[QUOTE=manfred4;406197]I will do 300 GHzd per day, if you split it even for time that would be great![/QUOTE]

Here's 325 GHz-d's

Factor=N/A,50328797,70,73
Factor=N/A,50923991,71,73
Factor=N/A,51781111,72,73
Factor=N/A,52237331,72,73
Factor=N/A,52331561,72,73
Factor=N/A,52436017,72,73
Factor=N/A,53964947,72,73
Factor=N/A,54325283,72,73
Factor=N/A,54427367,72,73
Factor=N/A,54575839,72,73
Factor=N/A,54644257,72,73
Factor=N/A,55412029,72,73
Factor=N/A,55570813,72,73
Factor=N/A,55864219,72,73
Factor=N/A,55975649,72,73
Factor=N/A,56302951,72,73
Factor=N/A,57207373,72,73

I was easiest for me to split them off the end. Does that work for you?

I should finish the rest in just over one day. My earlier estimate was high.

That's fine. Will be sent in when it's done.

M44438113 has a factor: 3716258276165214611449 [TF:71:72*:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs]

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;406232]M44438113 has a factor: 3716258276165214611449 [TF:71:72*:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs][/QUOTE]

Awesome. That one was 11 deep in it's worker list so that will definitely save me a test on it.

Meanwhile I've had a bumper crop of doublechecks lately where my result did NOT match the first time test. Looks like my method of targeting machines with more bad than good results is pretty effective. I just checked in 12 results from overnight and 9 of them were mismatches. :smile:

Does it sound like 71 bits of TF is about right for exponents in the 34M - 39M range? What I could do is just whip up a list of all the exponents needing a triple check in that range but are < 71 bits.

Fortunately most of them are thanks to nesowa and others who recently prowled through the lower ranges, but I'm not quite sure how far they got.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406234]Does it sound like 71 bits of TF is about right for exponents in the 34M - 39M range? What I could do is just whip up a list of all the exponents needing a triple check in that range but are < 71 bits.[/QUOTE]

Everything which is still a DC candidate between 34M and 40M is /already/ at 71 bits (the appropriate level). Everything between 40M and ~41.240M is already at 72 bits. See the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/current_level/"]second table on this report[/URL].

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406234]Awesome. That one was 11 deep in it's worker list so that will definitely save me a test on it.[/quote]

Found another just now:

M46993819 has a factor: 2558954746518379799873 [TF:71:72*:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs]

I'm done my part of the TF'ing. No further factors found, just those two I mentioned previously.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;406265]I'm done my part of the TF'ing. No further factors found, just those two I mentioned previously.[/QUOTE]

Works for me. Saved me about 48 hours of LL testing. Gracias.

Nothing found on my side sadly.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;406155]Yup... and it's the exponents like those that make me think there really could be a hidden prime that double-checking will find.

Here's another example I just checked in...
[URL="http://www.mersenne.org/M47223833"]M47223833[/URL][/QUOTE]

I matched you.

If anyone is interested, I just got a mismatch, with a 2006 result, on the DC of [U]35010601[/U]. It is factored to 71 and has had P-1 redone.

Ya know, I knew this thread existed, but it took me a while to sort out the current humorous thread name.