Thanks for the check and the solution !

Data has finished re-importing.

No data as of 04/10/2020 11:45 GMT.

[QUOTE=lycorn;558842]No data as of 04/10/2020 11:45 GMT.[/QUOTE]Should be back to normal now.

It is, indeed.
:bow:

Interpretation of min. TF on mersenne.ca
 

Minimal TF effort aka "min. TF" as shown in the factor entry seems to be quite different from the efforts shown in the TF history entry. For example, for [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/113317913"]M113317913[/URL] the "min. TF" shows 8.4409 [SIZE=1]GHz.d, whereas the total effort up to 2[SUP]73[/SUP] is already roughly 8.4409*2, and the TF effort in 73-74 bits[/SIZE][SIZE=1] is greater than 8.4409GHz-days too, considering the fact that the factor is close to 2^74.[/SIZE]
This couldn't be correct, unless the GHz-days in the factor entry and in the TF history are calibrated differently (which is also confusing).

Also there‘s another thing in the TF history of [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/113317913"]M113317913[/URL] that perplexes me. Its factor [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/factor/18823632331491929056447"]18823632331491929056447[/URL] is so close to 74 bits (73.995), but the GHz-days shown is much less than the TF effort of the whole 73-74 bits range, which should be 2 times the TF effort of 72-73 bits.

[QUOTE=Ensigm;559294]Minimal TF effort aka "min. TF" as shown in the factor....
This couldn't be correct, unless the GHz-days in the factor entry and in the TF history are calibrated differently (which is also confusing).[/QUOTE]

What is confusing about doing more than "minimal"? Minimal != recommended.

[QUOTE=Ensigm;559295]Also there‘s another thing in the TF history of [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/113317913"]M113317913[/URL] that perplexes me. Its factor [URL="https://www.mersenne.ca/factor/18823632331491929056447"]18823632331491929056447[/URL] is so close to 74 bits (73.995), but the GHz-days shown is much less than the TF effort of the whole 73-74 bits range, which should be 2 times the TF effort of 72-73 bits.[/QUOTE]One thing that may be not immediately obvious is that TF is not done linearly from bitA to bitB, the work is divided into classes (by default mfaktx uses 4620 classes) and my calculations for how much effort is spent actually looking for a given factor take that into account. That particular factor is found in class 3651, so should be found about 79% through the factoring process from 73-74.

That said, the 8.44 number does look suspiciously low, I will take deeper look at it in the morning and check if the calculations are correct or not.

Numbers look right for me. That's a tinny factor for a large exponent.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;559299]One thing that may be not immediately obvious is that TF is not done linearly from bitA to bitB, the work is divided into classes (by default mfaktx uses 4620 classes) and my calculations for how much effort is spent actually looking for a given factor take that into account. That particular factor is found in class 3651, so should be found about 79% through the factoring process from 73-74.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for explaining it, I really didn't know that.