Should OBD open a new factorization range?

ET_ · 2010-06-19, 16:16

Someone asked about opening a new factorization range on OBD, dedicated and opened up to 75/76 bits to non-GPU hardware.

There are different points of view about this opening, and I would like to know everyone's ideas about it before taking any decision.

lfm · 2010-06-21, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

Someone asked about opening a new factorization range on OBD, dedicated and opened up to 75/76 bits to non-GPU hardware.

There are different points of view about this opening, and I would like to know everyone's ideas about it before taking any decision.

It might be nice if there could be a range reserved for older machines, say Pentium II and older/slower. It wouldn't have to be a large range but it should be a low bit size if possible. Just so those who want to burn electricity on these old beasts wouldn't have to worry about some new beast coming in and wiping them all out.

ET_ · 2010-06-21, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lfm

It might be nice if there could be a range reserved for older machines, say Pentium II and older/slower. It wouldn't have to be a large range but it should be a low bit size if possible. Just so those who want to burn electricity on these old beasts wouldn't have to worry about some new beast coming in and wiping them all out.

New ranges will start at 60 bits (IIRC, lower ranges have already been done by Uncwilly up to 3321999999).

We may define a threshold for older/newer machines.

Luigi

TheJudger · 2010-06-22, 10:45

Hi Luigi,

this is not an easy question.
Older machines can't do TF attempts beyond lets say 2^75 in a reasonable time. So for older machines it would be usefull to have some assignments at low limits.
On the other hand a highend GPU (GTX480) can take ~50 OBD exponents to 2^75 per day so one could say that running older machines are very energy inefficient.

There are huge differences between low- and highend (CUDA capable) GPUs, too.

I'm unsure how I should vote in you poll (other thread)

Oliver

ET_ · 2010-06-22, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJudger

I'm unsure how I should vote in you poll (other thread)

Oliver

You are not the one, I see...

Luigi

mdettweiler · 2010-06-22, 14:31

While I've been following this project with interest of late, I haven't participated at all, and thus am not really entitled to a vote. However, I will give my suggestion: why not open a new range? There's plenty of further room for such, and that way, people have the option of being able to do low-bit factorization on their older machines (which, after all, was one of the original goals of OBD). GIMPS is rapidly running out of exponents at bit levels small enough for 32-bit machines to effectively tackle them, thus pushing more and more older machines into the "effectively useless for GIMPS" category--whereas here they can at least make decent progress, albeit on a rather whimsical project.

On the flip side of the coin, we have the argument that GPUs would be much better used at GIMPS, and that we should deny use of them at OBD. I suppose a good analogy to that would be the base 3 efforts at the Conjectures 'R Us project up the forum a little ways: even though they're rather "whimsical" (being such large efforts that we can hardly make a dent in them with today's computers and the value of doing such is questionable), we still leave people the option of crunching those conjecture if they so please. They're aware of the low overall value of the work they're doing, but still do it anyway for various reasons.

As the saying says, "Variety is the spice of life." So I would suggest that indeed, why not leave this option open with ranges suited to both GPU and CPU trial factorers.

Just my $0.02.

ET_ · 2010-07-06, 11:05

It seems that our poll gave 2 different indications on how proceeding.

1 - The opening of some 100 million digits ranges for GPU-enabled machines.
2 - The request for some more low-bit ranges dedicated to obsolete hardware.

Point 1 has already started: TheJudger, amphoria and ET_ are actually working on 100 million digits ranges, while 2 is still pending. I am so going to open a new small range of OBD exponents.

Do you agree?

Luigi

TheJudger · 2010-07-09, 19:51

agreed!

View Poll Results: Should we add more low bit exponents to the OBD?
Yes, definitely! I was waiting for this to give my help!	4	33.33%
No, resources should be assigned to more important ptojects.	2	16.67%
We could open some 100 million digits ranges instead, and help GIMPS progression!	4	33.33%
42	2	16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

2010-06-19, 16:16	#1
ET_ Banned "Luigi" Aug 2002 Team Italia 4843₁₀ Posts	Should OBD open a new factorization range? Someone asked about opening a new factorization range on OBD, dedicated and opened up to 75/76 bits to non-GPU hardware. There are different points of view about this opening, and I would like to know everyone's ideas about it before taking any decision.

2010-06-22, 10:45	#4
TheJudger "Oliver" Mar 2005 Germany 10001011000₂ Posts	Hi Luigi, this is not an easy question. Older machines can't do TF attempts beyond lets say 2^75 in a reasonable time. So for older machines it would be usefull to have some assignments at low limits. On the other hand a highend GPU (GTX480) can take ~50 OBD exponents to 2^75 per day so one could say that running older machines are very energy inefficient. There are huge differences between low- and highend (CUDA capable) GPUs, too. I'm unsure how I should vote in you poll (other thread) Oliver Last fiddled with by TheJudger on 2010-06-22 at 10:45

2010-07-06, 11:05	#7
ET_ Banned "Luigi" Aug 2002 Team Italia 29×167 Posts	Results It seems that our poll gave 2 different indications on how proceeding. 1 - The opening of some 100 million digits ranges for GPU-enabled machines. 2 - The request for some more low-bit ranges dedicated to obsolete hardware. Point 1 has already started: TheJudger, amphoria and ET_ are actually working on 100 million digits ranges, while 2 is still pending. I am so going to open a new small range of OBD exponents. Do you agree? Luigi

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can't open GIMPS on OSX 10.12	SachaBaptista	Information & Answers	1	2017-10-12 13:23
Can't open Prime 95....	sach160	Software	12	2011-03-27 18:35
In Open Projects?	Mini-Geek	No Prime Left Behind	14	2008-02-14 17:07
26.5-26.6 and 26.7-26.8 now open to all	bayanne	Lone Mersenne Hunters	3	2004-05-25 16:39
Can't open log file...	Bouchehog	Software	1	2002-10-26 22:52

2010-06-22, 14:31	#6
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3·2,083 Posts	While I've been following this project with interest of late, I haven't participated at all, and thus am not really entitled to a vote. However, I will give my suggestion: why not open a new range? There's plenty of further room for such, and that way, people have the option of being able to do low-bit factorization on their older machines (which, after all, was one of the original goals of OBD). GIMPS is rapidly running out of exponents at bit levels small enough for 32-bit machines to effectively tackle them, thus pushing more and more older machines into the "effectively useless for GIMPS" category--whereas here they can at least make decent progress, albeit on a rather whimsical project. On the flip side of the coin, we have the argument that GPUs would be much better used at GIMPS, and that we should deny use of them at OBD. I suppose a good analogy to that would be the base 3 efforts at the Conjectures 'R Us project up the forum a little ways: even though they're rather "whimsical" (being such large efforts that we can hardly make a dent in them with today's computers and the value of doing such is questionable), we still leave people the option of crunching those conjecture if they so please. They're aware of the low overall value of the work they're doing, but still do it anyway for various reasons. As the saying says, "Variety is the spice of life." So I would suggest that indeed, why not leave this option open with ranges suited to both GPU and CPU trial factorers. Just my $0.02.

2010-07-09, 19:51	#8
TheJudger "Oliver" Mar 2005 Germany 2³×139 Posts	agreed!