mersenneforum.org 332.2M - 333.9M (aka 100M digit range)
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-11-26, 05:56 #45 CADavis     Jul 2005 Des Moines, Iowa, USA 101010102 Posts starting again with 332216147 - 332217971, most are to 68 already, going to take the range to 72 first, then 72 - 74. the first few are assigned to LL testers already so should I bother with those at all? http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_exp...&B1=Get+status Last fiddled with by CADavis on 2008-11-26 at 06:03
2008-11-26, 06:43   #46
S485122

"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

76D16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CADavis the first few are assigned to LL testers already so should I bother with those at all? http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_exp...&B1=Get+status
I think that once an exponent is assigned by the V5 server none other than the assignee should touch it. Of course in the 100 000 000 digit primes range some of the assignees will skip trialfactoring in the misunderstanding that they will go quicker. I still think it is better to just wait until they drop out.

Jacob

2008-12-01, 03:55   #47
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

10,891 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by S485122 I think that once an exponent is assigned by the V5 server none other than the assignee should touch it. Of course in the 100 000 000 digit primes range some of the assignees will skip trialfactoring in the misunderstanding that they will go quicker. I still think it is better to just wait until they drop out.
If they show no progress after the number has been assigned to them for 15-30, I think that it is likely that they have skipped the TF.

2008-12-01, 06:17   #48
S485122

"Jacob"
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

35558 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly If they show no progress after the number has been assigned to them for 15-30, I think that it is likely that they have skipped the TF.
likely

You are not sure and thus may be poaching. There is no urgency to treat those numbers. Even if it might be fun to search for the work ;-)

Jacob

Last fiddled with by S485122 on 2008-12-01 at 06:20 Reason: added phrase to be more explicit.

2008-12-01, 08:05   #49

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

769210 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly If they show no progress after the number has been assigned to them for 15-30, I think that it is likely that they have skipped the TF.
I'll echo Jacob (though more softly and verbosely).

When one tries to deduce what is going on in an assignee's system, one runs the risk of having one's invalid assumptions about what is and is not shown in the reports lead one to a false conclusion.

That was doubly true in my own case.

Several years ago, the nonstandard way in which I was processing my LL assignments may have made it appear to someone looking at PrimeNet reports that I would be "holding up" some milestones, but in fact I was careful not to do that.

Then, the way in which someone else reported LL results to PrimeNet for exponents that had been assigned to me made it appear to me that the person was deliberately poaching my assignments. However, after I recently established communication with that person, he emphatically assured me that he did nothing of the sort, and had tested only exponents that had been properly assigned to him. That made me realize that I had not previously considered the possibility that all the evidence I had could be explained by some flaw in the assignment system rather than by poaching.

So, please don't do anything on exponents that are assigned to someone else. There are an infinity of Mersenne numbers with prime exponents, enough for everyone to work on exclusively with plenty left over.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-12-01 at 08:10

 2008-12-21, 05:35 #50 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 10,891 Posts I have taken the advice of others to heart. I now grab the factor level report, make the worktodo.add, let Prime95 register assignments, then cull the N/A's. Here is a progress status report for the range from 332192831 to 332259937 Code: Date 12/20/2008 Average bit depth for first 100 expos 72.17 Average bit depth for first 1000 expos 69.23 100th active expo (no factor found) 332197793 1000th active expo (no factor found) 332240201 Unitless total effort number 1556864 Number of first 100 exos to 2^71 72 Number of first 1000 exos to 2^70 370 Code: Bit # to bit level or higher 65 1482 <-all left in range 66 1234 67 1233 68 710 69 500 70 370 71 219 72 187 73 119 74 83 75 43 76 1 77 1 Attached Thumbnails
 2008-12-23, 14:23 #51 S485122     "Jacob" Sep 2006 Brussels, Belgium 1,901 Posts Code: Exponent Range Composite Unproven Assigned Available Start Count F NO-LL TF P-1 LL TF 332000000 51080 27401 23679 648 1 653 22398 This shows that 21 assignments are overlapping (Unproven -Assigned-Available) Jacob
2008-12-23, 23:32   #52
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

10,891 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by S485122 This shows that 21 assignments are overlapping (Unproven -Assigned-Available)
I think that there are some expos that the server shows as assigned to me to LL, that are actually left over TF's. I want to get my hands on the machine and look at the worktodo.txt. I want to make sure that the entries are right, or fix them, or.... I haven't figured out how it happened. They may be part of the 21.

That and maybe the ones that got assigned LL, but TF killed, as reported previously.

 2009-01-09, 05:16 #53 MercPrime     Jan 2009 1/n 3·7 Posts Hey UncWilly, I'll join in when I'm done with my poking around below your range (321M 6-9 range).
 2009-01-21, 03:14 #54 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 10,891 Posts Here is a progress status report for the range from 332192831 to 332259937 Code: Date 01/20/2008 Average bit depth for first 100 expos 72.69 Average bit depth for first 1000 expos 70.09 100th active expo (no factor found) 332197793 1000th active expo (no factor found) 332240677 Unitless total effort number 2309376 (accounts for only the 1st 1000 expos) Number of first 100 exos to 2^71 96 Number of first 1000 exos to 2^70 394 Code: Bit # to bit level or higher 67 1461 <-all left in range 68 1300 69 766 70 394 71 310 72 249 73 170 74 120 75 81 76 2 77 1 Some of my cores have been sidelined from this due to lack of access. They are still working for GIMPS. I have put one new core to working the range above this. It is a slower one and I will keep it at the lower bit depths. Once I get all the exponents in this range to 2^68, I will put that core onto the next higher area, bringing those expos up to 67 then 68. I plan on reviving the other cores and have then work the 69-72 area for this range. Attached Thumbnails
2009-01-21, 23:01   #55
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

1089110 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly Here is a progress status report for the range from 332192831 to 332259937
I am now extending this particular range up to 332319979. The next stats (2/20) will reflect that. Anyone wanting to help can either work above me or take some of the higher bit levels.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Uncwilly GPU to 72 64 2013-03-31 02:45 JuanTutors PrimeNet 8 2012-12-06 13:47 JuanTutors Lounge 6 2012-02-21 07:36 __HRB__ Riesel Prime Search 0 2010-05-22 01:17 Unregistered Information & Answers 10 2010-03-24 20:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:05.

Sun Jan 29 06:05:18 UTC 2023 up 164 days, 3:33, 0 users, load averages: 1.99, 1.63, 1.31

Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