![]() |
|
|
#1068 |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
263616 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1069 |
|
Mar 2003
Melbourne
5·103 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1070 |
|
Oct 2011
10101001112 Posts |
On the View Assignments page, the table at the top shows the overall average from start to date, which for the most part is fine, as LL/P-1 take a lot of time compared to TF. On TF though, if someone makes a system change, it takes a long time to get close to current capability, and mine shows ~1/2 of my current. Maybe it should show a 10 or 15 day average?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1071 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3·29·83 Posts |
Heh, regarding my P-1 factors, I apparently found two back-to-back overnight, but of course they were both relatively small (76.x and 81.x).
Edit: http://mersenne.info/exponent_status_line_graph/1/0/ See the bump?
Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2012-04-06 at 20:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1072 | |
|
Mar 2011
Germany
11 Posts |
Quote:
At the moment a few exponents are available below 71, but I get this nasty * Note: Minumum is 72. Their contribution is about 25 GHzDays/day, or it was. I think it was useful to factor these exponents up to 71, and then someone else takes them to 72 or 73. I could pledge to factor them to 72 and factor them to only 71. Or I could switch to the DC range, which is far ahead of the "wave", or to CUDALucas. Do you have better suggestions? Thanks, Rad Last fiddled with by Radikalinsky on 2012-04-06 at 20:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1073 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3×29×83 Posts |
You might consider DCTF, they're at lower bit levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1074 |
|
Mar 2011
Germany
10112 Posts |
DCTF is not very useful, because it is so far ahead.
I could do the part up to 71 in the slow GPUs, and the remainder to 72 or 73 in a fast new GPU, but that is complicated. Perhaps CUDALucas is the most useful option. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1075 | |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
230668 Posts |
Quote:
Unfortunately your cards can't run CUDALucas. One thing I could do for people like you who have cards like you have is to bring in a few candidates at 60M which are already at 70, and make them available to only go to 71. They're well ahead of the "wave", but the work would be more beneficial to the project than DCTF (in my opinion). Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1076 | |
|
Mar 2011
Germany
10112 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1077 |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·67·73 Posts |
OK. A quick hack before I run out for a "Sundowner"...
If you go to the LLTF form and choose the new option "I have a slow card!!!" it will ignore the range and pledge fields, and issue you work between 60M and 61M to TF from 70 to 71. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1078 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
1C3516 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
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 |