done by June 1. It will be done sooner than that, and it was interesting in this exodus of infinite work that we do to come across some repercussions of the finite dctf task. For example, most of the top 10 DC TF chart is locked in. I'm going to try to get on that chart before the concept ends, but we're just about there. I know BCP19, Carsten, and Aspen are locked in, and 4 and 5 probably are too.

[QUOTE=petrw1;334242]:bump:
Not nagging ... Just in case it got lost in all the "excitement" lately.[/QUOTE]

Partially fixed?
For the last month I was not getting credit for work I unassigned.
However, today PrimeNet decided to unilaterally unassign some only to immediately reassign others. But GPU72 gave me credit for them.

One of my machines turned in a result for TF ([URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=332307253"]332307253[/URL]). GPUto72, gave the credit on the assignment date. Is this right?

The adjusted graphs give credit for completion during some point between the assignment date and the completion date, stacking from oldest to newest in an attempt to average the ammount of work done over that period. there's a link at the bottom of the page to 'exact' graphs that give the completion dates as the actual completion dates.

[QUOTE=petrw1;337201]However, today PrimeNet decided to unilaterally unassign some only to immediately reassign others. But GPU72 gave me credit for them.[/QUOTE]

Cheese on bread!!!

Could you please PM me some examples?

There's a bug somewhere. Probably mine.

Having specific examples will help me find it quickly.

Thanks.

Some of the worker's graphs are really compacted, like this [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dc/graph/3-12/"]one[/URL], there is a lot of space on the top... [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/dc/graph/4-13/"]Some[/URL] seem to be fine though.

I decided to spread the word around a bit: [url]http://www.facebook.com/NVIDIA/posts/10151405157298253[/url]

Nice! I put a like on your comment. Hopefully people will see it!

[QUOTE=ixfd64;337540]I decided to spread the word around a bit: [url]http://www.facebook.com/NVIDIA/posts/10151405157298253[/url][/QUOTE]

I can't access Facebook from the office... what does it say? :sad:

Luigi

On the Nvidia page, nvidia says:
Are you in college or high school? Learn about how these USC students found a way to study NVIDIA in their accounting class. Tell us about how you're using NVIDIA's products to get your schoolwork done. [URL="http://ow.ly/kcFee"][COLOR=#000080]http://ow.ly/kcFee[/COLOR][/URL]
[B]How NVIDIA Helped Liven Up One USC Accounting Class[/B]
No one understands business better than an accountant. But who knew an accounting class could produce a video

There are various comments after that ('I use my video card to get away from homework not do more!') but then there is one:

[URL="https://www.facebook.com/ixfd64"][COLOR=#000080]Danny Chia[/COLOR][/URL] I'm not in school anymore, but I use my GTX 555 to trial factor Mersenne numbers as part of the [URL="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Great-Internet-Mersenne-Prime-Search/103198313069448"][COLOR=#000080]Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search[/COLOR][/URL]. This helps eliminate candidates for Lucas-Lehmer tests, which can take several hundred hours on a normal CPU. See: [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92"][COLOR=#000080]http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92[/COLOR][/URL][COLOR=#000080]
[/COLOR][B][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92"][COLOR=#000080]GPU Computing - mersenneforum.org[/COLOR][/URL][/B]
[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/"][COLOR=#000080]www.mersenneforum.org[/COLOR][/URL]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;337583]On the Nvidia page, nvidia says:
Are you in college or high school? Learn about how these USC students found a way to study NVIDIA in their accounting class. Tell us about how you're using NVIDIA's products to get your schoolwork done. [URL="http://ow.ly/kcFee"][COLOR=#000080]http://ow.ly/kcFee[/COLOR][/URL]
[B]How NVIDIA Helped Liven Up One USC Accounting Class[/B]
No one understands business better than an accountant. But who knew an accounting class could produce a video

There are various comments after that ('I use my video card to get away from homework not do more!') but then there is one:

