[QUOTE=axn;285690]All three of scenarios are trivially invalid. Prime95 has a working memory requirement of about 50MB.[/quote]So, change "40MB" to "50MB" in each case.

[quote]But I'll assume that there is a certain usage level at which Stage 2 will cause trashing, and it is this that you're interested in (not the specific number 40).[/quote]Yes

[quote]Is it acceptable? It is most unfortunate, but if P95 is only using 300MB, I think we have a definite defense -- we are _not_ using too much resources -- for a high end and typical systems. [/quote]Now, you're trying to dodge my objection by supposing that the amount of free memory will tend to be larger on high end and typical systems. But my challenge to you is to justify the expansion of the default when the free space is only enough for stage 1, not stage 2, regardless of how much space is being used by applications.

[quote]For the minimal system, depending on how much it is spec'ed, may not find it acceptable. OTOH, it is highly unlikely that these minimal system will have enough specs to get LL/P-1 in the first place.

In short, I am not worried about this scenario happening in real life.[/QUOTE]No. In short, you are dodging my challenge to address the situations I specified, in which the amount of space used by other applications is all except what non-stage 2 prime95 requires.

[QUOTE=axn;285691]First off, Dubslow didn't come up with the proposal for change of default -- I did. So perhaps I can clarify certain misconceptions you're having.

People who volunteer for P-1 == those who do so in this forum. That's what I mean -- and that's what I think Dubslow meant when he said "we" -- not the wider P-1 community.[/QUOTE]... and I knew that ... but as I've shown, the problem with changing the default is the same for either group -- whatever solution you propose is functionally the same as what we already have, where the volunteer group can change their allocated memory from the 8MB default to a higher figure.

The distinction between "we" and everyone else does not make any real difference in regard to changing the default.

[quote](For those who do volunteer here, the question of default doesn't even arise. They know what they're doing -- they'll allocate necessary memory).[/quote]Exactly -- so no change is necessary.

[quote]When I say "change the default", I mean, make the _new_ P95 versions such that instead of showing 8MB, show 300MB, when a user installs (or upgrades) P95.[/quote]So, again you dodge my objections for the "new" systems that satisfy the conditions I specified, where only 50MB is free.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;285692]Now, you're trying to [B]dodge[/B] [/QUOTE]
Please refrain from poisoning the well by using less charged language.

The only dodge here is that you're reading your own interpretation into my statements. I admit -- maybe there is lack of clarity in my statements. But what do you do? Accusations of "dodging" and what nots fly forth, instead of asking for clarifications. Please stop this behaviour. I'm fed up with it. This is not a debate, where the objective is to score a win over the opponent. We're sharing ideas and hoepfully help the project.

Until I see some evidence that you can stay polite in this conversation, we're done.

[QUOTE=axn;285694]Please refrain from poisoning the well by using less charged language.

The only dodge here is that you're reading your own interpretation into my statements. I admit -- maybe there is lack of clarity in my statements. But what do you do? Accusations of "dodging" and what nots fly forth, instead of asking for clarifications. Please stop this behaviour. I'm fed up with it. This is not a debate, where the objective is to score a win over the opponent. We're sharing ideas and hoepfully help the project.

Until I see some evidence that you can stay polite in this conversation, we're done.[/QUOTE]

I explicitly specified "typical" and "maximum" systems with [strike]40MB[/strike]50 MB free memory, but you haven't yet given us a straight answer for those. Please do so if you want me to stop pointing out that you are dodging those two cases.

As for this argument (still relatively unrelated to the OP) IMO, if a computer is doing nothing but Stage 1 P-1 without Stage 2, and is contributing nothing else to GIMPS, I think GIMPS would be better if that computer didn't participate at all. Beggars can't be choosers, but if someone gives the beggar a rotten piece of vegetables, he will throw it out.

Perhaps a bigger concern is how many of these B1=B2 P-1s come from those users who don't have a thorough understanding of GIMPS, thanks to the excellent automation that Mr. Woltman has provided. In that case, they only run the 'glamorous' LL test, not aware of any factoring or anything about the math, except that they could find a really big prime. Now, without understanding the memory thing, they get assigned an LL which hasn't had P-1. They don't have a clue that they need to change the memory setting, and the P-1 gets shortchanged as a result. This is a relatively decent argument in favor of changing the default -- because it's not just P-1 workers that do P-1. (Again with the caveat that this is off topic; it should also be obvious that this paragraph is separate from the other -- I would rather get only Stage 1 and a completed LL than nothing, but I would rather have nothing than JUST a Stage 1.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;285732]I would rather get only Stage 1 and a completed LL than nothing, but I would rather have nothing than JUST a Stage 1.)[/QUOTE]

I haven't been following this thread super closely, but this seems odd to me.

