20211118, 17:20  #892  
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2×3^{2}×277 Posts 
It's not as bad as it looks....
Quote:
Analyzing the subranges about half that will take some effort.... those over 70 is my opinion. Code:
Range To Go 12.0M 40 12.1M 88 12.2M 68 12.3M 118 12.4M 42 12.5M 30 12.6M 93 12.7M 88 12.8M 49 12.9M 74 i) TF to 73. Chris has this range (and all the rest) curated for TF73. Anonymous and others are working on these but could be 6 months from getting down to 12M. Also, since these have had some, but not a lot of P1, you should average closer to 1 factor per 80 attempts or about 25 per range. ii) P1 is your best option for ranges this low. With lower exponents P1 is cheaper and TF more expensive. iii) ECM is NOT as efficient as P1 for finding factors. iv) P+1 is worse yet; it would be your last resort.  My humble opinion  This might be way more than you need or it might totally confuse you. Feel free to reply accordingly. Let your GPU chew on the worst ranges; ie starting on 12.3M. Give your CPU the P1; start with the easy ranges. But for each range set the bounds as required to get the required factors. If you trust that Anonymous or you or someone else will eventually TF to 73 you can reduce these numbers by 25. So for example: 12.0M only needs 40 factors ... it could be as low as 15 if TF73 gets there but assuming you choose to NOT wait: 40 is less than 2% of 2,039 exponents so you need your P1 to average 2% above what has already been done. You could use 2.5% to be sure or stick to 2% and let TF clean up any you're short. I'll use 2% in my example and leave it up to your final say. Looking here shows the current P1 done. Eyeballing shows there are lots at, for example 150,000/3,075,000. This shows you these had a 2.3% success rate. You need to average 2% more or 4.3%. This shows you the required bounds and GhzDays to get 4.3%. Not bad, less than 1 GhzDay per test! Similarly, if you consider the exponents currently at 200,000/4,000,000 you need new bounds of about 818,651/24,559,530 to get 4.58% at 1.18GhzDays per. So what bounds should you use? I'd be lazy and guesstimate the overall average of the current P1 and add 2% (or 2.5%) to that number and use the resultant bounds for all my attempts. So, 12.0 (and 12.4, 12.5 and 12.8) won't be bad. At the other extreme lets take 12.6M at 93 ToGo (I'm assuming 12.3M is getting TF73 first). This one needs 93/2,092 or a 4.45% P1 increase. This will be more challenging. For example there are a lot currently at 300,000/6,000,000 for a 3.01% success rate. 7.46% (4.45% more) would need bounds of 4,728,944/165,513,040 at 7.53 GhzDays per. Hmmm... I might consider more TF here first. How about 12.2M with 68 factors? 68/2,067 = 3.29% increase. This range has almost half currently at bounds 150,000/3,187,500 and lower. 2.32% 2.32% + 3.29% = 5.61%. Bounds required: 1,653,215/49,596,450 and 2.38 GhzDays. Not bad. Or looking at 300,000/6,000,000 current at 3.02% + 3.29% = 6.31%: 2,344,628/82,061,980 at 3.73 GhzDays. Not bad. Now that I've written all this I think it's probably way more than you needed; you seem to understand the math/process. Sorry, but maybe this will help others. Wayne 

20211118, 17:46  #893 
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
2^{2}×3×127 Posts 
@petrw1:
Thanks for taking the time to reply in such a comprehensive manner. Although, as you hinted, I understand the basics of the math/process, it´s always good to hear from someone deeply involved in this sub project and way more acquainted to its ins and outs than I. I will probably start next week, and am considering to proceed along the lines drawn up in your post. The detailed choice of ranges/assignment of resources will then be posted here. 
20211118, 22:48  #894 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2×3^{2}×277 Posts 
Also taking 26.8M
...

