[QUOTE=ramgeis;453962]As I TF them only to 70 (as intended) they are waiting to expire (should happen soon).[/QUOTE]

I looked into this. To avoid lots of "churn", the server assigns minimum bit lengths based on exponent size so that each test takes at least a few minutes to complete. Exp < 50M, minimum 70 bits, < 100M 71 bits, < 200M 72 bits, < 400M 73 bits, >400M 74 bits.

I'm willing to listen to arguments for adjusting this policy.

[QUOTE=Prime95;454151]I looked into this. To avoid lots of "churn", the server assigns minimum bit lengths based on exponent size so that each test takes at least a few minutes to complete. Exp < 50M, minimum 70 bits, < 100M 71 bits, < 200M 72 bits, < 400M 73 bits, >400M 74 bits.

I'm willing to listen to arguments for adjusting this policy.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, my current proceeding is quite the opposite. When I request a TF assignment from a range close to the one where the LL-action is going on I manually change the factoring limit to the highest number needed in order to have the exponent ready for the next stage. My impression is that having the TFing finished for an exponent in that range as soon as possible is more useful than working on another one and not finishing it either. On the other hand in the higher ranges the focus is more in having a good factor-finding throughput to eliminate as many exponents as soon as possible and this is more likely while working on lower bit levels on many exponents.

[QUOTE=ramgeis;454175]Interesting, my current proceeding is quite the opposite. When I request a TF assignment from a range close to the one where the LL-action is going on I manually change the factoring limit to the highest number needed in order to have the exponent ready for the next stage. My impression is that having the TFing finished for an exponent in that range as soon as possible is more useful than working on another one and not finishing it either. On the other hand in the higher ranges the focus is more in having a good factor-finding throughput to eliminate as many exponents as soon as possible and this is more likely while working on lower bit levels on many exponents.[/QUOTE]

That's basically what GPU72 does...

[QUOTE=ramgeis;454175]My impression is that having the TFing finished for an exponent in that range as soon as possible is more useful than working on another one and not finishing it either.[/QUOTE]

This is true. It is most useful to get candidates TF'ed to (currently) 76 bit before they are handed off to the P-1'ers. But the truth is the TF'ing is [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/estimated_completion/primenet/"]currently several years ahead of the LL'ers[/URL], but only a few months ahead of the P-1'ers.

[QUOTE=ramgeis;454175]On the other hand in the higher ranges the focus is more in having a good factor-finding throughput to eliminate as many exponents as soon as possible and this is more likely while working on lower bit levels on many exponents.[/QUOTE]

Please remember that this is the Great Internet Mersenne PRIME Search.

Finding factors may be amusing and satisfying, but unless they are found just before the LL'ing wavefronts they don't really add much to the main project.

Having said that, many have invested a lot of time, effort and money finding factors on not yet tested candidates. Much easier (read: less expensive) gratification. :smile:

[QUOTE=Prime95;454151]I'm willing to listen to arguments for adjusting this policy.[/QUOTE]
Don't! :smile:

[FONT=Fixedsys]A few days ago, I use mprime to run a P-1 factorization of M1283 with this line in my worktodo:

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,1283,-1,7974098357,637927868521,40,"4824675346114250541198242904214396192319"

The server responded with
[quote]
[Comm thread Apr 4 09:25] Sending result to server: UID: nordi/nordiputer, M1283 completed P-1, B1=7974098357, B2=637927868521, E=12, We8: 62D7DE0A
[Comm thread Apr 4 09:25]
[Comm thread Apr 4 09:25] PrimeNet error 40: No assignment
[Comm thread Apr 4 09:25] P-1 result for M1283 was not needed
[Comm thread Apr 4 09:25] Done communicating with server.
[/quote][/FONT][FONT=Fixedsys]
The "No assignment" part is correct. I hand-edited my worktodo, I was checking if I had the syntax right for numbers with known factors.

But why is the result "not needed"? According to [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/1283"]mersenne.ca/exponent/1283[/URL], both my B1 and B2 are larger than those of previous P-1 runs.
[/FONT]

It is a bit confusing.

The PrimeNet server does not keep track of P-1 results for partially factored Mersenne numbers. Thus, the result not needed message.

James' web site does keep track of such P-1. The PrimeNet server recorded your result, James will download it (daily?), and presumably update his web site.

[QUOTE=Prime95;456501]James' web site[/QUOTE]
Is that mersenne.ca?
I sent the result 6 days ago, yet it is still not shown. Other results I sent were synced to mersenne.ca in roughly a day, as you wrote.

I also should have mentioned that this result is not shown on my results page on mersenne.org.

[QUOTE=Prime95;456501]James' web site does keep track of such P-1. The PrimeNet server recorded your result, James will download it (daily?), and presumably update his web site.[/QUOTE]The data is automatically sync'd between mersenne.org -> mersenne.ca every overnight.

However, I'm concerned that perhaps PrimeNet is not, in fact, recording that result. This result is several days old and does not appear on (my view of) the mersenne.org exponent history. Some time ago the manual results page was updated to permit handling of this kind of situation, so I think it would be handled as described if the result was submitted manually. Perhaps the PrimeNet API has a different codepath for such results and also needs to be rewritten? Can you look into that please George?

[QUOTE=nordi;456498][FONT=Fixedsys]A few days ago, I use mprime to run a P-1 factorization of M1283 with this line in my worktodo:

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,1283,-1,7974098357,637927868521,40,"4824675346114250541198242904214396192319"

...

But why is the result "not needed"? According to [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/1283"]mersenne.ca/exponent/1283[/URL], both my B1 and B2 are larger than those of previous P-1 runs.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I have already done this exponent M1283 using P−1 with B1=100000000000, B2=106381511725640448 without finding any new factor. I have also done many other very small exponents, however stage 2 for these was done with GMP-ECM rather than mprime, so they can't be reported automatically to PrimeNet, and I can't be 100% sure that there isn't some error in the script I wrote to convert from mprime savefile format to GMP-ECM savefile format that might have caused it to miss factors in rare cases.

[QUOTE=GP2;456505]I have already done this exponent M1283 using P−1 with B1=100000000000, B2=106381511725640448 without finding any new factor. I have also done many other very small exponents, however stage 2 for these was done with GMP-ECM rather than mprime, so they can't be reported automatically to PrimeNet[/QUOTE]If you have them available, could you please email me a complete results log for all said P-1 on "very small" exponents and I'll see about manually stuffing those results into at least the mersenne.ca database.