20180727, 00:00  #1 
Jun 2003
The Computer
2^{7}×3 Posts 
Factoring to 87 bits
I've been thinking that in order to revive this project a bit, it might be good to get candidates up to 87 bits, as there are currently six that are at 86 bits and according to mersenne.ca (link below) 87 is the optimal bit depth for these candidates. This will pave the way for an eventual P1 and PRP/LL test of these candidates.
https://www.mersenne.ca/factorbits.p...ent=3321930371 But please let me know if any of this is incorrect, since I'm going off what the mersenne.ca and my scant/outdated knowledge. 
20180727, 14:27  #2 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
3×2,917 Posts 
I am not sure that even 87 bits will eventually be considered the level that we want.
Have fun. May you slay a billion digit exponent with a factor. 
20180727, 16:11  #3  
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
2^{5}·149 Posts 
Quote:
Luigi 

20180727, 18:12  #4  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
3·313 Posts 
Quote:
https://www.mersenne.ca/tf1G.php According to that page, wich holds records of TF bitdepth for all n>1000M to n<=2^32, the optimal bit level for TF for n=3321930371 is 91 bit. That is just how it looks now and it may very well be that these TF bit depths is subject for change in the future. But hey it is your ressources and you can do whatever you want and if you like to do n=3321930371 to 87 bits only, then thats your choice Happy hunting and TF 

20180728, 02:42  #5  
Jun 2003
The Computer
180_{16} Posts 
Thanks all for the responses.
Quote:
http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/3321930371 Perhaps I'm misreading it, but that seems to imply that 91 would be too high, or one of the estimates is off, perhaps due to it being so far outside of normal assigned ranges. 

20180728, 06:56  #6  
Jun 2003
4,723 Posts 
Quote:
EDIT: Compare the LL GHDays for an exponent 1/10th the size: http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/332193019. An exponent 10 times the size should be at least 100 times the effort, so 600K might actually be a conservative estimate. Last fiddled with by axn on 20180728 at 06:58 

20180802, 19:54  #7 
Jun 2003
The Computer
2^{7}×3 Posts 
Thanks axn for the explanation. I might have to wait to get a better GPU, or simply do the lower ranges.

20200823, 16:37  #8  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1001000100011_{2} Posts 
Quote:
An LL test should only be considered on large exponents if an initial PRP/GEC/Proof/Cert test sequence yield a probablyprime result. LL even with Jacobi check is simply too likely to have an undetected error in such large long computations. LL confirmation would probably best be done with different software and hardware and frequent comparison of interim residues. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200823 at 16:46 

20200823, 17:54  #9 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
11043_{8} Posts 
If implementing R Gerbicz' method of storing numerous residues to perform a correctness check of a gigadigit LL run, I estimate 40.5MB/100Mdigit x 10 x sqrt(3,321,9xx,xxx) or 405MB x 57636 ~ 23.TB disk space needed, which is a large but feasible array.
At 10^{1.5} lower for 100Mdigit, 0.7TB is much more manageable. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200823 at 18:08 
20200917, 13:57  #10 
Jun 2003
The Computer
2^{7}·3 Posts 
Thanks kriesel for the insight in the last two posts. I am interested to see if we can get a P1 or PRP test going on an exponent once we get one TFed to 91 bits. Perhaps I could be tempted to get a RTX 3090 and get it done in a semireasonable time frame!

20200918, 22:03  #11 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
4,643 Posts 
I assume you're referring to the last TF with the RTX3090. Start lobbying Mihai and George now for a gigadigitcapable fft length in gpuowl, and robust error checking in P1, which I estimate would take a month to run on a Radeon VII, and start saving for a Radeon VII Pro for the PRP multiyear run.
Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200918 at 22:34 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
9596M to 64 bits.  chalsall  Lone Mersenne Hunters  1  20090908 02:28 
64 bits versus 32 bits Windows  S485122  Software  2  20061031 19:14 
3535.2 to 62 bits, cont from 61 bits  Khemikal796  Lone Mersenne Hunters  12  20051201 21:35 
26.126.3 to 62 Bits  derekg  Lone Mersenne Hunters  1  20040609 18:47 
5.98M to 6.0M: redoing factoring to 62 bits  GP2  Lone Mersenne Hunters  0  20031119 01:30 