Quick Question about assignments - Page 10

Dubslow · 2011-10-25, 03:06

Those timings won't be accurate, because 45-50M exponents have 59/50-59/45 more possible factors to test.

kladner · 2011-10-25, 03:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Those timings won't be accurate, because 45-50M exponents have 59/50-59/45 more possible factors to test.

Those are the only references I have at the moment. But the offer of whatever GPU power they represent is open.

EDIT: But I'll happily keep knocking off PrimeNet assignments.

Mr. P-1 · 2011-10-25, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Those timings won't be accurate, because 45-50M exponents have 59/50-59/45 more possible factors to test.

Currently I'm collecting assignments at the 52M range and below which are TFed to 69 and below, I also keep any 53Ms and above TFed to 69 and below that I see, however there are very few, so I am not exhaustively searching these ranges.

Based upon the analysis I gave in post #94 in this thread, The priority for TFing these assignments should be.

1. 68 to 69 before 69 to 70
2. High exponents before low exponents (with the ranges currently being LLed of course).
3. Not P-1ed before P-1ed.

Mr. P-1 · 2011-10-25, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

I am running a Gtx 460, at a 15% OC: 776MHz. I can handle two PF's in mfaktc. Currently finishing up Primenet assignments in the 59M range, taking them from 69-72. Timings are:

69-70 ~35-40min
70-71 ~1h 15m
71-72 ~2h 30m

I would be glad to take up any more productive assignments which a more knowledgeable person would like to throw my way.

I should very much like to take you up on your offer. Expect a PM shortly. Also, Thanks for the timings.

Chuck · 2011-10-25, 13:19

I have gotten a few that were already factored, but most are OK.

Code:

 
LL testing to "Mr. P-1" on 2011-09-25
no factor for M46203317 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32] by "Eric Christenson" on 2011-10-12
no factor for M46203317 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32] by "Eric Christenson" on 2011-10-15
no factor for M46203317 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17 barrett79_mul32] by "Eric Christenson" on 2011-10-20

AND I am finding a few factors:

Code:

 
Processing result: M45999487 has a factor: 420481474810097427217

kladner · 2011-10-25, 13:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

I should very much like to take you up on your offer. Expect a PM shortly. Also, Thanks for the timings.

Thanks and you're welcome. One more timing:

68-69 = ~20min (GTX 460 @ 776MHz) Time/class: a bit over 1.3s, most of the time. There are scattered 1.4-1.5's.

EDIT: .....running in Win7-64, as are the timings given above. 32 bit XP is very roughly 10% slower.

Mr. P-1 · 2011-10-25, 13:31

The fifth day's grab yielded

Below 50M:

39 exponents TFed to 68 (No P-1)
28 to 68 (P-1 done)
49 to 69 (No P-1)
64 to 69 (P-1 done)

50M and above:

66 to 69 (No P-1)
170 to 69 (P-1 done)

Last night's grab yielded

Below 50M:

32 exponents TFed to 68 (No P-1)
67 to 68 (P-1 done)
68 to 69 (No P-1)
140 to 69 (P-1 done)

50M and above:

196 to 69 (No P-1)
230 to 69 (P-1 done)

davieddy · 2011-10-25, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Those timings won't be accurate, because 45-50M exponents have 59/50-59/45 more possible factors to test.

WTF are you trying to say?

Dubslow · 2011-10-25, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

WTF are you trying to say?

I'm saying that TF at 59M takes less time than at 45M.

Mr. P-1, I can take about 50 more assignments. The first batch is almost done.

48M from 69-70 took almost exactly 30 minutes, around 30:07 plus or minus a few seconds.

Christenson · 2011-10-25, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

WTF are you trying to say?

He's trying to say he's been reading up on the math, and there are fewer potential factors (note: all of form 2kp+1, where p is your mersenne exponent) of 2^p-1 at, say, 69 bits, when p is 55M versus when it's 45M, and this affects his run-time.

AND he's doing exactly what you complained about us not doing, which is ensuring better TF levels for all LL assignments!

Wizzard · 2011-10-26, 07:26

Hello, I have one question. I am using manual assignments to Trial factoring to low limits and I have set Days of work to queue up to 5, but the total amount of work last only for about one day. Then, when I am without internet connection, Prime95 stops working. It is not a bug in a program? I know, I may use another kind of work (for example normal Trial factoring), but I am just curious if this program behaviour is OK.

Another question. Is there some table or summary that shows which kind of work is the most cpu consuming and what is the least? I would like to see all the types of work and compare them (including P-1 factoring etc.)

Thank you very much.

2011-10-25, 13:31	#106
Mr. P-1 Jun 2003 7×167 Posts	Days 5 and 6 stats The fifth day's grab yielded Below 50M: 39 exponents TFed to 68 (No P-1) 28 to 68 (P-1 done) 49 to 69 (No P-1) 64 to 69 (P-1 done) 50M and above: 66 to 69 (No P-1) 170 to 69 (P-1 done) Last night's grab yielded Below 50M: 32 exponents TFed to 68 (No P-1) 67 to 68 (P-1 done) 68 to 69 (No P-1) 140 to 69 (P-1 done) 50M and above: 196 to 69 (No P-1) 230 to 69 (P-1 done)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A quick question	Pegos	Information & Answers	6	2016-08-11 14:39
Quick TF Question	Dubslow	GPU Computing	2	2011-10-27 04:49
Quick msieve question	alkirah	Msieve	2	2009-12-30 14:00
Quick question about P90 CPU metric	stars10250	PrimeNet	9	2008-08-31 23:58
Quick p-1 question	Unregistered	Software	8	2006-10-13 23:35

2011-10-25, 03:06	#100
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 16065₈ Posts	Those timings won't be accurate, because 45-50M exponents have 59/50-59/45 more possible factors to test.

2011-10-26, 07:26	#110
Wizzard Feb 2011 Bratislava 3³ Posts	Hello, I have one question. I am using manual assignments to Trial factoring to low limits and I have set Days of work to queue up to 5, but the total amount of work last only for about one day. Then, when I am without internet connection, Prime95 stops working. It is not a bug in a program? I know, I may use another kind of work (for example normal Trial factoring), but I am just curious if this program behaviour is OK. Another question. Is there some table or summary that shows which kind of work is the most cpu consuming and what is the least? I would like to see all the types of work and compare them (including P-1 factoring etc.) Thank you very much.