mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-12-04, 02:28   #969
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

24×7×47 Posts
Default

I am coming up to the end of 5.9x fast (although it wouldn't look like it from stats). I need another range to start work on -- preferably a hard one. Is there a recommended / most wanted range?
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 03:04   #970
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

136F16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
I am coming up to the end of 5.9x fast (although it wouldn't look like it from stats). I need another range to start work on -- preferably a hard one. Is there a recommended / most wanted range?
If you'd like a hard range on the lower end there is 10.4 or 10.7.
Anonymous may be there in a couple months with one more bit of TF.
Or you can claim one of these range and Chris will release it from TF and it will be all yours.

On the higher end we have ranges you will see in the first post of this thread.
Though, the only unclaimed are:
27.0 ... probably the toughest remaining
22.3
25.3 ... though Anton was working there as recently as 10 days ago.
21.9 will complete TF in about a week
20.8 will be a tough one too but it needs at least 1 more bit of factoring first ... unless you have a decent GPU for that too.

Thanks

Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2021-12-04 at 03:09
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 04:36   #971
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

52·199 Posts
Default Long overdue status update

I was patiently waiting for 3xM and 4xM to clear.
This is a major milestone with all these clearing in November.

52 more ranges cleared!!! by far the biggest jump to date.!!!!
5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.2, 7.4, 9.2, 9.4,
11.3, 13.0, 14.0, 15.4, 17.3, 18.1, 18.5, 19.2,
20.3, 20.9, 21.3, 21.4, 22.0, 22,4, 23.2, 23.4, 23.9,
24.0, 24.1, 24.2, 24.4, 24.8, 24.9, 25.4, 25.7, 25.9,
26.3, 26.6, 27.2, 27.3, 27.5, 27.7, 28.1, 28.2, 28.5, 28.9, 29.0, 29.7,
30.5, 30.8, 31.2, 32.7, 34.4, 35.3, 49.8

TOTALS to date:
374 total ranges cleared or 75.25% (123 ranges remaining)
11 with less than 20 to go.
114 with less than 100 to go.
3,993 more factored (48,098)....87.09% total factored.

Code:
Category	Start	Today
Lowest ToDo	1.8	5.9	(The lowest range still over 1999)
Highest ToDo	86.3	29.8	(The highest remaining for this project ... all higher will be done via standard Prime95 protocols)
Low UnDone	86.4	108.0	(The lowest still over 1999 that Prime95 will eventually clear on its own)
High UnDone	999.8	999.8	(The highest remaining for Prime95)
Current Activities
I have all my P1 firepower in the 2xM range.
There are 24 ranges left there....several of you are helping there too either with TF or P-1.
It has 7 more ranges needing TF74 (My GPUs and several others are there); and then a half dozen or so will benefit from TF75.
That is, if TF can keep up now that P-1 is getting so much faster .... but that's another story.
My crystal ball has 2xM completing in the next 6 or 8 months.

On the TF side, sadly we have lost SRBase and most of Judger (at least for now); thankfully Anonymous is still chugging.
That said, I think TF is in good shape now dramatically reducing the remaining P-1 effort.

Many of you are P1'ing and TF'ing on all the remaining lower ranges.

Where is the help most required?
We are on the home stretch now; I see light at the end of the tunnel (and I don't think it's an oncoming train)
With all the attention this project is getting now I think most of you know exactly where we are at and are helping appropriately....thanks a lot.

You may have seen a post a months or so ago indicating that I have a chart on post 1 of this thread for the remaining 2xM ranges; where they are at and who has claimed them.

I hope to expand this table soon to all active ranges below as well.

Thanks!!! THANKS!!!!!!
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 05:22   #972
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

24·7·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
On the higher end we have ranges you will see in the first post of this thread.
Though, the only unclaimed are:
27.0 ... probably the toughest remaining
Alright. In that case, I would like to work on 27.0. I think a prob of 5.6% should do the trick which means something like 600K / 400M should be sufficient. I might tweak the bounds once I start some actual tests.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 17:26   #973
alpertron
 
alpertron's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina

72·29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpertron View Post
I'm running a more intensive test. The contents of the file worktodo.txt is:

Code:
[Worker #1]
Pminus1=1,2,9325159,-1,50000000,50000000000,"8056937377,16207126343,95788033249,799651034569,2894827758689,1416068886691577,36098431074477463,635315498297290933609,6214794856879965540791"
It took 26 hours for step 1 in an I5 3470. and now it is running step 2 for 35 hours with 8 GB used for Prime95. According to the values above, probably Prime95 will require 10 days to complete step 2.
Prime95 has just finished this task with no hang:

Code:
processing: P-1 no-factor for M9325159 (B1=50,000,000, B2=50,001,265,860)
CPU credit is 1312.7590 GHz-days.
alpertron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 19:41   #974
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

