![]() |
|
|
#144 |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
1000011110002 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#145 |
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
Aug 2012
New Hampshire
23×101 Posts |
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5·223 Posts |
I concur. This thread is about the closest that this forum has ever come to being "non-family-friendly". I dearly hope that this is not to become a trend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#148 | |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2×4,909 Posts |
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#149 | |||
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2013-04-17 at 01:23 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#150 | |
|
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA
23×271 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#151 | ||
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
It is desirable and feasible for each LL completion to be replenished with a new LL test TFed by GPU to at least 73 bits, and Chris has assured me (ad nauseam) that this is and will continue to be the case. This minimum bit level can be upped to 74 as soon as GPU firepower allows. Let us suppose that a GPU is going to take an exponent from 71 to 73+. If the time for 71 to 72 is T, then it will take 3T to go to 73, 7T to 74 and 15T to 75. So TFing two exponents to 74 will save 50% more work in less than the time it takes to TF one exponent to 75. So in answer to "Were the remaining 1300 TFed to exactly 74?", I am pleased to say "YES". I think Chris and I just like a fight, even when we agree with each other 99%. D Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2013-04-17 at 04:29 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#152 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
42410 Posts |
Technically, it would be 44% more work in 93% of the time. But you could say the same for factoring two of them from 69 to 70 instead of taking them from 69 to 71. There are always diminishing returns going up a bitlevel, but we try to get as close as we can to optimal with the firepower we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
I have come in for a lot of nasty stick because people deliberately suggest that:
1) I advocate what I do because it's what I want. 2) They intentionally misinterpret what I am advocating for effect. I advocate what I do because A) It is possible B) Minimizes the expected time to the next prime discovery. If there were a choice of options fulfilling these two criteria, I would say so, and let people do whatever they want. There isn't. Primenet has TFed everything up to 90M to ~70 bits. Useless, but at least you might think comparatively harmless. But there is a backlog between 60M and 62.5M which is a hangover from this strategy, interfering with both GPUto73 and the allocation of new LLs. Also most GPUers would rather take an exponent from 69 to 74 than 72 to 73 or 74 (from studying Chris's tables), for obvious reasons. ATM we could TF to 73 and exceed the LL completion rate, thereby increasing the the lead TF has over LL allocation (which IMO (note) is desirable). Then we can take as many to 74 as we can while keeping up with (or preferably slightly exceeding) the LL completion rate, which is increasing nicely, THX mostly to the uptake of AVX. Glancing through the range of a billion, the only significant source of extra GPU fire power is from the grossly excessive DC-TF of which the self-styled "king" BCP19 is so proud (3000/week to 70 bits I ASK YOU). But enlisting this still wouldn't make taking everything to 74 sustainable, anymore than the generous offer to club together and buy me a GPU would. I do have several ideas about how we could recruit more firepower (or at least not deter it) however. More anon. David |
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
6508 Posts |
I used to TF from 69 to 74. It is my favorite way to TF as far as satisfaction goes, because you get the low bitlevels that feel like basically free factors, and yet every number you release is either ready for release to primenet or only missing the p-1. I'd get tired of grinding them from 73 to 74 all day long, with other people skimming along the 69-70 range and racking up millions of hours saved.
Thing is though, I only thought that was a good idea because I thought primenet had a basic fitness function; that having a number (say 63,000,000) tf'd to 73 and another one (63,000,001) tf'd to 74 and p-1'd it would release the second number and any other similar numbers before it released the first one so that the first one would have more time to get factored. It doesn't - it releases from the bottom up. At that point I switched back to just factoring the lowest to 74, personal satisfaction be damned, because that was the only way to get the best factored numbers out to the LL'ers. Personally, I'd love to see a fitness function alter the primenet distribution, but I don't see that happening. What sounds like the worst case though, even worse than the rather poor case of doing what I used to do as described in the first paragraph, is to simply not do what factoring we can for the sake of increasing our lead time. Honestly I can't fathom any gain from increasing the lead time unless we are not currently covering the range of numbers being assigned. I'm not closed to that, I just don't see any upside. I'm not really arguing anything there (except maybe to promote a fitness test to primenet, heh!) just my ![]() I have good news though! We'll have more gpu power working on factoring in just a few weeks when the DCTF runs out. Currently My and Chuck's daily output on DCTF is higher even than Pete's (though we'll never catch up to the work he did) and then that should all go to LLTF. EDIT: You may be surprised to discover, Davieddy, that bcp19 does twice as much LLTF work as he does DCTF work, despite still doing more DCTF than anyone else. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2013-04-17 at 14:34 Reason: For Bcp19. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| For davieddy and his music… | Xyzzy | Lounge | 88 | 2014-07-14 02:44 |
| WHY out of the entire university did only Davieddy get banned?! | Stargate38 | Forum Feedback | 61 | 2014-07-08 18:54 |
| 5 easy pieces for davieddy | NBtarheel_33 | PrimeNet | 28 | 2012-07-28 15:26 |
| World Cup Soccer | davieddy | Hobbies | 111 | 2011-05-28 19:21 |
| Change the world! | Xyzzy | Lounge | 5 | 2009-08-31 12:41 |