20211127, 01:24  #947  
"University student"
May 2021
Beijing, China
2^{4}×13 Posts 
Quote:


20211127, 04:05  #948 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
3·1,667 Posts 
I've added 20.3 and 20.5 to the ToDo list on Post #1
They are only TF'd to 73 bits but each range only needs 19 more factors.
If you choose to TF them to 74 they will likely clear. If you choose to P1 them with modest bounds they will also clear. 
20211127, 04:53  #949 
Oct 2021
Germany
2^{2}×11 Posts 

20211128, 23:26  #950 
"Lisander Viaene"
Oct 2020
Belgium
1011001_{2} Posts 
I'll be doing P1 in the 10.xM ranges (10.4M11.0M) with B1=700k to 800k and B2: whatever v30.8b2 assigns :)
Last fiddled with by lisanderke on 20211128 at 23:27 
20211129, 19:44  #951 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
11611_{8} Posts 
Hurrah 49.6 is cleared!!!!
That leaves the highest undone in our ranges of interest at 29.8.
Wow Thanks everyone. 
20211129, 21:33  #952 
Dec 2016
3·5·7 Posts 

20211129, 21:38  #953 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
5·13^{2} Posts 
IIRC I set it to 20 GB and had 23 GB usage. On the same machine I regularly had overallocation with ECM. George got a lot of them sorted out.

20211129, 21:59  #954 
Jul 2003
Behind BB
2^{4}×113 Posts 

20211130, 01:59  #955 
"Seth"
Apr 2019
2·5·41 Posts 
I'm rerunning stage 2 with 30.8v2 and founding a few extra factors from larger B2
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...6907619&full=1 Stage 2 is several times faster. From memory it was taking 510K core seconds to complete B2=110M vs 2K core seconds to complete B2=414M now. 
20211201, 02:19  #956  
Oct 2021
Germany
2^{2}·11 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by Luminescence on 20211201 at 02:27 

20211201, 03:11  #957 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
1001110001001_{2} Posts 
Pondering 30.8 with respect to this project.
George in 30.8 is working on determining the best B1/B2 for this new version.
Because Stage 2 is several times faster than it used to be the optimal B2 is a much higher multiple of B1. This will equate to a higher success rate and more factors found on average. Most of the time P1 is run on fresh exponents with no prior P1. However, for this subproject most of the P1 work is on exponents that have already had P1 done; just to relatively low bounds. With newer, faster hardware it is reasonable to redo P1 to higher bounds and factor more exponents. Along with that, the goal of this subproject is to find a defined quantity of factors as efficiently as possible. So in the past I've done a lot of analysis and some trialanderror and *have* a pretty good handle of the recommended bounds for each remaining range. However, with version 30.8 I now *had* a pretty good handle. The basic formula remains the same:  Note how many factors are required.  Analyze the current average P1 success rate.  Calculate the new success rate that is required to produce the required number of factors.  Determine the new P1 bounds that achieve that success rate. For example, prior to 30.8 if I needed a +3% success rate my new Bounds would be in the 1.5M/45M range. A 30x B2/B1 ratio was reasonable in these versions. For an exponent in the 28M these bound give a 4.58% success rate....here I'm assuming the current success rate is about 1.58%; reasonable. With the new version recommending about a 200x B2/B1 ratio to get the same 4.58% success rate would require bounds of about 530K/106M ... here That may not seem like a problem until you consider that the current B1 for most of the exponents is over 530K (those that are lower are not much lower). Therefore, bounds such as these make it unlikely that a Stage 1 factor will be found. But maybe that is not a big problem with Stage 2 being so much faster. For now I'm just not quite sure what to suggest.  Use as above and accept Stage 1 is unlikely to find a factor.  Increase B1/Reduce B2 to 100x to make Stage 1 more productive but lose some overall P1 efficiencies.  Increase B1/Keep B2 at 200x; find more factors sooner but with more total effort .... but in less time due to the speed of 30.8  Something else? Opinions? Thanks P.S. In the same clock time Stage 2 has 3 to 4 times the odds of finding a factor of Stage 1. Seems Stage 1 is not as significant/effective in 30.8 Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 20211201 at 05:24 Reason: P.S. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72  jschwar313  GPU to 72  3  20160131 00:50 
Thinking about lasieve5  Batalov  Factoring  6  20111227 22:40 
Thinking about buying a panda  jasong  jasong  1  20081111 09:43 
Loud thinking on irregular primes  devarajkandadai  Math  4  20070725 03:01 
Question on unfactored numbers...  WraithX  GMPECM  1  20060319 22:16 