52×199 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Alright. In that case, I would like to work on 27.0. I think a prob of 5.6% should do the trick which means something like 600K / 400M should be sufficient. I might tweak the bounds once I start some actual tests.
According to my calculations that percentage should give you 78 factors....well done.
I like your plan ... I'd start with that for the current B1=B2 and hope for about half the factors.
Then depending on your luck adjust if necessary.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 19:57   #975
techn1ciaN
 
techn1ciaN's Avatar
 
Oct 2021
U.S. / Maine

22·3·11 Posts
Default

I'm just watching this project from the sidelines, so my apologies if this question is obvious or has already been asked: Does the assumption that "all higher will be done via standard Prime95 protocols" partially rely upon P-1? If yes, has the reality of bad P-1 been accounted for? Example: An exponent without P-1 done is assigned for PRP to a user who has not allocated Prime95 enough memory for stage 2. The user turns in P-1 with B2=B1, and then the exponent is retired from further assignment once they turn in the PRP. Doesn't this make it possible that even if a 100k exponent range would theoretically get to <2,000 unfactored without further intervention, it might not actually — leaving a (smaller, but) lasting role for this group in "manually" cleaning up bad P-1?

Along similar lines, the P-1 tests_saved parameter in P-1 and FTC PRP assignment lines will eventually change from 2 to 1 (hopefully sooner rather than later for the sake of overall GIMPS throughput). Has this been accounted for?
techn1ciaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 20:13   #976
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

52·199 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techn1ciaN View Post
I'm just watching this project from the sidelines, so my apologies if this question is obvious or has already been asked: Does the assumption that "all higher will be done via standard Prime95 protocols" partially rely upon P-1? If yes, has the reality of bad P-1 been accounted for? Example: An exponent without P-1 done is assigned for PRP to a user who has not allocated Prime95 enough memory for stage 2. The user turns in P-1 with B2=B1, and then the exponent is retired from further assignment once they turn in the PRP. Doesn't this make it possible that even if a 100k exponent range would theoretically get to <2,000 unfactored without further intervention, it might not actually — leaving a (smaller, but) lasting role for this group in "manually" cleaning up bad P-1?

Along similar lines, the P-1 tests_saved parameter in P-1 and FTC PRP assignment lines will eventually change from 2 to 1 (hopefully sooner rather than later for the sake of overall GIMPS throughput). Has this been accounted for?
Good questions.
1. Correct .... we are at the mercy of poor P-1. However as the required TF bit level increases this will matter less.
So far every range from 86.4 to 107.9 has cleared. As noted earlier 108.3 looks iffy.
So I accept there may be a bit of cleanup required later.
Two years ago that was so far off I didn't give it a thought.
However, with all the extra help here lately ... and the much faster P-1 we could complete all lower ranges by the end of 2022.
If that is the case then by then there will be very little cleanup, if any. And I'm pretty sure it will show up even slower than I alone could manage.

2. With P-1 so much faster in 30.8 it might make sense to let it go deeper and leave it at 2 tests saved ... or even more. This is similar to what happened when GPUs appeared for TF. Several bit levels were added to TF before LL (or PRP) were done.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 20:14   #977
masser
 
masser's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
Behind BB

3×599 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techn1ciaN View Post
Does the assumption that "all higher will be done via standard Prime95 protocols" partially rely upon P-1? If yes, has the reality of bad P-1 been accounted for? Example: An exponent without P-1 done is assigned for PRP to a user who has not allocated Prime95 enough memory for stage 2. The user turns in P-1 with B2=B1, and then the exponent is retired from further assignment once they turn in the PRP. Doesn't this make it possible that even if a 100k exponent range would theoretically get to <2,000 unfactored without further intervention, it might not actually — leaving a (smaller, but) lasting role for this group in "manually" cleaning up bad P-1?
Primenet trial factoring will take care of almost all of the remaining high (>100M) ranges. The few stragglers that survive trial factoring won't survive the P-1 stage, even if a fair amount are poorly P-1'd.
masser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 20:20   #978
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

409 Posts
Default

@techn1ciaN

My opinion without running any queries or writing code is no we don't need to do anything special. We should keep querying the counts in ranges up to 120M (where TF increases to 73 bits), but 99.9% of them will finish even if we perform sub-par P-1. There's only 119 ranges between 108.0 and 119.9 so maybe we'll have to do a little additional TF for one or two of those ranges (e.g. 108.3) but it's likely people like Zhangrc will notice before the wavefront gets there.
SethTro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-04, 21:55   #979
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

10,181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
As noted earlier 108.3 looks iffy.
OK... Since this seems to be a concern, I have brought 108.3M (actually reserved from Primenet, and those candidates not already assigned) into GPU72 to TF to 77 bits, and then P-1 (usually extremely well).
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72 jschwar313 GPU to 72 3 2016-01-31 00:50
Thinking about lasieve5 Batalov Factoring 6 2011-12-27 22:40
Thinking about buying a panda jasong jasong 1 2008-11-11 09:43
Loud thinking on irregular primes devarajkandadai Math 4 2007-07-25 03:01
Question on unfactored numbers... WraithX GMP-ECM 1 2006-03-19 22:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:59.


Mon Jan 17 10:59:33 UTC 2022 up 178 days, 5:28, 0 users, load averages: 0.95, 0.97, 0.98

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 𝛴𝜎 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