20060206, 17:39  #276 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
197_{16} Posts 
Thanks Ernst for spotting the problem! It should be fixed now. It was improper quoting of strings in perl script (single vs. double).

20060206, 18:21  #277  
∂^{2}ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
26555_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20060207, 11:00  #278 
Sep 2002
315_{16} Posts 
I hate to burst your bubble, but the link in this thread to the project website now says that the page cannot be found.

20060207, 17:35  #279 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
110010111_{2} Posts 
Thanks Jwb52z!
Hope it works now... I have also made some changes to the stylesheet to improve page rendering in Internet Explorer. 
20060208, 20:42  #280 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
11×37 Posts 
I have uploaded Mfactor_win32_bat.tar.gz  Mfactor automation bat files for win32. They were explained in the guide, but the file wasn't there.

20060209, 16:23  #281 
Mar 2004
100111_{2} Posts 
I'd like to reserve M332194169 to 2^68
thanks Foots 
20060210, 18:24  #282 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
627_{8} Posts 
The next thing to implement is stats. But how to define a "stats point"? Since I'm going to release exponents to deep search at 65 bits, then the first thing that comes to mind is to define 1 point as factoring from 1 to 65 bits. Formula is:
POINTS = (2^END_BITS  2^START_BITS) / 2^65 Then: 2^1  2^65 = 1 point 2^65  2^66 = 1 point 2^66  2^67 = 2 points 2^67  2^68 = 4 points 2^68  2^69 = 8 points 2^69  2^70 = 16 points 2^70  2^71 = 32 points 2^71  2^72 = 64 points 2^72  2^73 = 128 points 2^73  2^74 = 256 points 2^74  2^75 = 512 points But I see one problem  it is currently minor, but unacceptable in the long run. The larger the exponent is, less factors per bit are tested and thus stats become unfair. For example, testing 332,192,831 from 65 to 66 bits takes 10 times as long as 3,321,928,319 from 65 to 66 bits. Are there other possible "stats points"? 
20060211, 17:16  #283  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20060211 at 17:29 

20060211, 17:54  #284 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
11×37 Posts 
Thanks cheesehead for the idea!
So, the formula becomes: where EXPMIN=332192831 Last fiddled with by gribozavr on 20060211 at 18:00 
20060212, 10:47  #285 
Sep 2002
3·263 Posts 
Gribozavr, that's an extremely small number if my calculations are correct using your example. It's just a little bit over 9x10^12.

20060212, 11:48  #286 
Mar 2005
Internet; Ukraine, Kiev
110010111_{2} Posts 
Yes, that is a small number now, but it will grow as the project advances and we start factoring larger exponents. But how much time will pass until then?..
On the other hand, AMD64 and Mfactor can bump the project very much. I have an Athlon64 3000+ 1.8GHz w/ 512Kb cache and spend 95% of its CPU time on 100mdpp. There are many people now with much fatser Athlon64's and even dualcores. Mfactor on AMD64 running under 64bit Linux is the fastest configuration now. So, if anyone has such configuration, you are welcome to join us! Last fiddled with by gribozavr on 20060212 at 11:49 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
100m p1 and tf  aurashift  Software  18  20160414 13:48 
100M digits, how much trial factoring will it do?  xorbe  LMH > 100M  189  20101209 08:30 
Who is LLing a mersenne number > 100M digits?  joblack  LMH > 100M  1  20091008 12:31 
Hitting 100M digits on the head  davieddy  Lounge  1  20081018 10:40 
Special Project Level 3 (25 digits, B1=50K)  wblipp  ElevenSmooth  0  20031015 16:07 