20200924, 00:41  #12 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9327_{10} Posts 
Low bandwidth available at the moment, but I agree with what is being said here.
TF Assignments simply should not be allowed for Cat 0 nor 1 (or even low 2). FC nor DC ranges. Assignment requests means they're clearly not aware of how "optional" works. If they *really* want to bring some candidates up a bitlevel, let them do it "offthebooks". The worst that will happen is approximately once every 100 attempts an FC might be started which turns out not to have been necessary. My 4 cents (Barbados). P.S. Let the arguments begin as to if it's ~1/100, or ~1/[TF Depth]... 
20200924, 01:30  #13 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
22BB_{16} Posts 
The value produced by the link at the top now shows zero TF assignments now. The TF GPU manual assignments page still shows the DC milestone as the low end of the assignable range.

20200924, 01:53  #14  
"Tony"
Sep 2014
London, UK
2^{3}×3^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Astonishingly all 68 of them completed on 23rd September  all factored to 76 bits apart from one, which has a factor at 75 bits (https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/53524183) Grab them while they're hot! 

20200929, 21:07  #15 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2×3×7×71 Posts 
A lot more TF in DC Cat 0 + 1 :
https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...first=1&exp1=1 It has no business there, makes me angry and I feel like saying "lets poach it all asap and hope he wastes a lot of cycles on it". Last fiddled with by ATH on 20200929 at 21:08 
20200929, 21:24  #16 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
17·523 Posts 
I suspect that Viliam will work rapidly on these and get them turned in quickly. As for the other 2:
Waldir Walter Junior, not so much. laxeye, I have no clue 
20200930, 03:01  #17 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{2}·7·11·29 Posts 
Bad of you. Bad ATH! Bad! What's your complaint? "Let it be the goat of the neighbor die too"? If those are of "no business", then the server should not assign them. It is not user's fault. Those are legal assignments. As long as the user works them, and not stall them, you have no complaint. On two good cards, those are just few days of work and if factors found, it may save some LLDC time... Of course, he could chose better things to do with those cards, here we agree, but wishing him to "waste a lot of cycles" is a bit too tough... Well.. Somehow, we are all wasting cycles here, when we should do better things, like searching for ET or helping to cure the cancer Who the hack needs factors and millions digits primes?

20200930, 05:01  #18  
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
103_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20200930, 05:13  #19 
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2^{3}×3×5×7^{2} Posts 

20200930, 05:36  #20 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
8891_{10} Posts 
If you could make sure that you avoid the Cat 0 and Cat 1 that would be best. And even staying up at Cat 3 would be better. Finish what you have assigned. Some of us just want the server to not allow TF assignments so close to the trailing edge.

20200930, 05:37  #21  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
BA6_{16} Posts 
Quote:
TF should be done by the time exponents reach Cat 0+1 and maybe 2. 

20200930, 06:06  #22  
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
1,597 Posts 
Quote:
Jacob 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How many bits does/did the server trial factor to?  Jayder  Information & Answers  6  20150125 03:29 
Trial Factor Bit Depth  lavalamp  Operation Billion Digits  8  20100802 18:49 
trial division over a factor base  Peter Hackman  Factoring  7  20091026 18:27 
P95 Trial Factor speeds 40M vs 100M  harlee  Software  3  20061015 04:38 
Shortest time to complete a 2^67 trial factor (no factor)  dsouza123  Software  12  20030821 18:38 