[QUOTE=lavalamp;252030]Wow, if work had been spread evenly over all unfactored candidates, they'd be just past 79 bits now.

Based on the CPU calculator at MoreGIMPS, that's a total of 455,600 P90 CPU years.[/QUOTE]

Well, as I said in another thread, the CPU calculator is based on an older and slower version of my program, and doesn't match with Prime95 timings...

Luigi

Then I shall define a P41 year to be equal to 41/90 current ET_ P90 years.

ZOMG OVER A MILLION P41 YEARS!!! :et_:

[QUOTE=lavalamp;252081]Then I shall define a P41 year to be equal to 41/90 current ET_ P90 years.

ZOMG OVER A MILLION P41 YEARS!!! :et_:[/QUOTE]

:smile::smile:

another fruitless batch
no factor for M3321929971 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321929971 from 2^78 to 2^79 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321929929 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321929929 from 2^78 to 2^79 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]

No factor for 3321934003 from 72 to 73 bits.

no factor for M3321930011 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930211 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930229 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930323 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930347 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930349 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930371 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930397 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]
no factor for M3321930439 from 2^77 to 2^78 [mfaktc 0.14-Win barrett79_mul32]

Gah, 3321934247 finished to 73 bits two days ago but I forgot about it. Anyway, no factors, unreserving.

OK, some strange results here:
M3321936043 has a factor: 2017883321022948023
M3321936043 no factor from 60.000 bits to 71.000 bits.

So, which is it -- factor, or no factor?

The only unusual thing (well, maybe not so unusual for our area) is that the power went out for a while, while the computer was busy crunching that exponent, and I had to resume (-r) from where it was. The factor had already been reported at that point.

Rodrigo

re-ran it thru mfaktc
[quote]
M3321936043 has a factor: 2017883321022948023
found 1 factor(s) for M3321936043 from 2^60 to 2^71 (partially tested) [mfaktc 0.14 75bit_mul32]
[/quote]so a factor, indeed

edit : reran the range without stoping
M3321936043 has a factor: 2017883321022948023
found 1 factor(s) for M3321936043 from 2^60 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.14 75bit_mul32]

a possible explanation is that factor5 only recorded where you were in term of bits and nothing else.
meaning that it can't 'remember' that he found a factor. But it had already written the factor in the textfile.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;253174]re-ran it thru mfaktc
so a factor, indeed

edit : reran the range without stoping
M3321936043 has a factor: 2017883321022948023
found 1 factor(s) for M3321936043 from 2^60 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.14 75bit_mul32]

a possible explanation is that factor5 only recorded where you were in term of bits and nothing else.
meaning that it can't 'remember' that he found a factor. But it had already written the factor in the textfile.[/QUOTE]
firejuggler,

Thanks for checking it out. Your explanation sounds plausible, too. (Or, at least, I can't think of a better explanation!)

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;253182]firejuggler,

Thanks for checking it out. Your explanation sounds plausible, too. (Or, at least, I can't think of a better explanation!)

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]

Yes, firejuggler got it right :smile:
The checkpoint file records the factors found, but I forgot to make it read at a new restart...

Congratulations on your new factor!

Luigi