mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Operation Billion Digits

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-19, 16:16   #1
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

484310 Posts
Default 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.
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 14:32   #2
lfm
 
lfm's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Calgary

1101010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET_ View Post
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.
lfm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-21, 14:55   #3
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

29×167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lfm View Post
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
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 10:45   #4
TheJudger
 
TheJudger's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

100010110002 Posts
Default

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
TheJudger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 12:16   #5
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

484310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJudger View Post
I'm unsure how I should vote in you poll (other thread)

Oliver
You are not the one, I see...

Luigi
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-22, 14:31   #6
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

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.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-06, 11:05   #7
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

29×167 Posts
Default 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
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-09, 19:51   #8
TheJudger
 
TheJudger's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany

23×139 Posts
Default

agreed!
TheJudger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


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

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:21.


Wed Aug 17 16:21:39 UTC 2022 up 41 days, 11:08, 1 user, load averages: 1.16, 1.35, 1.37

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