I understand that it is more likely that we find a factor using stage 1 and 2, but if we aren't able to P-1 every candidate before it goes to LL anyway, why would we be offended if there are people only doing stage 1 of it.

The only thing it gets us is more factors and less LL work, unless I am missing something.

[QUOTE=chalsall;285291]The following is a query against the G72 database, sorted by B1 and limited to 50 rows. Please note this is simply what Spidy has seen; it is not a complete analysis from GIMPS.

[CODE]+----------+--------+--------+--------+
| Exponent | FactTo | B1 | B2 |
+----------+--------+--------+--------+
| 55204091 | 76 | 405000 | 405000 |
| 55098229 | 75 | 460000 | 460000 |
| 55197041 | 75 | 460000 | 460000 |
| 55835839 | 75 | 470000 | 470000 |
| 45571601 | 72 | 510000 | 510000 |
| 46130221 | 72 | 515000 | 515000 |
| 46207093 | 72 | 520000 | 520000 |
| 47324509 | 72 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54258847 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476567 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476573 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476593 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476663 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476833 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54476861 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54680371 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54698719 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54698759 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 54847097 | 74 | 525000 | 525000 |
| 55072681 | 74 | 530000 | 530000 |
| 48091517 | 72 | 555000 | 555000 |
| 48099379 | 72 | 555000 | 555000 |
| 49232621 | 72 | 560000 | 560000 |
| 49235027 | 72 | 560000 | 560000 |
| 49304473 | 72 | 560000 | 560000 |
| 45018373 | 72 | 565000 | 565000 |
| 45434309 | 71 | 570000 | 570000 |
| 46218209 | 72 | 575000 | 575000 |
| 46262267 | 72 | 575000 | 575000 |
| 46665911 | 72 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 46780159 | 71 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54440039 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54440083 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54440291 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54440369 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54440389 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54442631 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54442643 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54444287 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54444323 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54444373 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54475163 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54627889 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54628121 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 54629101 | 73 | 580000 | 580000 |
| 50249491 | 72 | 585000 | 585000 |
| 50377819 | 72 | 585000 | 585000 |
| 54758579 | 73 | 585000 | 585000 |
| 50575991 | 72 | 590000 | 590000 |
| 54846683 | 73 | 595000 | 595000 |
+----------+--------+--------+--------+[/CODE]

So, could you (and/or other experts) provide some guidance on how one might most optimally do this?[/QUOTE]
Are all of these first time LLs? I ask because that also factors in the P-1 bounds selection. I have a modified bounds calculation code which can take in this information and spit out the optimal bounds. Unfortunately, nobody else has reviewed or validated the changes, but it seems to give correct answers.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;285735]
I understand that it is more likely that we find a factor using stage 1 and 2, but if we aren't able to P-1 every candidate before it goes to LL anyway, why would we be offended if there are people only doing stage 1 of it.[/QUOTE]
That's true, and obviously my sentiments won't actually change anything though.
[QUOTE=KyleAskine;285735]

The only thing it gets us is more factors and less LL work, unless I am missing something.[/QUOTE]That's the thing though, that's the whole point of GIMPS. That "only thing" is slowing down the project, IF you ignore the lack of decent P-1 on other candidates, which is not trivial to ignore.

[QUOTE=axn;285738]Are all of these first time LLs? I ask because that also factors in the P-1 bounds selection. I have a modified bounds calculation code which can take in this information and spit out the optimal bounds. Unfortunately, nobody else has reviewed or validated the changes, but it seems to give correct answers.[/QUOTE]
Heh -- I didn't even knew you had such code, and I'm not well enough informed to look it over :razz:

[QUOTE=Dubslow;285739]
That's the thing though, that's the whole point of GIMPS. That "only thing" is slowing down the project, IF you ignore the lack of decent P-1 on other candidates, which is not trivial to ignore.[/QUOTE]

The 'it' in my last sentence was people doing stage 1 of P-1, as compared to doing nothing.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;285742]The 'it' in my last sentence was people doing stage 1 of P-1, as compared to doing nothing.[/QUOTE]

?

Let me rephrase my last sentence:

Losing factors and doing more LL is directly contrary to GIMPS' goal. Therefore, if we had sufficient P-1 resources (which we don't) then Stage 1 only would be a fairly decent detriment. If P-1 ever gets ahead of the wavefront, then we should go back and redo some of these.