20210122, 20:59  #100 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2×3^{2}×521 Posts 
User Ryan Propper has 430 PM1 assignments between 101M and 102M, all of which have yet to have a first time test.
They are 2 months old and should have expired as Cat 0 assignments. There are 127 other P1's assigned in the range most of them >30 days old and no progress. 
20210123, 23:01  #101 
Jan 2021
California
2×3^{2} Posts 
It looks like someone released all the Ryan Propper assignments, 429 assignments are now open below 102M
Last fiddled with by slandrum on 20210123 at 23:02 
20210123, 23:45  #102 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·3^{2}·521 Posts 
And now another user has been picking up dozens of P1 assignments. And other users have picked up P1 assignments in the Cat 0 range.

20210124, 05:42  #103  
Nov 2013
2^{2}×5 Posts 
Quote:
I guess I don't understand the issue. As far as I know, P1 is the step prior to running a PRP test or a LL test. My quick sampling shows that P1 has not been run on these exponents. 

20210124, 06:06  #104 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
17×433 Posts 
It's not an issue as long as the users do their P1 in a timely manner. In fact it is beneficial in that dedicated P1ers usually dedicate more memory for stage 2 resulting in more factors found.
A year ago the dedicated P1ers were keeping ahead of the LL/PRP wavefront. Ben Delo's huge contribution as well as gpuowl's improvements have made ir impossible for P1ers to keep up with the wavefront. Edit: I think the gripe is that P1 assignments are not subjected to the same expiration rules as LL/PRP assignments. Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 20210124 at 06:07 
20210124, 07:17  #105  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3037_{10} Posts 
Quote:
Is P1 really that important now when we only have to do 1 test + CERT? In my opinion P1 and TF assignments should be blocked in Cat 0 at least, and probably in Cat 1. Now most of those 300+ P1 assignments has just moved to Kriesel and Madpoo. Are they going to complete them in a timely manner? It would be better to release most of them to the general public and just keep a smaller number? Last fiddled with by ATH on 20210124 at 07:42 

20210124, 12:02  #106 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1001101000010_{2} Posts 
Some here seem concerned about P1 assignments in 101102M. Don't worry. It's not a problem. It's a solution in progress, at least in regard to my portion of them.
Hundreds of exponents that needed P1 were released from monthsold stagnant assignments. They still need P1 performed. Expediting that so they can get justified PRP quickly too, or eliminated from further testing by finding a factor, is a good thing. The hundreds in 101M102M assigned for P1 to Kriesel are prioritized on and distributed to multiple Cat0rated cpus, multiple Radeon VII gpus, and other hardware. Should take only about 2 days from assignment to complete those now so queued. The cpus range mostly from 16GB to 128 GB ram and apply whatever bounds prime95's time savings optimization algorithm selects. FYI a P1 with 1M B1, 30M B2 on ~102M exponent (gpuowl 6.11 default bounds) is ~47 minutes of a Radeon VII, so they crank out ~30 P1 completions/day/RadeonVII to morethansufficient B1 and B2. If more 101M P1 assignments are available later, more will be reserved and swiftly run. It takes a lot of such assignments to keep a Radeon VII busy. That will speed reaching the 102M milestone, not delay it as some seem to express concern of. Ben Delo is the main consumer of P1 wavefront completions I produce. When I produce less in the P1 wavefront, his P1 activity goes up noticeably in the top producer listing (and that subtracts slightly from his PRP throughput). I've already submitted over 40 P1 factoring results for 101M102M for the past 12 hours' running. Including two factored and eliminated. The rate over the next 24 hours will be higher, since some other work already in progress (including some of the pending 102103M P1) has completed. The PrimeNet connected cpus' results are submitted as completed. The gpus' results are manually reported in daily bursts. The 30day ETAs of MadPoo's P1 assignments in this range are unfortunate, if those long ETAs are accurate. Hopefully they will also be done to proper bounds that both retire the P1 assignment task and provide near optimal total computation time savings. Some primality tests now in progress in 101M102M have inadequate P1 (stage 1 only, or low bounds), or none performed yet, yet have already progressed to PRP assignments. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1066557&full=1 for example. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1085613&full=1 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1079863&full=1 Or even worse, to (over 50) LL assignments, many without adequate bounds P1 completed first. That is a problem, causing waste. Some by inadequate factoring; much more by LL + requiring a full eventual DC of some sort. https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/101780153 https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/101308807 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1805937&full=1 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1835761&full=1 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1857697&full=1 https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1886931&full=1 (and many more examples not listed) Historically, some primality testing completes without any P1 factoring ever being performed, and that is a waste of some time. Anyone who does not understand why may read https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php#p1_factoring for an explanation. edit: It looks like no more 101102M P1 assignments are available currently, based on a recent assignment batch for 1 gpu for 1 day yielding all 102.3M assignments. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20210124 at 12:45 
20210124, 16:44  #107 
Oct 2020
Belgium
7 Posts 
Oops, it seems like I did what the OP of this thread didn't want to see, I used the manual GPU assignment tool to get Cat1 DC TF assignments... I grabbed about 70 exponents and I should be able to TF all of them within a matter of days (3, perhaps 4). I hope this is not an issue for anyone here! I'd be happy to unassign them if for whatever reason I'm not able to complete them within the time frame of a few days. As far as I understand it though, in this short amount of time I should not be hindering the DC effort as long as I turn in the results (relatively) quickly, no?
For future reference: would I be better off just getting manual GPU DC assignments just under 66M (current active range)? It seems a bit of a waste in my opinion if these TFs in the cat1 range aren't done and slower PCs are taking care of the LL DC. (A small look at the current active LL DCs shows a lot of them have not been TF'd to 75.) Just to be clear: I do not intend to poach any active LL DCs, obviously. Edit: Current TF DC range is max 64,682,541, whoops Last fiddled with by lisanderke on 20210124 at 16:49 
20210124, 16:46  #108 
Sep 2017
USA
5×47 Posts 

20210124, 17:08  #109  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3,037 Posts 
Quote:
I am just curious if you registered those intentionally? I am checking to see if there is a bug or some other weird things going on. Last fiddled with by ATH on 20210124 at 17:09 

20210124, 17:17  #110  
Sep 2017
USA
5×47 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
possible overlapping Fermat factor ranges  MattcAnderson  FermatSearch  3  20210105 14:34 
Trial Factoring  Factor Confirmation?  butera  GPU to 72  3  20210102 23:43 
Trial Factor Bit Depth  lavalamp  Operation Billion Digits  8  20100802 18:49 
trial division over a factor base  Peter Hackman  Factoring  7  20091026 18:27 
Shortest time to complete a 2^67 trial factor (no factor)  dsouza123  Software  12  20030821 18:38 