[URL="https://www.facebook.com/ixfd64"][COLOR=#000080]Danny Chia[/COLOR][/URL] I'm not in school anymore, but I use my GTX 555 to trial factor Mersenne numbers as part of the [URL="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Great-Internet-Mersenne-Prime-Search/103198313069448"][COLOR=#000080]Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search[/COLOR][/URL]. This helps eliminate candidates for Lucas-Lehmer tests, which can take several hundred hours on a normal CPU. See: [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92"][COLOR=#000080]http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92[/COLOR][/URL][COLOR=#000080]
[/COLOR][B][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=92"][COLOR=#000080]GPU Computing - mersenneforum.org[/COLOR][/URL][/B]
[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/"][COLOR=#000080]www.mersenneforum.org[/COLOR][/URL][/QUOTE]

WOW, that's nice!

Thank you for the report.

Luigi

So on the workers list: [url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/[/url]
I see that I am at 116

On my individual report is shows that I have 116 Ghz-days of LL-TF. But I don't show up on the LL-TF report.
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/[/url]

But, I am on this graph:
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/graph/112-121/[/url]

:rakes:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;337601]But, I am on this graph:
[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/graph/112-121/[/url]

:rakes:[/QUOTE]

Yeah... A seriously stupid programmer error...

I'll try to get that sorted out this weekend. The data's all there, it's just a bug in the code which generates the cached results shown on the charts (the graphs query the raw data each time).

I missed another memo :(
 

[url]http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/[/url]

What is the last column in the first chart (LL); labelled "LL Days"

Thanks

[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=336853&postcount=65"]Memo[/URL]

[QUOTE=petrw1;337993]What is the last column in the first chart (LL); labelled "LL Days"[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I need to add some language on the bottom of the page explaining the different columns.

Also, so everyone knows, the "TF Days" for each work type (LLTF and DCTF) are now calculated based on the 30 running average for each individual work type. As in, no longer are the days calculated based on the aggregate of both work types done. This makes the estimate more accurate.

Someone had asked how long it's going to be before all DCTF is completed. At our current rate, 2,209 days for all DCTF below 50M. Note that there are also a few thousand DCTF candidates still to do above 50M.

I'll stick with my "somewhen in the 2020s" estimate. :big grin:

[QUOTE=chalsall;338011]Someone had asked how long it's going to be before all DCTF is completed. At our current rate, 2,209 days for all DCTF below 50M. Note that there are also a few thousand DCTF candidates still to do above 50M.[/QUOTE]


Is that 2,209 days to doublecheck the LL? Surely not to finish the DCTF?

[SIZE=1](or if it is, why does the [/SIZE][URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/"][SIZE=1]chart[/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] say 99?)[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338047]Is that 2,209 days to doublecheck the LL? Surely not to finish the DCTF?

[SIZE=1](or if it is, why does the [/SIZE][URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/"][SIZE=1]chart[/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] say 99?)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

That's only what we "own" (read: have reserved from Primenet).

This [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/"]report includes everything[/URL] (available by clicking on the "PrimeNet" link at the top of the tables).

Sadness. :cry:

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338053]Sadness. :cry:[/QUOTE]

Why?

[QUOTE=chalsall;338054]Why?[/QUOTE]

I thought we were going to be done with it.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338064]I thought we were going to be done with it.[/QUOTE]

We will. In about 2020....

[QUOTE=chalsall;338066]We will. In about 2020....[/QUOTE]
...unless more people do it.

[QUOTE=kracker;338068]...unless more people do it.[/QUOTE]

Always an option with free agents....

[QUOTE=kracker;338068]...unless more people do it.[/QUOTE]

Buy more GPUs...

[QUOTE=davieddy;338085]Am I the only one who considers this to be a more exciting milestone?[/QUOTE]Imagine how exciting finding a 100M digit prime would be. And imagine how rewarding it might be.

Yeah, I could use the bucks. I think once we get p-1 running well on gpus I'll set my cpus to doing LL work again. Maybe in the 332M range.

[QUOTE=Aramis Wyler;338047]Is that 2,209 days to doublecheck the LL? Surely not to finish the DCTF?

