mersenneforum.org Trial Factor assignments squatting in Cat 0 and Cat 1 DC range
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-09-30, 06:42 #23 ATH Einyen     Dec 2003 Denmark 22·5·149 Posts Yeah, it does not sound like they are interested in changing the assignment code, so if we get TF assignments in those categories that are not completed for weeks, we will have to poach them in an organized way.
2020-09-30, 20:35   #24
Ensigm

Aug 2020

23·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Viliam Furik Yeah, uhm, sorry for that, but I have checked that exponents which were assigned to me for TF are not assigned for DC yet. Plus expected throughput is about 70 expos per day.

Also a tip that for TF of a certain bit level the larger the exponent the shorter it takes. That's because there are less $$k$$s to try. So it's probably wiser to TF the largest exponent available for a certain bit level in itself, in addition to the argument of not blocking DC progress. Though I don't know much about factor possibility so I'm not really sure about the efficiency.

I once reserved several assignments in the 53M range too, but I noticed that it had higher GHz*d credits per exponent (and did took longer) so I thought about why. As a result now I mostly do 60M's and 59M's, because I care about factors not credits.

Last fiddled with by Ensigm on 2020-09-30 at 20:37

 2020-09-30, 21:05 #25 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 888710 Posts All of the exponents look like they are at 74 bits already (I did a spot check of about a dozen). That is 1 bit above the recommended level as seen in yellow here: https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/4/5300 It looks like everything below 100M is at the goal bit depth or above it. Maybe any TF in the DC should be aimed at those actually at the goal bit depth.
2020-10-01, 02:49   #26
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter

Jun 2011
Thailand

893210 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina We're all in it for the life-changing prize money. You mean you aren't?
Well... hmm... arrr.. don't tell these guys!

 2020-10-01, 09:54 #27 S485122     Sep 2006 Brussels, Belgium 1,597 Posts manual assignment pages I went to look at the Manual assignment page the lowest exponent I could get for TF wath in the 200M range : no problem there. However on the "Manual GPU assignment page, if one select TF for double check the "optional" range starts at the lowest unverified exponent. The same applies for TF for fist time tests... It would be easy to modify the code to use the current CAT 2 or the CAT 3 threshold instead of the lowest unverified exponent. Jacob
 2020-10-01, 12:12 #28 Aramis Wyler     "Bill Staffen" Jan 2013 Pittsburgh, PA, USA 1100110112 Posts This still seems like mountains from molehills to me. There are lots of numbers inthat range, and taking 3 days to TF a couple dozen isn't hurting anything or slowing the project. At worst, set the expiration to 5-7 days for cat 0 numbers and call it good. It looks like Villiam has pulled a new batch of numbers in that range yesterday (having returned the initial ones when complete) and so it's moving on. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2020-10-01 at 12:12
 2020-10-01, 12:37 #29 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 100010101101112 Posts But there have been some users holding TF assignments for months in that range. As noted elsewhere, there was a user in the 93M range with assignments many months old, with no progress.
2020-10-01, 13:36   #30
S485122

Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

1,597 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler ... At worst, set the expiration to 5-7 days for cat 0 numbers and call it good. ...
Problem is "we" can't do that.
And at the moment those manual TF assignments are not subject to recycling rules, they have no expiry date.
It would be easier not to assign CAT0 and CAT for manual testing as stated by the Assignment rules.
At the moment CAT2 starts at 54571632 in the DC range and at 105751532 for the first time checks.
This means that unverified numbers the ranges 53xxxxxx to 54571632, and untested numbers in the range 91000000 to 105751532 should not be handled out for manual testing, be it ECM or TF.

Jacob

(I'd say it is not as if there were not enough numbers to work on, to absolutely go for those numbers that hold up the milestones, and are more than sufficiently factored as well. Especially it it makes a number of people nervous and worried ;-)

Last fiddled with by S485122 on 2020-10-01 at 13:37 Reason: added bit about "worried" people

2020-10-01, 15:29   #31
chalsall
If I May

"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002

52×373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by S485122 And at the moment those manual TF assignments are not subject to recycling rules, they have no expiry date.
Technically not true. They are recycled after 180 days.

2020-10-01, 18:01   #32
S485122

Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

1,597 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chalsall Technically not true. They are recycled after 180 days.
OK.

I thought I had seen exponents more than a year late in being reported about, but a quick search didn't find any in the relevant ranges... It even seems that the "first" rule "Since PrimeNet began, the server has recycled exponents where the client computer is 60 days past due in updating the server." is enforced in those ranges.

Jacob

 2020-10-09, 17:59 #33 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 8,887 Posts It is happening again. https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=559340

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Jayder Information & Answers 6 2015-01-25 03:29 lavalamp Operation Billion Digits 8 2010-08-02 18:49 Peter Hackman Factoring 7 2009-10-26 18:27 harlee Software 3 2006-10-15 04:38 dsouza123 Software 12 2003-08-21 18:38

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:48.

Sat Nov 28 16:48:42 UTC 2020 up 79 days, 13:59, 4 users, load averages: 1.27, 1.46, 1.46