![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
754510 Posts |
![]()
Thanks to numerous posts by various folks in multiple threads here, I've pieced together a partial history of when the various OBD levels were reached. And of course there is a spreadsheet with a chart, fit, references, etc. There are some substantial gaps. Please comment here or by PM with any potential gap-filling info or links or corrections.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
47×233 Posts |
![]()
As of Oct 26, 2011 OBD was at Level 17.02
It was at 3.3 on April 26, 2004 Do you want some finer data? And have you tried the Wayback Machine? I have some data from: 2/11/2005, 1/12/2005, 12/10/2004, 11/12/2004, 10/15/2004, 9/17/2004, 8/13/2004, 7/16/2004 Code:
Level 17 Eighteen Candidates to 84 bits In Progress Level 17 Seventeen Candidates to 83 bits 22 July 2011 Level 16 Sixteen Candidates to 82 bits 4 July 2011 Level 15 Fifteen Candidates to 81 bits 26 Nov 2010 Level 14 Fourteen Candidates to 80 bits 15 June 2010 Level 13 Thirteen Candidates to 79 bits 6 June 2010 Level 12 Twelve Candidates to 78 bits 16 Sept 2009 Level 11 Eleven Candidates to 77 bits 28 May 2009 Level 10 Ten Candidates to 76 bits 16 May 2009 Level 9 Nine Candidates to 75 bits 3 Dec 2007 Level 8 Eight Candidates to 74 bits 10 May 2006 Level 7 Seven Candidates to 73 bits 28 Jan 2005 Level 6 Six Candidates to 72 bits 23 July 2004 Level 5 Five Candidates to 71 bits 22 May 2004 Level 4 Four Candidates to 70 bits 03 May 2004 Level 3 Three Candidates to 69 bits 12 Apr 2004 Level 2 Two Candidates to 68 bits 07 Apr 2004 Level 1 One Candidate to 67 bits 26 Mar 2004 Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2021-09-30 at 01:48 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
1095110 Posts |
![]()
I checked, the Wayback machine has some better data:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120215...h/Billion.html The Italian site did not have a good status page that I could see for very long. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3×5×503 Posts |
![]()
Thanks for the wayback machine suggestion.
wblipp's eleven-smooth billion page is a dead link home.earthlink.net/~elevensmooth/Billion.html wayback coverage 2004-2019 so is ET_'s http://www.gimps.it/billion/billion.htm wayback has 2004 and one in 2021 is a 404 error and http://www.moregimps.it/billion/billion.htm; see wayback.org 2004-2010 so is the 100M page http://www.geocities.com/onehundredmdpp/index.htm up but outdated: http://2721.hddkillers.com/graph/ wayback sometimes does not show the graph, only the abscissa values and a little other text, or it's flipped and the popup text gets hidden; https://www.mersenne.ca/obd is the status page now; wayback has several snaps 2020-2021 I went through a lot of those (all sites above). Not looking for fine detail within levels or a data dump. Just trying to pin down integer level history/milestone dates, and a little intermediate progress where levels have spanned years (2014-2019?!). Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-09-30 at 04:09 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
37×139 Posts |
![]()
Why the model fitting?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
3·5·503 Posts |
![]()
Why not? The portions where level declines with increasing time are silly, but the whole subproject is somewhat.
Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-09-30 at 07:14 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Oct 2007
Manchester, UK
2·3·229 Posts |
![]() Quote:
https://2721.hddkillers.com/OBDElevenSmooth/ The last update I made to it was 13 April 2020. This page is the source my graph and table pull from, hence why they are more than slightly out of date currently. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1D7916 Posts |
![]()
Reached level 21.21 on 2021-10-21. Level 22+ is expected in a few days.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1D7916 Posts |
![]()
level 21.22 -> level 22.03 2021-10-27
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
165718 Posts |
![]()
Level 22 has been passed.
If, with no factors found for the counted survivors, level 23 is 23 candidates TF to 89 bits, level 24 is 24 candidates TF to 90 bits, level 25 is 25 candidates TF to 91 bits, level 26 is 26 candidates TF to 92 bits, and OBD TF factoring depth limit is 92 bits, (as is mfakto's), then, is level 27, 27 candidates P-1 stage 1 complete with sufficient B1? Level 28, 28 candidates P-1 stage 2 also complete with sufficient B1 & B2? Level 29 (someday, one can dream), 29 candidates PRP/GEC/proof-generation completed? Level 30 (also requiring new software functionality), 30 candidates PRP proof verified? (Or alternately an entire very costly full length PRP DC for each, ugh.) That would imply carrying through on ~33 current candidates, since one or two (~33 x (92-88) / 90 ~1.5) will likely get factored in TF, and ~4% x 33 ~1.3 in P-1. So, all in range 3321928171 to 3321929987. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-10-29 at 13:22 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Jun 2003
The Computer
1100100012 Posts |
![]()
The problem with levels 27-30 that you outlined is that it encourages the two P-1 stages to be separate and thus many of the second stages will likely be done on different systems than the first stages. I believe after Level 26 the project should split into a "wide" search for those who want smaller GPU work units to factor more exponents to lower bit depths, and a "deep" search with P-1 and PRP.
I think P-1 stages could be assigned separately, although it shouldn't be encouraged by the way the level system is structured; in other words, it shouldn't encourage participants to run 27 first stages before doing any second stages. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ECM probabilities and bit levels | mnd9 | PrimeNet | 20 | 2019-11-01 16:33 |
Racism or low light levels or...? | jasong | jasong | 2 | 2016-09-25 05:07 |
Missing bit levels? | NBtarheel_33 | Data | 6 | 2016-05-31 15:27 |
skipped bit levels | tha | PrimeNet | 151 | 2016-03-17 11:38 |
Recommended TF bit levels for M(>10^8) | NBtarheel_33 | Math | 19 | 2008-11-03 17:19 |