[SIZE=1](or if it is, why does the [/SIZE][URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/"][SIZE=1]chart[/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1] say 99?)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I realize this has been answered, but it's one of those things that I kinda disliked but never brought up.

The chart is accurate in 1 respect saying 99 days... *IF* everything using GPU72 were to run DCTF, in 99 days it would be done. The 2209 seems to be "At the rate we currently have people doing DCTF" which is more reliable. Being the defacto 'top dog' in DCTF, I've always known that the 'estimate' was way off, but knew why and never commented.

Actually. it's more like one report dealing only with exponents held by GPU72 at present and the other including those not (yet) held by GPU72...

[QUOTE=bcp19;338160]The chart is accurate in 1 respect saying 99 days... *IF* everything using GPU72 were to run DCTF, in 99 days it would be done.[/QUOTE]

Not any longer. Both reports now calculate the estimates based on the individual work types. As in, the LLTF estimates are now based solely on the last 30 days of LLTF work done; the DCTF estimates are solely based on the DCTF work done.

As ckdo points out, the first report is showing the estimates for everything we "own" (read: have reserved from Primenet). The second report is the estimates for everything based on the candidate status (as in, LL candidates or DC candidates; a candidate with a successful DC does not get included in either table).

an observation and a thought
 

I notice that when I select P-1 in the DC range it determines only 1.1 LL tests saved and with that will pick lower B1/2 and run faster.
Makes sense to spend less P-1 time with less potential savings.

So that made me wonder if the same logic makes sense for DC-TF.
It a factor found in that range only saves 1 LL test should the TF depth be maybe 1 bit less than what it should be if the same exponent was being factored for LL

Or conversely should DC P-1 use 2 LL tests saved to improve the odds of saving the DC?

[QUOTE=petrw1;338297]Makes sense to spend less P-1 time with less potential savings.
So that made me wonder if the same logic makes sense for DC-TF.[/QUOTE]That logic (~1-bit lower TF for DC) can be seen on the graphs here: [url]http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=9[/url]

And I'm pretty sure that's already part of the GPU72 assignment strategy.

[QUOTE=petrw1;338297]Or conversely should DC P-1 use 2 LL tests saved to improve the odds of saving the DC?[/quote]You could use 10 tests saved to improve the odds even further, but the overall idea is to make most [i]efficient[/i] use of computing resources to clear exponents. Spending more time on TF and/or P-1 will find more factors, but the optimal balance of factoring effort vs probability will clear exponents (either by factor or by two matching LL tests) fastest.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;338299]And I'm pretty sure that's already part of the GPU72 assignment strategy.[/QUOTE]

It is.

GPU72's assignment strategy is based on your empirical analysis as to where the cross-over points are (taking into consideration Primenet's integer bit level convention) and the resources and candidates available for each work type.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;338299]You could use 10 tests saved to improve the odds even further, but the overall idea is to make most [i]efficient[/i] use of computing resources to clear exponents. Spending more time on TF and/or P-1 will find more factors, but the optimal balance of factoring effort vs probability will clear exponents (either by factor or by two matching LL tests) fastest.[/QUOTE]

Or one could TF everything to 90 bits. Wouldn't make sense, but one could (eventually) do it.

The DC P-1 work was made available at the request of a few Workers. This is why the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/account/getassignments/dcp-1/"]DC P-1 manual assignment page[/URL] has the "Effort" option. The default is 2.0, 1.0 is available, and then "Custom".

[QUOTE=chalsall;338304]GPU72's assignment strategy is based on your empirical analysis as to where the cross-over points are[/QUOTE]An analysis which may soon require some revisiting when CUDAPm1 goes beyond alpha. :smile:

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;338309]An analysis which may soon require some revisiting when CUDAPm1 goes beyond alpha. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

"Real time" is always very interesting.... :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;338304]It is.

GPU72's assignment strategy is based on your empirical analysis as to where the cross-over points are (taking into consideration Primenet's integer bit level convention) and the resources and candidates available for each work type.[/QUOTE]

But when I look at the estimated completion charts at the 45 -49 ranges both DC and LL show them going to 72 bits.