20211119, 13:19  #895 
"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
2^{2}·3·127 Posts 
@chalsall,
I just started some tests on P1 for the 12.00  12.05 M range. Could you please remove it from the available ranges? Several results will be sent today, I hope. Thank you. 
20211120, 03:12  #897 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2×3^{2}×277 Posts 
All of 3x.xM is now complete.
And the last factor I found to complete the last range was over 116 bits ... and it was a Stage 1 factor. 35311457 FPM1 20211120 02:07 Factor: 113625742725813091246505895093165113 / (P1, B1=2000000) k is: 2^2 × 523 × 769 × 2399 × 425839 × 695411 × 1407751 If anyone has any assignments in the 3x.xM ranges you can release them for the sake of this project or let them finish ... it's your rig. I expect Anton to finish 49.6M in the next week or so. And with all the current help I expect all of 2x.xM to finish late summer 2022. Thanks for all the help. We're almost there. Wayne 
20211120, 03:25  #898 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2×3^{2}×277 Posts 
Wow and 14.0M too
masser reported in the last factor required for 14.0 just 1 minute earlier than my last factor for 35.3M.
For those who don't have the history 14.0 was the WORST range when this project started. It required 297 factors. He started working on it about April of 2020. That's 20 months ... now that's patience and commitment. Thanks P.S. I sure hope I didn't steal your thunder by announcing this for you. 
20211120, 05:12  #899 
Jul 2003
Behind BB
1,801 Posts 
14.0M  finished!
As Wayne mentioned above, 14.0M is complete!
First off, much gratitude to Wayne, Chalsall and all of the GPU72 volunteers for helping with the final TF push. That effort shaved 24 months off of the 14.0M challenge. Recognition also goes to VBCurtis, for helping over the past year with ECM curves and some largebounds P1. His factors were particularly welcome as they seemed to arrive when my machines were in a factor drought. The recent upgrades to the factoring algos in Prime95 also helped tremendously, so thanks, as always, to George. One of the main reasons for tackling the most difficult range in this subproject was that, when finished, we might have a better sense of the effort required to clear the remaining ranges. So, here is some data. Upon completion (1999 unfactored exponents remaining) of the 14.0M range, the average P1 bounds on the remaining candidates are: B1 = 7.6M, B2 = 340M. This corresponds to about 16.5 Ghzdays of P1 on each candidate. The average number of ECM t25 curves completed on these candidates was 31; the P+1 effort is included in these counts, as well. In a very crude estimate, this corresponds to one P+1 test with B1 = 1.55M. The average TF bitlevel achieved was 73.035. The Under 2K subproject is GPUheavy and my effort on the 14.0M range was CPUcentric, so the data above might not be directly relevant. Most of the remaining, difficult ranges will be TF'ed beyond 73 bits. That said, I think we now have a decent upper bound for the P1 bounds on the more difficult ranges. For instance, 17.0M (156 factors to go) could probably be completed with TF to 74 bits and (P1) B1 = 8M. Thanks again, Wayne, for the fun challenge! On to 8.6M... 
20211120, 05:20  #900 
Jun 2003
2×5×17×31 Posts 
Wow! Respect!

20211120, 19:23  #901  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2^{3}·19·67 Posts 
Quote:
It might be amusing to create a new metric for this project. Toy Stories... "Oh, yeah... 14.0M took 3.7 Toy Story Movie (TSM) equivalents in compute..." (Pulling a number out of my butt... I have no idea how much compute went into rendering that movie... But it might be a cute thing to estimate; a bit of a nod towards Wayne's naming convention for his machines... ) masser, please let us know if you'd like 8.6M taken up to 73 in parallel. The Colab TF'ers can actually be given work sorted by B1 or B2 in (effectively) realtime. 

20211120, 21:22  #902 
Jul 2003
Behind BB
1,801 Posts 
Thanks for the offer, but VBCurtis and I have it covered, I think. It will give our modest GPUs something to work on while we hammer on the range with P1. Sorting by B1 or B2 will be a good feature as we approach the more difficult ranges.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72  jschwar313  GPU to 72  3  20160131 00:50 
Thinking about lasieve5  Batalov  Factoring  6  20111227 22:40 
Thinking about buying a panda  jasong  jasong  1  20081111 09:43 
Loud thinking on irregular primes  devarajkandadai  Math  4  20070725 03:01 
Question on unfactored numbers...  WraithX  GMPECM  1  20060319 22:16 