GPU to 72 status... - Page 103

chalsall · 2012-04-12, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bdot

Chalsall, thanks for the "slow card" option, I also have one of those CC1.2 nvidia cards that right now chews on one of the 2^71 -> 2^72 assignments at about 66 secs per class (>17hrs total) ...

And thank you for your continuing efforts making mfakto as optimal as it can be.

I'm afraid I have been a little distracted lately dealing with a certain individual (who, for some reason, doesn't want anyone to know the real size of his hardware

), but for those who want to continue working with GPU72 but have older cards, I've changed the assignment policy slightly, and have brought in some additional candidates to be processed by them.

There is now a stepped limit on the availability of candidates based on TF pledge level.

Those below 56M must be pledged to 72 bits.

Those below 58M must be pledged to 71 bits.

There are currently 149 candidates in the 58M range available to take to 70 bits, and more than 2,000 in th 61M range.

There is no longer a need to choose the "I have a slow card" option, "What makes sense" works as well.

petrw1 · 2012-04-13, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

We currently hold about 42 days of LL Trial Factoring work.

So...what's next?

Keep working ahead of LL?
More focus on the DC line?
GPUto73/74?

chalsall · 2012-04-13, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

So...what's next?

Keep working ahead of LL?

We're not there yet. Although we're making good progress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

More focus on the DC line?

Please, no... We're approximately 1M ahead of the wavefront in the DC range, and at ~200 a day there we're steady.

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

GPUto73/74?

Some are doing that. And I thank them for doing so.

But at this point in time the most important thing is to go to 72 bits.

petrw1 · 2012-04-13, 19:07

Finished my last assigned 25M DC on GPUto72

MikeBerlin · 2012-04-13, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by davieddy

... that you GPUto72 guys are a tiny and atypical fraction of all participants. ...

Tiny? Rank 3 of the PrimeNet - Top Teams, Rank 1 of Top TF Teams (more than twice of number 2)

Dubslow · 2012-04-13, 19:28

Keep in mind though that not every major TF player is on a team necessarily. GPU272 is also second place in P-1 throughput, but as a team, we would be third of fourth in the individual P-1 list. I still agree that GPU272 is a large amount of total TF throughput; however, if I recall correctly, in context of what he was saying, I believe he meant that 1) The number of participants is a small fraction of the whole (not that our throughput is tiny); we're 50 people, but there must be thousands of people doing TF work on PrimeNet; and that we are 50 doing a large majority of the work makes us atypical. In other words, I don't think he meant that we're insignificant, but rather that we are so few and yet significant makes us "weird compared to the average GIMPSter (who's never even heard of this forum).

garo · 2012-04-14, 16:28

Had some trouble getting exponents this morning. The available assignments page showed many exponents at 71 or less in the 53M range but I did not get anything less than 56M no matter how hard I tried. Does this have something to do with your new policy?

chalsall · 2012-04-14, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

Does this have something to do with your new policy?

Sort of... I added a conditional such that only people who had a certain daily rate could get exponents below 56M. This was intended to prevent new users (who we occationally see show up, reserve a few exponents in the lowest ranges, and then never report back) from holding up clearing out the lower ranges.

I've changed the cut off value to be only 20 GHzDays / Day. This will allow almost all of our users to get any range they want, except (ironcially) me.

garo · 2012-04-14, 21:08

My rate is a modest yet not insignificant 65 GHzDays/Day. Was the bar too high?

chalsall · 2012-04-14, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

My rate is a modest yet not insignificant 65 GHzDays/Day. Was the bar too high?

Yes, it was. 80 GD/D to be exact. It's now 20 GD/D.

Sorry about that.

Feel free to unreserve what you were assigned, and claim lower candidates.

KyleAskine · 2012-04-15, 00:28

I just turned in my very first piece of work going to 72

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Status	Primeinator	Operation Billion Digits	5	2011-12-06 02:35
62 bit status	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	27	2008-09-29 13:52
OBD Status	Uncwilly	Operation Billion Digits	22	2005-10-25 14:05
1-2M LLR status	paulunderwood	3*2^n-1 Search	2	2005-03-13 17:03
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	25	2004-06-18 16:46

2012-04-13, 19:07	#1126
petrw1 1976 Toyota Corona years forever! "Wayne" Nov 2006 Saskatchewan, Canada 1001001010111₂ Posts	Finished my last assigned 25M DC on GPUto72

2012-04-13, 19:28	#1128
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 1110000110101₂ Posts	Keep in mind though that not every major TF player is on a team necessarily. GPU272 is also second place in P-1 throughput, but as a team, we would be third of fourth in the individual P-1 list. I still agree that GPU272 is a large amount of total TF throughput; however, if I recall correctly, in context of what he was saying, I believe he meant that 1) The number of participants is a small fraction of the whole (not that our throughput is tiny); we're 50 people, but there must be thousands of people doing TF work on PrimeNet; and that we are 50 doing a large majority of the work makes us atypical. In other words, I don't think he meant that we're insignificant, but rather that we are so few and yet significant makes us "weird compared to the average GIMPSter (who's never even heard of this forum).

2012-04-14, 16:28	#1129
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²×691 Posts	Had some trouble getting exponents this morning. The available assignments page showed many exponents at 71 or less in the 53M range but I did not get anything less than 56M no matter how hard I tried. Does this have something to do with your new policy?

2012-04-14, 21:08	#1131
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 2²·691 Posts	My rate is a modest yet not insignificant 65 GHzDays/Day. Was the bar too high?

2012-04-15, 00:28	#1133
KyleAskine Oct 2011 Maryland 2·5·29 Posts	I just turned in my very first piece of work going to 72