Treading LL P-1 for 100M TF

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler

Also! Me, I think I'd put off doing a month long p-1 on a cpu atm, what with the p-1 culu mod making progress.

Thanks for making that excellent point! It should be worth waiting for.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler

Did this go into play? I see the 2 numbers I put to 79 last night are not available for p-1.

Please read very carefully the language. Language is important...

Originally Posted by chalsall

GPU72 will now keep the 10 lowest candidates without a P-1 done.

[Aramis Wyler]

I did not see any (at all) p-1s in the 332M range, not specifically mine. I understand you were only keeping the lowest, but was surprised to find none at all.

The problem was not the selection method though, it was that I had changed the bottom range to 332,000,000 and the upper range was only 100,000,000.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by bcp19

I is confuzzled...

This is what I have diplomatically refrained from saying so explicitly.

I isn't!

What's your poison?
I find Scotch and American Dry to be efficaceous ATM.

Cheers

[bcp19]

Originally Posted by davieddy

This is what I have diplomatically refrained from saying so explicitly.

I isn't!

What's your poison?
I find Scotch and American Dry to be efficaceous ATM.

Cheers

I prefer Bacardi 151, but I only go through about 1 bottle a year.

I just find it funny how first 74 is unsustainable, then we can do MOST to 74, then you retract that statement and again go back to unsustainable. I find it insulting that you refer to me doing things that I am not doing in your pointless tirades.

In addition [offtopic] since it will take 99 days to clear all DCTF *IF* all GPU72 resources were set to doing it and 2209 days using the current resources doing DCTF, I believe that whining about the resources spent doing DCTF is groundless since only 4.5% is being used. 100/95.5 = 104.7% * the 303 average daily = 317 or 14 per day. Of that 14, I am responsible for 8 of them, so all of the other DCTF combined account for the 'loss' of just 6 LLTF per day. I can either do 40 DCTF or 8 LLTF per day. I personally don't think 40 a day will keep ahead of the DCTF wavefront, so I will continue working.[/offtopic]

[Aramis Wyler]

+1 for Bacardi 151. If I'm drinking any other kind of alcohol, it's because I'm not home and there's none of the good stuff available. Some people think it's extreme, but I can guaruntee that an ounce of 151 in your coke is going to be smoother than two ounces of regular bacardi white.

[Aramis Wyler]

More Progress!

Number    | Work  | Range | Date Reserved    | GHzD/D | Status
332309833 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-02 00:30 | 362.67 | No Factor
332310091 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-05 01:55 | 362.67 | No Factor
332311081 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-09 19:04 | 362.67 | No Factor
332283779 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-16 11:58 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283821 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-16 11:58 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283841 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-21 19:07 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283859 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-21 19:07 | 362.70 | No Factor
332229197 | LL TF | 76-79 | 2013-04-25 10:09 | 322.46 | No Factor

Short one this time - it was already factored to 75. 286 hrs.

[kracker]

Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler

More Progress!

Number    | Work  | Range | Date Reserved    | GHzD/D | Status
332309833 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-02 00:30 | 362.67 | No Factor
332310091 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-05 01:55 | 362.67 | No Factor
332311081 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-09 19:04 | 362.67 | No Factor
332283779 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-16 11:58 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283821 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-16 11:58 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283841 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-21 19:07 | 362.70 | No Factor
332283859 | LL TF | 73-79 | 2013-04-21 19:07 | 362.70 | No Factor
332229197 | LL TF | 76-79 | 2013-04-25 10:09 | 322.46 | No Factor

Short one this time - it was already factored to 75. 286 hrs.

Just if you want to know, I think Team_Inspector is Uncwilly

[bcp19]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I used to remember what a hangover was.

If we can't do all expos to 74 and maintain the required hit rate, then ALL expos to 74 is unsustainable.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?
GLUG

No, you don't make yourself clear, because your viewpoint is too narrow.

The point you continue to refuse to acknowledge is that until ALL of the pending ^73 exponents < where we switched to ^74 are handed out, then you cannot say it is unsustainable. We were 30 some days ahead which means at 300 some per day there are some 9000+ exponents sitting at ^73 still waiting to be handed out (not solid numbers, cause time has passed, but the point is still valid). Until those are gone, we are continuing to build a ^74 buffer. When (and only when) that buffer is completely gone, will you be able to acertain that ^74 is unsustainable.

Until you realize you are comparing your apples to my oranges, you will never see the truth.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by bcp19

We were 30 some days ahead which means at 300 some per day there are some 9000+ exponents sitting at ^73 still waiting to be handed out (not solid numbers, cause time has passed, but the point is still valid).

9,944 candidates between 60M and 63M already at 73 ready to be handed out. 5,199 candidates between 63M and 65M ready to be handed out. 4,122 candidates assigned for P-1 already TFed to 73.

Or, as of 2013.04.27.0000 we're approximately 63.6 days ahead.

Originally Posted by bcp19

Until you realize you are comparing your apples to my oranges, you will never see the truth.

I think David realizes this. He just likes to wind everyone up (hick!)....

[Aramis Wyler]

Originally Posted by davieddy

If we can't do all expos to 74 and maintain the required hit rate, then ALL expos to 74 is unsustainable.
DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?

Originally Posted by bcp19

No, you don't make yourself clear, because your viewpoint is too narrow.

I'm all for hatin' on the haters, but to be fair (pointless, I know) if we can't do all exponents to 74 and still meet the required hit rate, doing all the exponents to 74 is unsustainable. Truth. If his unstated implication that we can't do all the exponents to 74 and still meet the hit rate were true then devoting all of our efforts to 74 would be unsustainable (though still the right thing to do!) same as using up more of resource than we can generate is unsustainable regardless of our current stores.

But really he's just pissing in the wind here because he knows we don't have the discipline to point 100% of our effort at any one thing anyway.
If we did, it might matter one little whit what the hell he was going on about wrt setting the mark at 74.

Originally Posted by chalsall

I think David realizes this. He just likes to wind everyone up (hick!)....

Truth.