[QUOTE=petrw1;338316]But when I look at the estimated completion charts at the 45 -49 ranges both DC and LL show them going to 72 bits.[/QUOTE]

Good point.

LLTF is where the focus is at the moment. And it's currently optimal for the firepower we have available.

DCTF is currently working at 33M (and 36M for those who only want to go a single bit level).

We have lots of time to refine DCTF to be optimal.

[QUOTE=chalsall;338319]Good point.

LLTF is where the focus is at the moment. And it's currently optimal for the firepower we have available.

DCTF is currently working at 33M (and 36M for those who only want to go a single bit level).

We have lots of time to refine DCTF to be optimal.[/QUOTE]
When that was set up, weren't we still using the old mfatkc/o that required the use of CPU cores? With the release of .20 the bit depth changed, which is why we went back and took some 30-31M exp's to 70.

[QUOTE=davieddy;338511]Which would be zilch IMAO.[/QUOTE]
Are you meaning that there should be no further DCTF? Just want to make sure I correctly understand your belief before trying to crunch the numbers...

[QUOTE=c10ck3r;338512]Are you meaning that there should be no further DCTF? Just want to make sure I correctly understand your belief before trying to crunch the numbers...[/QUOTE]
Yes, for he time being anyway.

We have effectively TFed between 30M and 34M to 70 bits.
As far as saving LL work goes, this is equivalent to taking 60M to 68M to 74 bits. (Convince youself of this).
Current firepower is succeeding in TF to 74 nearly as fast as LLs are being completed.
As Chris has said, we can reappraise the state of play in a year or so.

In my book, there is another sound reason not to overcook DCTF:
the DC checks the residue from the first test.

David

Isn't knowing a factor of a number more interesting than knowing two tests gave the same result (or not)?

[QUOTE=davieddy;338986]Yes, for he time being anyway.

We have effectively TFed between 30M and 34M to 70 bits.
As far as saving LL work goes, this is equivalent to taking 60M to 68M to 74 bits. (Convince youself of this).
Current firepower is succeeding in TF to 74 nearly as fast as LLs are being completed.
As Chris has said, we can reappraise the state of play in a year or so.

In my book, there is another sound reason not to overcook DCTF:
the DC checks the residue from the first test.

David[/QUOTE]
You are making no sense. Comparing 30M-34M ^70 to 60M-68M ^74 is ludicrous. Every LLTF factor saves 2 tests, every DCTF saves 1, so you would be more correct saying 60M-62M ^74, though you would still make no sense.

Your last statement though highlights your lack of understanding. You are basically saying we should let the DC's run, even though it takes less computational time to find a DCTF factor simply because there is already a residue. If I were still running my GPUs, I could find a DC factor faster than I could match a residue, which means I could clear more exponents with TF than I can with DC. Less time spent is always better. Period.

is it an epidemic?
 

[QUOTE=bcp19;339171] If I were still running my GPUs, ... [/QUOTE]

In the past few months I read about at least 4 here that are no longer running GPUs.

As one who is still contemplating one I am starting to wonder what you 4 know that I need to.

[QUOTE=petrw1;339179]In the past few months I read about at least 4 here that are no longer running GPUs.

As one who is still contemplating one I am starting to wonder what you 4 know that I need to.[/QUOTE]

I am running a GTX 460 (OC) and an AMD FX-8350 (Stock, 4 GHz). My GTX 570 (OC) is supposed to be arriving in California today on RMA.
[INDENT]CPU w/ 8x P-1 = ~255 watts
CPU + 460 w/mfaktc = ~375 watts
CPU + (460 + 570) w/mfaktc = ~660 watts
(Consumption measured by Kill-a-Watt.)

[/INDENT]It remains to be seen what sort of temps the whole box ends up running when summer kicks in. With both GPUs and the CPU at current mild ambient the CPU would be around 50C, the 460 ~65C, and the 570 @ 70-72C. The heat output becomes very noticeable (in a non-welcome sense) as the weather warms up. The 3 fans on the 570 get noticeably louder.

