What do we do next?

[chalsall]

So, after several years of work we have finally pulled ahead of the LL'ers and P-1'ers.

Extreme coolness!

My question is: what do people want to do?

Do we continue to go depth first (read: taking 85M etc to 76 bits), or do we work the higher ranges breadth-first (each range from 71 bits to 72 bits, and then 72 to 73, etc.

I ask this for two reasons:

1. TF'ing is very far ahead of the LL'ers and the P-1'ers.

2. There was a recent incident where an independent TF'er was working in (and interfered with) a range we were working.

I would appreciate feedback on what people would like to do.

[Mark Rose]

I think depth-first still makes sense. If we get a surge in LL or P-1, it will be nice to have that buffer. It's also nice to "finish" work (until the balance shifts).

Those who want to go shallow, like I do on my slow cards, can set a lower bit commitment.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So, after several years of work we have finally pulled ahead of the LL'ers and P-1'ers.

Extreme coolness!

My question is: what do people want to do?

Do we continue to go depth first (read: taking 85M etc to 76 bits), or do we work the higher ranges breadth-first (each range from 71 bits to 72 bits, and then 72 to 73, etc.

I ask this for two reasons:

1. TF'ing is very far ahead of the LL'ers and the P-1'ers.

2. There was a recent incident where an independent TF'er was working in (and interfered with) a range we were working.

I would appreciate feedback on what people would like to do.

YAY!!!!

Would there be an option 3 to get a little more aggressive on the bit levels?
That is, go a bit deeper a little ahead of the chart recommendations?

Over these several years the project went from barely and sometimes not keeping ahead of the leading edge to having a healthy buffer. It can only get bigger as exponents increase and LL times accordingly.

[GP2]

When TF takes twice as long every time you increase the depth by one bit, at some point it hits diminishing returns. I don't do even token TF anymore because GPU pricing on the cloud is so out of whack, so I don't know if you guys have reached that point yet, but thinking out-of-the-box, there's a big fat 9–10 year backlog for DC LL tests, just sayin'.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by GP2

...there's a big fat 9–10 year backlog for DC LL tests, just sayin'.

Yeah, I hear you loud and clear. That's why I asked this question.

This is the "Great Internet Mersenne PRIME Search". Our goal is to find primes.

Finding factors ahead is useful, but it's a also a bit like masturbation (I hope that is taken the way it was intended)....

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Would there be an option 3 to get a little more aggressive on the bit levels? That is, go a bit deeper a little ahead of the chart recommendations?

That is an option. Would take me about 30 seconds to update the SQL and the Perl.

The question is would those who actually do the work want to? Are you suggesting taking 85M to 77 bits?

As an aside guys, thanks for all the work.

I remember being attacked by a certain person for daring to try to go to 72, and now we're debating if we should go to 77.

How times change!

[masser]

Originally Posted by chalsall

2. There was a recent incident where an independent TF'er was working in (and interfered with) a range we were working.

Curious. How did this happen?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by masser

Curious. How did this happen?

Please see this post.

I barely have the time to say things once, please do try to keep up. It's a little bit like trying to teach a snail physics.

(Just to share, I actually said that to my girlfriend recently. She was not amused....)

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by GP2

When TF takes twice as long every time you increase the depth by one bit, at some point it hits diminishing returns. I don't do even token TF anymore because GPU pricing on the cloud is so out of whack, so I don't know if you guys have reached that point yet,

Agreed but some of the newest GPUs are bloody fast at TF; I don't actually know though if they are just as bloody fast at LL/DC.

Originally Posted by GP2

but thinking out-of-the-box, there's a big fat 9–10 year backlog for DC LL tests, just sayin'.

Are you maybe hinting that the GPU'ers consider running something like CUDALucas and work on the DC LL backlog? Not a bad idea.

[Mark Rose]

Originally Posted by petrw1

Agreed but some of the newest GPUs are bloody fast at TF; I don't actually know though if they are just as bloody fast at LL/DC.

They are fast at LL/DC, but they're much faster at TF.

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I remember being attacked by a certain person for daring to try to go to 72, and now we're debating if we should go to 77.