P-1 factoring anyone? - Page 73

cheesehead · 2011-11-02, 04:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

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

I'm sure they all are ... but one has to be picky as PrimeNet in defining the "category".

Mr. P-1 · 2011-11-02, 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

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

That's because Primenet is a system which has evolved over the years. If we were designing it from scratch we would surely do it differently. But we're not, and George has better things to do with his time than to be constantly finagling the server.

LaurV · 2011-11-02, 05:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

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

It is. But if I request work for 365 days I would get all smaller available exponents, say a hundred of them. Some other 500 guys do the same. So 50 thousands exponents are gone, and you will not hear anything on the most of them for about a year. Then you come and request "honest" work of one exponent, which, of course, will be 50 thousands "steps" higher. Then I change my mind, because 365 days is a lot of time, and return back to the server the most of the exponents. Then your friend comes and gets an assignment smaller then yours (from the list I returned).

In fact, a hard disk driver is done in such a way to allocate to your files the lowest contiguous space available. But no matter what you do, after six months of using you computer (creating and deleting files) you will have a totally mess up on your disk, plenty of files spread on all the surface of the disk, two sectors here, two there, two bytes I don't know where, and two bits lost at all..

.

That is why disk defragmenters and garbage-collector drivers were invented. Here if you wanna have lowest assignments always, and do not step on other people's toes, then you have to become garbage collector yourself.

Dubslow · 2011-11-02, 05:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

It is. But if I request work for 365 days I would get all smaller available exponents, say a hundred of them. Some other 500 guys do the same. So 50 thousands exponents are gone, and you will not hear anything on the most of them for about a year. Then you come and request "honest" work of one exponent, which, of course, will be 50 thousands "steps" higher. Then I change my mind, because 365 days is a lot of time, and return back to the server the most of the exponents. Then your friend comes and gets an assignment smaller then yours (from the list I returned).

In fact, a hard disk driver is done in such a way to allocate to your files the lowest contiguous space available. But no matter what you do, after six months of using you computer (creating and deleting files) you will have a totally mess up on your disk, plenty of files spread on all the surface of the disk, two sectors here, two there, two bytes I don't know where, and two bits lost at all..

.

That is why disk defragmenters and garbage-collector drivers were invented. Here if you wanna have lowest assignments always, and do not step on other people's toes, then you have to become garbage collector yourself.

That is such an amazingly awesome analogy. Even I get it better, and I thought I got it! Thanks!

lycorn · 2011-11-02, 09:33

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.

Or, in order to get exponents that have no LL done at all (thus saving two tests in case a factor is found), pick them in the 55-56M range. I tried the 50-55M and all exponents I got had 1 LL test already done. That is in fact to be expected, as the wavefront is now sweeping through the 54-55M.
When using the Manual Test Page to get assignments, make sure you are logged in, otherwise the exponents will be registered in the generic "Anonymous" account.

davieddy · 2011-11-02, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

That's because Primenet is a system which has evolved over the years. If we were designing it from scratch we would surely do it differently. But we're not, and George has better things to do with his time than to be constantly finagling the server.

(George is the British nickname for auto pilot).

I hope everyone here appreciates George's indefatigable efforts,
notably tweaking Prime95 and posting here. But couldn't one of us
help out with tweaking Primenet when concensus of opinion thinks
it would be desirable?

David

Dubslow · 2011-11-02, 15:09

I'd volunteer, 'cept I don't actually know any programming or other stuff.

davieddy · 2011-11-02, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I'd volunteer, 'cept I don't actually know any programming or other stuff.

Just what the doctor ordered

lorgix · 2011-11-02, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I'd volunteer, 'cept I don't actually know any programming or other stuff.

Sign me up for "other stuff".

James Heinrich · 2011-11-02, 18:32

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...?

Just found another one where the previous P-1 apparently didn't find the factor for some reason: M6,853,937.

bcp19 · 2011-11-03, 04:03

I have a P-1 question... I was running P95 with 2.5 gig available and figured I had more available so switched to 3.0 gig available and noticed that the P-1 changed bounds when the memory was increased. It was B1=3290000, B2=76492500 at 2.5 and is now B1=3320000, B2=8300000 and when I calculate the amount of time left to finish, the completion time has jumped by over 20% (36 vs 45). Does this change in memory after 12% completion and subsequent bound change cause a problem in the P-1? Is it normal for more memory to cause longer times?

2011-11-02, 15:09	#799
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 1C35₁₆ Posts	I'd volunteer, 'cept I don't actually know any programming or other stuff.

2011-11-03, 04:03	#803
bcp19 Oct 2011 2A7₁₆ Posts	I have a P-1 question... I was running P95 with 2.5 gig available and figured I had more available so switched to 3.0 gig available and noticed that the P-1 changed bounds when the memory was increased. It was B1=3290000, B2=76492500 at 2.5 and is now B1=3320000, B2=8300000 and when I calculate the amount of time left to finish, the completion time has jumped by over 20% (36 vs 45). Does this change in memory after 12% completion and subsequent bound change cause a problem in the P-1? Is it normal for more memory to cause longer times?