GPU to 72 status... - Page 241

chalsall · 2014-01-27, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

It would be nice, if there was a graph for Dc and LL, along with P-1 in the monthly, weekly graphs, etc.

Sorry this new graph took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the overall graphs pages.

kracker · 2014-01-27, 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Sorry this new graph took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the overall graphs pages.

Thank you!

EDIT: And I know you're the main in DC on that graph...

ixfd64 · 2014-01-27, 05:40

I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time.

Uncwilly · 2014-01-27, 07:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Sorry this new graph took seven months longer than promised (ironically, only took an hour to implement; needed to get away from "real work" for a little while)...

At the bottom of all the overall graphs pages.

What ranges are those graphs for? Pulling data ~weekly from the Classic GIMPS status page^TM, I have been seeing changes of ~100-150 per day for the TwoLL column and ~190->115 in the OneLL column.

The attached graph has the rate of change in #/day on the left, P90 years on right. The data are taken ~168 hours (plus minus 8 hours) apart.

petrw1 · 2014-01-27, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixfd64

I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time.

This is quite a statistical anomalie, isn't it? Should have found 4.

Could it be that P1 found most of them?

c10ck3r · 2014-01-27, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by petrw1

This is quite a statistical anomalie, isn't it? Should have found 4.

Could it be that P1 found most of them?

It happens quite often: I have a boxxen doing 65->66 bits for 317-319M range, 1 factor out of 308 reported thus far, found after 249 unsuccessful attempts. I "should" have a good 4.7, but remember- probability has no memory...

garo · 2014-01-28, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixfd64

I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time.

Using LaurV's logic you are unlucky so you should stop doing any TF.

While you have been unlucky the chance of not finding a single factor in 300 trials is ~1.3% if no P-1 is done and ~5% if P-1 is done. So it does happen once in a while.

LaurV · 2014-01-28, 07:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by garo

Using LaurV's logic you are unlucky

no, it is just that the Luck is in my area now, and I did efforts to tie him on the tree in front of my window. I will release him now, so other poor guys can find some factors too, and so we won't lose them from the project...

Chuck · 2014-01-28, 14:27

If you want to find a lot of factors, head over to James' site and do some trial factoring > 1000M. You will find a factor about every minute...though no credit is given for work less than 2⁷⁰

Axelsson · 2014-01-28, 21:50

What is the odds for ten consecutive factorisations? I had the pleasure of experience it once when running the smallest unreserved candidates in 87M...

Code:

Manual testing 87159607 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 118248780529848276167   0.2861
Manual testing 87159043 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0  79623647161085679929   0.1883
Manual testing 87158009 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 116601936487970901887   0.2826
Manual testing 87152669 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0  93398301198481141913   0.2278
Manual testing 87147239 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 121514141280299682623   0.2929
Manual testing 87146783 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 106194288573916474753   0.2595
Manual testing 87098653 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 131304203500302387847   0.3122
Manual testing 87084973 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0  87337664541318196823   0.2113
Manual testing 87081901 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0  87871100901379849463   0.2128
Manual testing 87077693 F 2013-10-31 01:23 0.0 116960802185084904127   0.2837

My only explanation is that someone must have saved the factorizations for one massive submission or missed them all together. They must have timed out just before I grabbed them.

Ps, I know the probabbility, somewhere close to 0.015^10 = 0.58*10^-20 so someone set me up or <deity> has a sick sense of humor.

Göran

LaurV · 2014-01-29, 02:20

The "phenomenon" is quite common, and it happens to any of us who do TF in bunch, at least is happening to me every time when I submit

. It is due to the fact that - when you submit a long list of factorization results - the server (PrimeNet) is "sorting" the list, taking the NF results first, then it goes again through the list taking the F results second. Therefore, if you have 100 factors in your list, they will appear "consecutively" in your results report, but the exponents themselves are *not* consecutive (look and see!). So, no magic.

2014-01-28, 14:27	#2649
Chuck May 2011 Orange Park, FL 3×5×59 Posts	If you want to find a lot of factors, head over to James' site and do some trial factoring > 1000M. You will find a factor about every minute...though no credit is given for work less than 2⁷⁰ Last fiddled with by Chuck on 2014-01-28 at 15:22 Reason: 1000M

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

2014-01-27, 05:40	#2643
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 2390₁₀ Posts	I just hit a dry spell; none of the 100 DC TF exponents I just finished testing a single factor between 68 and 71 bits. It seems luck wasn't on my side this time.

2014-01-29, 02:20	#2651
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 258B₁₆ Posts	The "phenomenon" is quite common, and it happens to any of us who do TF in bunch, at least is happening to me every time when I submit . It is due to the fact that - when you submit a long list of factorization results - the server (PrimeNet) is "sorting" the list, taking the NF results first, then it goes again through the list taking the F results second. Therefore, if you have 100 factors in your list, they will appear "consecutively" in your results report, but the exponents themselves are *not* consecutive (look and see!). So, no magic.