The people who have pulled back on GPU work have had various reasons. Xyzzy said the house wiring and A/C weren't really up to it, it was noisy and expensive, and he just plain got bored with it, at least in his previous setup. I know Chuck stopped at one point because of noise, though he has since restarted with a quieter card. Craig/Nucleon suspended operations for Southern Hemisphere summer, I think. This last may come into play for me, too, depending on how the coming Midwest US summer develops. Pete/bcp19 has his reasons.

I guess it comes down to how much one is willing to invest/put up with versus the gratification derived.

[QUOTE=kladner;339180]I guess it comes down to how much one is willing to invest/put up with versus the gratification derived.[/QUOTE]

A fair assessment...

At the end of the day, the hardware costs pale in comparison to the energy costs.

If one is using electricity to heat one's home, then CPU/GPU compute is effectively free.

On the other hand, if one doesn't have an advantage in generated heat, or worse, has to spend money getting rid of the heat generated, then this work really doesn't Make Sense [SUP](TM)[/SUP].

[QUOTE=petrw1;339179]In the past few months I read about at least 4 here that are no longer running GPUs.

As one who is still contemplating one I am starting to wonder what you 4 know that I need to.[/QUOTE]

The Nvidia dual GPUs with the fan in the middle (instead of at the end) are easy to live with. My thinking is that the exhausted air has a shorter distance to travel so the velocity is lower. The noise was so much reduced that I added a second 690, although I had to jerryrig that GPU with a ribbon cable since the card would otherwise have been jammed against the first one.

[QUOTE=petrw1;339179]In the past few months I read about at least 4 here that are no longer running GPUs.

As one who is still contemplating one I am starting to wonder what you 4 know that I need to.[/QUOTE]
Without listing specifics, I lost the 'joy' of it all.

[QUOTE=kladner;339180]
Xyzzy said the house wiring and A/C weren't really up to it, it was noisy and expensive, and he just plain got bored with it, at least in his previous setup.
Pete/bcp19 has his reasons.

[/QUOTE]

AFAIR from some recent posts, Xyzzy has restarted crunching, with a somehow different setup.

As for Pete/bcp19, well... I think it´s a bloody shame we have lost such a valuable and keen contributor because of some forum disagreements and misunderstandings. I´m not taking any side, I just deeply regret that arguments have turned in to aggravation and that led Pete to feel like quitting GIMPS. I´m just glad he is still with us in the forum.

[QUOTE=lycorn;339248]I´m just glad he is still with us in the forum.[/QUOTE]

The irony is that his frustrations had nothing to do with GIMPS and everything to do with the Forum!

[QUOTE=philmoore;339253]The irony is that his frustrations had nothing to do with GIMPS and everything to do with the Forum![/QUOTE]
Indeed.

[QUOTE]AFAIR from some recent posts, Xyzzy has restarted crunching, with a somehow different setup.[/QUOTE]We are now doing roughly half the work we used to do, but:
[LIST][*]We are using only one box instead of four.[*]It is our primary box so it's existence is more easily justifiable.[*]Overall we are using about a quarter of the electricity as before.[*]The noise is very reasonable. (Before we had to put the boxes in a distant room.)[*]We know our arc of ranking has peaked (and is now declining) so there is a lot less pressure on us.[*]"MfaktX Controller" allows us to use the computer and play games.[/LIST]GPU sieving changed a lot, and even though the newer GPU architectures are not as fast at code as the older ones are, they use a lot less electricity.

In hindsight, with the money we spent, using GPU sieving, we could have built just two boxes. But back then we could barely feed one GPU per box.

[QUOTE=bcp19;339244]Without listing specifics, I lost the 'joy' of it all.[/QUOTE]
I bailed two months ago and folding at home now gets 100% of my computational power. No wankers spreading b.s. All the time.

