P-1 factoring anyone? - Page 72

garo · 2011-11-01, 06:52

That is unusual. I have been getting 54 and 55M exponents to P-1. Send me a PM. I have some smaller P-1 exponents that will be more useful than the 60Ms you have.

James Heinrich · 2011-11-01, 10:30

My one machine that gets PrimeNet-assigned P-1s currently has one 58M and three 60M assignments, so I'm seeing the same behaviour.

James Heinrich · 2011-11-01, 13:20

I just found two P-1 factors in old exponents that should've already been found: M6,802,123 and M6,888,719.
If you look at those links, you'll see they both have factors that should've been found with the original P-1 bounds. Wonder why they weren't...?

KyleAskine · 2011-11-01, 13:37

Everything I have been assigned since 10/30 has been over 60M.

Maybe this is because the <60M exponents have just been changed to not being finished TF according to PrimeNet???

Dubslow · 2011-11-01, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

I just found two P-1 factors in old exponents that should've already been found: M6,802,123 and M6,888,719.
If you look at those links, you'll see they both have factors that should've been found with the original P-1 bounds. Wonder why they weren't...?

Perhaps false reporting? Any way to check who the original user was?

garo · 2011-11-01, 19:36

Looks like the change in TF assignments caused this to happen. If you go to the manual reservations page, and ask for exponents in the 50-55M range, you will get smaller P-1 assignments.

Dubslow · 2011-11-01, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

Looks like the change in TF assignments caused this to happen. If you go to the manual reservations page, and ask for exponents in the 50-55M range, you will get smaller P-1 assignments.

I thought he meant that when these were P-1'd years ago, the factors should have been found, but weren't. I think he's doing low P-1 to find factors for already DC'ed exponents, just for the heck of it. He found factors that should have been found years ago.

James Heinrich · 2011-11-01, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I thought he meant that when these were P-1'd years ago, the factors should have been found, but weren't.

I did. You and garo are on different conversations.

garo's talking about the fact that P-1 assignments are now handed out >60M, even though there are apparently-available ones in 55-60M. George did mention he'd recently fiddled with the assignment code, but he didn't delve into specifics as to what was changed or why.

And yes, my idea of fun (and the reason behind the P1small page) is to do P-1 on exponents that have either had no P-1 done, or done so poorly it's not very useful. I work on a mixture of old stuff (DC'd), mid stuff (L-L'd once) or future stuff (not yet L-L'd but someone did a "bad" P-1); it's quite possible I'll be working on 8M, 48M and 80M and the same time.

Jwb52z · 2011-11-02, 02:29

I don't understand why each category within itself is not just programmed to hand out the lowest available test numbers.

Dubslow · 2011-11-02, 02:34

They are, but not to people we know here. The reason we're doing it here is because we know we can get it done (in the TF case) inside of a week. When PrimeNet assigns it, chances are overwhelming that it's assigned to someone who doesn't even look at the program and doesn't care like we do, and so long run times are common.

Right?

KyleAskine · 2011-11-02, 03:10

I just think that Primenet thinks that the numbers below 58M or 60M should have more TF before they get sent to P-1 now, but that is generally how it works (the lowest numbers are handed out). It is only when you force it to give you something lower than 56M does it relent. Of course this is all 100% speculation, so you should take it with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I have taken my four PCs which have at least 1 core doing P-1 off of Primenet, and fed them all a lot of lower P-1s to keep them busy for a while. This seemed like a pain, so I hope this issue is fixed soon so I can put them back on.

2011-11-01, 13:20	#784
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario D5D₁₆ Posts	I just found two P-1 factors in old exponents that should've already been found: M6,802,123 and M6,888,719. If you look at those links, you'll see they both have factors that should've been found with the original P-1 bounds. Wonder why they weren't...? Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2011-11-01 at 13:20

2011-11-01, 06:52	#782
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²·691 Posts	That is unusual. I have been getting 54 and 55M exponents to P-1. Send me a PM. I have some smaller P-1 exponents that will be more useful than the 60Ms you have.

2011-11-01, 10:30	#783
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 11×311 Posts	My one machine that gets PrimeNet-assigned P-1s currently has one 58M and three 60M assignments, so I'm seeing the same behaviour.

2011-11-01, 13:37	#785
KyleAskine Oct 2011 Maryland 2·5·29 Posts	Everything I have been assigned since 10/30 has been over 60M. Maybe this is because the <60M exponents have just been changed to not being finished TF according to PrimeNet???

2011-11-01, 19:36	#787
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE ACC₁₆ Posts	Looks like the change in TF assignments caused this to happen. If you go to the manual reservations page, and ask for exponents in the 50-55M range, you will get smaller P-1 assignments.

2011-11-02, 02:29	#790
Jwb52z Sep 2002 799₁₀ Posts	I don't understand why each category within itself is not just programmed to hand out the lowest available test numbers.

2011-11-02, 02:34	#791
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 16065₈ Posts	They are, but not to people we know here. The reason we're doing it here is because we know we can get it done (in the TF case) inside of a week. When PrimeNet assigns it, chances are overwhelming that it's assigned to someone who doesn't even look at the program and doesn't care like we do, and so long run times are common. Right?

2011-11-02, 03:10	#792
KyleAskine Oct 2011 Maryland 2×5×29 Posts	I just think that Primenet thinks that the numbers below 58M or 60M should have more TF before they get sent to P-1 now, but that is generally how it works (the lowest numbers are handed out). It is only when you force it to give you something lower than 56M does it relent. Of course this is all 100% speculation, so you should take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, I have taken my four PCs which have at least 1 core doing P-1 off of Primenet, and fed them all a lot of lower P-1s to keep them busy for a while. This seemed like a pain, so I hope this issue is fixed soon so I can put them back on.