Given the size and scope of that, having PrimeNet or GPU72 distribute rechecks might be wise.

[QUOTE=petrw1;393083]This chart LOTS of attempts (i.e. enough to expect a good average) but LOW success rate and high GhzDays per.
-- Again either large exponents; high bit levels or long bit ranges
[CODE]Member Name GHz-Days Att Succ A/S GhzDays Per Att
For Research 145449.386 25449 143 178.0 5.72
brilong 210511.103 11283 70 161.2 18.66
Axelsson 58385.659 10055 64 157.1 5.81[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... Interesting.

I'm "For Research". And I (hope it can be assumed) never cheat on TF'ing.

Also, I believe "brilong" and "Axelsson" can also be considered to be trusted.

Possibly an issue with the report?

[QUOTE=chalsall;393085]Hmmm... Interesting.

I'm "For Research". And I (hope it can be assumed) never cheat on TF'ing.

Also, I believe "brilong" and "Axelsson" can also be considered to be trusted.

Possibly an issue with the report?[/QUOTE]

For the record: PLEASE...PLEASE....I am in no way accusing anyone of cheating.
Simply publishing stats (You know: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics")

GPU72's Worker's view...
 

Further to the above, GPU72 also [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]collects stats as to work assigned by it, comparing to expected vs actually found factors[/URL]. A few examples:

[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/d8a75f85f90457298bd3c366a8de2410/"]Chris Halsall[/URL]
[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/f66b7a78be5da2a886b9d35782d9ed66/"]Brian Long[/URL]
[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/558933bf0e11846a9ffe4f521fb79a34/"]Axelsson[/URL]
[URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/82e74cd2ddd9c68a21f05156f6248cf6/"]Patrik Johansson[/URL]

[QUOTE=petrw1;393086]For the record: PLEASE...PLEASE....I am in no way accusing anyone of cheating.
[/QUOTE]

Not taken as such!

[QUOTE=petrw1;393086]Simply publishing stats (You know: "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics")[/QUOTE]

And SPEs.... :wink:

[QUOTE=petrw1;393083]

[CODE]Member Name GHz-Days Att Succ A/S GhzDays Per Att
For Research 145449.386 25449 143 178.0 5.72
brilong 210511.103 11283 70 161.2 18.66
Axelsson 58385.659 10055 64 157.1 5.81[/CODE]
[/QUOTE]


There has been an issue in the past of found factors in the high (~74 bit) range being counted as p-1 successes. So a lot of GPU72 users successes get reported as p-1 factors while all failed attempts get TF credit. End up with mostly attempts and few successes.

[QUOTE=petrw1;393083][CODE]
Member Name GHz-Days Att Succ A/S GhzDays Per Att
BloodIce 3513.061 2714 415 6.5 1.29
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
I am doing some double-check in 989M-990M and reporting all factors found. 11% of all factors in the range are new. (second and third). There is no cheating from me and it will be over as of today (in couple of hours).

P.S.: The reason of this double-check is the issue with missed expos. I would like to see if it is a general problem. I was just too lazy to pick the unfactored only and scripted my worktodo.txt. Sorry, soon over, another 100 factors are coming.
P.S.S.: And what I can tell you is that the search of TJAOI is unfortunately non-systematic in respect to finished bit level. If TF55 is clear, then we should not see the factor 23897533126353583, as in [URL]http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/989965729[/URL].

How goes the work on redo.txt? I'd be happy to chip in although even 17000 jobs in the upper 60's is only a couple of days worth, so maybe it's easier to not step on anyone's toes?

Out of curiosity I looked up the factors found so far, and found the factors of q - 1.


factor 534321209016231454889-1 : 2^3×7×70645457×135061057939 (6 prime factors, 4 distinct)

factor 481980406054172909441-1 : 2^7×5×29×41×8983511×70505249 (12 prime factors, 6 distinct)

factor 70655970542502575393-1 : 2^5×70664707×31246136483 (7 prime factors, 3 distinct)


I found exactly what I was looking for, too. The massive prime factor in the first and third mean that this factor would have been harder to find with P-1 whereas the second factor shouldn't have been all that difficult. Look at [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=70505249&exp_hi=70505249&full=1"]the exponent status[/URL]. It was in fact discovered with P-1.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;393101]How goes the work on redo.txt? I'd be happy to chip in although even 17000 jobs in the upper 60's is only a couple of days worth, so maybe it's easier to not step on anyone's toes?[/QUOTE]

I've already queued all the work under 70M. I'll also have the work at 80M and above finished in under 3 hours.

There is about 7 THz-d of work from 70M up to 80M range no one has claimed in this thread, minus that [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=393055&postcount=145]short list of exponents[/url] posted a page back that I believe LaurV is working on.

The range 70.2 to 70.3 would be the most useful for the project at the moment.

Edit: Also, I've created a merged list of assignments that cut the list of assignments in half: [url]https://gist.github.com/MarkRose/ebc25e1adc2a1668605b[/url] ([url=https://gist.githubusercontent.com/MarkRose/ebc25e1adc2a1668605b/raw/498828c4129f96ee8152eca1d7e846b5757b4837/worktodo.txt]raw[/url]).

Does anyone know if [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/p1missed.php"]this page[/URL] is still being kept up to date?

This could be a useful system to catch the occasional user having trouble with TF.