20220830, 21:59  #1 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·5,399 Posts 
Thinking out loud about getting DC's "finished" by 2030
Ok people, we have had PRP with proofs for a while now. And PRP is what the server hands out for first time checks. With that the number of unverified first time tests has stopped increasing. The number of exponents that need a DC LL or PRP has been decreasing. I think that we should set a goal of, before this decade is out, completing the needed DC's in the range of 0M to 150M. As stands now we can consider everything below 62M effectively done. And the amount above 116M is minor. So, that is the real range that we really have to focus on. Right now below 150M we have 714853 exponents that need verification (yes there are some of those that are Certs, but those quickly handle themselves.)
The change over from adding more to the pile of DC's to be done, to fewer happened 2 years ago this month. After the initial wild swing in predicted date of DC being finished, the date dropped to 12/17/2029. It steadied a bit around the end of 2031/early 2032 for a while and now has started moving up toward August 2036. This is mainly a result of drop off in DC's being done. Unfortunately there are still PRP's being turned in that are without VDF's and a few people converting PRP's to LL. To address this, I would like to see the following happen:
Those are my thinking out loud ideas. I have been tracking the changes weekly +/ for the last year. 
20220830, 22:27  #2 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2^{2}·2,713 Posts 

20220830, 23:51  #3  
"Tucker Kao"
Jan 2020
Head Base M168202123
2^{5}·5^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Best if SRBase can run through M110M, will eliminate more potential candidates. Last fiddled with by tuckerkao on 20220830 at 23:57 

20220830, 23:58  #4 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·5,399 Posts 

20220831, 00:00  #5 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{2}·43·47 Posts 
A noble goal.
One of GIMPS' founding principles "is do what you find fun". Thus, I'd rather not refuse to hand out PRP assignments to those that specifically request them. I'm happy to change the rules of clients that have selected "Do what makes the most sense" work type. I just checked the server code for "what makes sense" rules. Preversion 30.3b3 clients are getting assigned 100% DC. Version 30.3b3 and later are getting 15% DC (which means ~4% of its CPU time is devoted to DC). I can up this percentage to something suitable. With Gerbicz error checking and PRP proofs, the server no longer hands out yearly DCs. Firsttime users do get a DC. Large memory machines can help with P1 on poorly P1'ed exponents that need DC. Can mersenne.ca provide that list? 
20220831, 00:05  #6  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2×5,399 Posts 
Quote:
And again, I am just "thinking out loud". How many machines in a 3 month period are asking for "What makes sense"? I'm guessing that 3 months is enough to get a good average from slow machines. 

20220831, 00:22  #7 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{2}·43·47 Posts 
Random thoughts:
I'm not sure FTC will be at 150 million by 2030. Perhaps a lower goal (and time frame) like 100 million? Or maybe subgoals of 100M, 125M, and 150M if the FTC wavefront gets there? Lots of opportunities for subprojects. Clearing DC ranges, TF targets, P1 targets, DC left to do milestones. 
20220831, 00:38  #8  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3^{3}·263 Posts 
Quote:
Whatever rules are put in place, they need to allow for proof generation sometimes failing, despite the user's best intentions. (I've had a file share go away for too long and cause that. Sometimes there are MD5 errors. Etc.) Quote:
Note that Mlucas users can not produce proof files, because a version supporting that feature has not yet been released.At the end of 2021 we were a year ahead in first test milestones of the extrapolation I posted in 2018 at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...5&postcount=11 and regularly update. It looks likely we'll get to the 111M milestone this year, 4M versus the extrapolated 6M. Ben Delo's large throughput reduced at least for a while. If we continue at ~4M/year (which requires increasing computing power as exponents rise), 2030 would be around 140M. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20220831 at 00:56 

20220831, 02:25  #9 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2×5,399 Posts 
I started tracking to 150M because that was an easy boundary to grab from the Work Distribution Map. And because it was far enough to not likely be exceeded soon. The main thing is cleaning up behind the FTC's. If those fall below 1000 or so, we have finished, no matter what remains above the FTC wave.

20220831, 02:32  #10  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10798_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


20220831, 03:11  #11 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3^{3}·263 Posts 
Completing DC's on Uncwilly's figure 714853 exponents "by" (which I think means before) 2030 means averaging 714853/7.333 years or ~97484/year, 8124/month, 267./day. That average rate is near the high end of daily rates I observed below Mp#49* during several months of tracking progress in DC up to Mp#48.
Countdown to verifying all tests below M(74207281): 207 558 Countdown to verifying all tests below M(77232917): 262 781 Countdown to verifying all tests below M(82589933): 361 429 from https://www.mersenne.org/report_milestones/ last updated 20220831 02:30:17 UTC, In 60M100M I calculate ~668264 needing Cert or DC. In 100M120M, 190176 verified, while 45698 needing verification, or over 19% of those tested at least once. (Derived from https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/ PrimeNet Activity Summary 20220830 23:00 UTC) In 120150M there are less than ~1200 total first or double checked. There are only 3 cases of triple digits in a millionexponentvalue bin in that span. In 126M, there are 219 PRP results. All the 210 unverified results are from the same user GAN with no verified results, submitted well after prp proof generation became available in gpuowl and mprime/prime95. Also LL; 1 verified, 2 unverified by patgie. In 131M, 14 verified PRP, 1 unverified 131500093 (by me before PRP proof gen was available). Also a lot of LL; 1 verified exponent, 191 unverified (almost all by yphysics and all well after prp proof became available in both mprime/prime95 and gpuowl). In 143M, 5 verified PRP; all the 248 unverified results are from the same user Franklin Webber with only 3 verified results; some of each are from after prp proof became available in gpuowl and prime95/mprime. Also in LL 1 exponent verified, 1 unverified. If those 3 users GAN, yphysics, and Franklin Webber would cease generating more unverified results requiring DC work, by generating proof files, it would help a lot, relatively speaking. (GAN and yphysics are each in the top 30 among first primality test producers in the past year.) The utility of a first test that will require a full double check is low or potentially even negative. There may be folks who don't know proof generation is an option, or thought they implemented it but haven't, or whatever. Or they have what they feel are very good reasons for not doing so. I tried to contact them by PM to see what's up, but the PrimeNet usernames are not valid Mersenne forum usernames. Further up the exponent scale: In 160M PRP: 489 exponents verified with proofs, 5 unverified (VERY GOOD!) LL: 2 verified results for 1 exponent, 4 unverified results, 3 of which are by Borek after prp proof introduction. In 332M: PRP: 344 verified results for 341 exponents, 334 unverified for 333 exponents LL: 62 verified results for 28 exponents; 715 unverified results; 10 known bad results In 333M: PRP: 69 verified results for 68 exponents; 56 unverified results LL: 4 results verified for 2 exponents; 104 unverified results; 1 known bad result. In 334M: PRP: 3 verified results, 7 unverified (5 by GAN) LL: 2 unverified results 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
COMPLETE!!!! Thinking out loud about getting under 20M unfactored exponents  petrw1  Data  1414  20220831 09:50 
Is "mung" or "munged" a negative word in a moral sense?  Uncwilly  Lounge  15  20200414 18:35 
AouessareEl HaddouchiEssaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"  wildrabbitt  Miscellaneous Math  11  20150306 08:17 
Loud thinking on irregular primes  devarajkandadai  Math  4  20070725 03:01 
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?  nitai1999  Software  7  20040826 18:12 