[QUOTE=swl551;339382]I bailed two months ago and folding at home now gets 100% of my computational power. No wankers spreading b.s. All the time.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea what that project does, how it does it, and what are its limitations? Milestones? What have they "folded"? How precisely? "What if you could share your computer power to help find a cure?" What have they cured so far? How is it different from, say, Rosetta@Home?

If you don't really know the answers, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[QUOTE=Batalov;339463]If you don't really know the answers, I've got a bridge to sell you.[/QUOTE]

Everyone gets to do whatever they want. Even if it doesn't make sense.

It's called free will....

[QUOTE=Batalov;339463]Do you have any idea what that project does, how it does it, and what are its limitations? Milestones? What have they "folded"? How precisely? "What if you could share your computer power to help find a cure?" What have they cured so far? How is it different from, say, Rosetta@Home?

If you don't really know the answers, I've got a bridge to sell you.[/QUOTE]

A stunning example. Thank you for making my point so clearly.

Note that I haven't told anyone what to do in the slightest (except maybe searching for answers before blindly following?).

I merely expressed my surprise at the (unfounded):
[QUOTE=swl551;339382]folding at home now gets 100% of my computational power. [B]No wankers spreading b.s.[/B] All the time.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Batalov;339480]Note that I haven't told anyone what to do in the slightest (except maybe searching for answers before blindly following?).

I merely expressed my surprise at the (unfounded):[/QUOTE]

Some are uncomfortable with questions....

[QUOTE=Batalov;339463]Do you have any idea what that project does, how it does it, and what are its limitations? Milestones? What have they "folded"? How precisely? "What if you could share your computer power to help find a cure?" What have they cured so far? How is it different from, say, Rosetta@Home?

If you don't really know the answers, I've got a bridge to sell you.[/QUOTE]

My brother had eye cancer. He started folding at home and he is now in remission. Doctors says it was caused by watching trial factoring screen outputs, but healed by watching [EMAIL="F@H's"]F@H's[/EMAIL] 3d gene modeller.

So take you assumptions and burn em. My statements are based on fact.

You could have just typed: "No, I don't know the answers. And I don't want to know them" without your morbid attempt at humor.

Before behaving like a child, ask yourself - "What does Batalov know about protein folding anyway? Maybe I could search PubMed? Maybe he knows Baker, Pande, and many others in the field? Maybe he co-wrote one fairly well-known molecular modeling software package?" Again, these are just questions that take only a few minutes to get answers. Learning molecular modeling would take much longer, but with a bit of interest one can find a few courses on Coursera or elsewhere to get some initial understanding over a few weeks.

Without that, sure, nothing could be easier than press "attach to project", watch pretty screen savers and feel warm inside. But a project you chose to run may just as well be yet another "mersenne @ home". Entirely your choice.

[QUOTE=Batalov;339565]You could have just typed: "No, I don't know the answers. And I don't want to know them" without your morbid attempt at humor.

Before behaving like a child, ask yourself - "What does Batalov know about protein folding anyway? Maybe I could search PubMed? Maybe he knows Baker, Pande, and many others in the field? Maybe he co-wrote one fairly well-known molecular modeling software package?" Again, these are just questions that take only a few minutes to get answers. Learning molecular modeling would take much longer, but with a bit of interest one can find a few courses on Coursera or elsewhere to get some initial understanding over a few weeks.

Without that, sure, nothing could be easier than press "attach to project", watch pretty screen savers and feel warm inside. But a project you chose to run may just as well be yet another "mersenne @ home". Entirely your choice.[/QUOTE]

Before you answered you could have asked yourself. Does he really give two poops about anything I have ever done.... The answer would be obvious.

I have to agree with swl551 with atleast one thing: this forum has [I]way[/I] more arguing and bs than most other forums I have been in.

[QUOTE=kracker;339569]I have to agree with swl551 with atleast one thing: this forum has [I]way[/I] more arguing and bs than most other forums I have been in.[/QUOTE]

Try working in the scientific and/or engineering fields...

Emotion doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) enter into it. Nor should BS. Although, admittedly, they often do...

But argument is what it's all about! One should be comfortable with "debate" (and admitting when one is wrong, or doesn't know).... :smile: