|
2011-09-23, 14:48
|
#1 |
|
Feb 2011
22×13 Posts |
mfaktc TF credit 2x higher if factor found?
I understand that PrimeNet makes various assumptions for CPU credit calculation, and that in the past several months the rules may have been updated (can't find a good existing thread to which to follow up, however).
Using mfaktc and manual assignments / results reporting, I got the following. Note the TF credit was almost 2x when a factor was found (and bit-level search abandoned) than for a similar exponent where no factor was found (and the entire bit-level searched). Is this the "expected" result? Nice bonus for finding a factor, though. Code:
-------------------- no factor for M55033889 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17-Win 71bit_mul24] M55033907 has a factor: 2289199237566490794617 found 1 factor(s) for M55033907 from 2^70 to 2^71 (partially tested) [mfaktc 0.17-Win 71bit_mul24] -------------------- Processing result: no factor for M55033889 from 2^70 to 2^71 [mfaktc 0.17-Win 71bit_mul24] CPU credit is 4.3451 GHz-days. Mfakto no factor lines found: 0 Factors found: 1 Processing result: M55033907 has a factor: 2289199237566490794617 CPU credit is 8.4929 GHz-days. -------------------- |
|
|
|
2011-09-24, 13:42
|
#2 |
|
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
10B716 Posts |
No, that's not the expected result. Finding a factor is always less work than searching the whole range, and is expected to give less credit. According to a separate CPU credit estimator, it should have earned about 0.803 GHz-days. Maybe PrimeNet assumed you used P-1?
Last fiddled with by TimSorbet on 2011-09-24 at 13:42 |
|
|
|
|
2011-09-25, 21:57
|
#3 | |
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
23·509 Posts |
Quote:
Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2011-09-25 at 21:58 |
|
|
|
|
2011-09-27, 02:02
|
#4 |
Dec 2010
Monticello
5·359 Posts |
Primenet doesn't seem to give accurate credit for factors found...but since I find factors infrequently, I don't worry about it since it is a small error in the totals.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-09-28, 01:34
|
#5 |
Aug 2002
100001011010002 Posts |
FWIW:
|
|
|
|
|
2011-09-28, 03:07
|
#6 | |
|
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario
407210 Posts |
Quote:
Also note that the majority of your second batch of factors are misattributed to P-1. There's a related discussion going on in the mfaktc thread starting around post #1216. |
|
|
|
|
|
2011-09-30, 15:10
|
#7 |
Aug 2009
Ontario, Canada
2·67 Posts |
Odd example from the recent results report. Seems the same TF range is reported twice. TF credit is doubled
Code:
Piepen Manual testing 58289999 NF Sep 30 2011 2:44PM 0.0 12.3071 no factor for M58289999 from 2^70 to 2^72 [mfakto 0.08-Win mfakto_cl_barrett79] Piepen Manual testing 58289999 NF Sep 30 2011 2:44PM 0.0 2.0512 no factor for M58289999 from 2^69 to 2^70 [mfakto 0.08-Win mfakto_cl_barrett79] Piepen Manual testing 58289999 NF Sep 30 2011 2:44PM 1.7 12.3071 no factor for M58289999 from 2^70 to 2^72 [mfakto 0.08-Win mfakto_cl_barrett79] Last fiddled with by gjmccrac on 2011-09-30 at 15:12 Reason: added one more sentence. |
|
|
|
|
2011-10-10, 02:32
|
#8 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
722110 Posts |
I would like to report the same bug, getting double credit, or in the second case, 1.5 times credit for finding a factor.
Code:
Manual testing 25464869 NF 2011-10-10 02:15 0.0 no factor for M25464869 from 2^67 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] 1.1738 Manual testing 25451429 F 2011-10-09 17:48 0.0 252560470228061146847 2.0779 Manual testing 25464247 NF 2011-10-09 17:48 0.0 no factor for M25464247 from 2^67 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] 1.1738 Code:
Manual testing 25472509 F 2011-10-10 02:15 0.0 191545676238561976081 1.6080 Manual testing 25494233 NF 2011-10-10 02:15 0.0 no factor for M25494233 from 2^67 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] 1.1725 Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2011-10-10 at 02:33 |
|
|
|
|
2011-10-10, 04:01
|
#9 |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5·359 Posts |
This is known...most of us notice that it has a very small net effect, since 69 times out of 70, or worse, we don't find a factor. James Heinrich is helping out on the server side; this will probably be fixed in mfaktc-0.18.
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-13, 06:45
|
#10 |
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5·223 Posts |
Same problem here. Working in the 292M range, a no-factor result from 64->65 is worth 0.0128 GHz-days. But when I submitted 42 mfaktc "factors found" in the same range and same bit level, credit granted ranged from a low of 0.0123 GHz-days to a high of 0.0262 GHz-days.
I suppose it's some payback for the old v4 days when factors (of any size!) were credited with something like 0.001 P90-years = 0.0051 GHz-days! |
|
|
|
|
2011-10-13, 07:00
|
#11 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
240418 Posts |
Or some bonus for the fact that you saved the time for two LL's?
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| TF Factor Found CPU Credit | TheMawn | GPU Computing | 3 | 2013-06-17 06:21 |
| Mfaktc keeps going after a factor is found | NBtarheel_33 | GPU Computing | 11 | 2012-04-07 21:12 |
| Not quite getting mfaktc message for CPU credit | Christenson | PrimeNet | 9 | 2011-05-31 23:41 |
| TF factor credit | TimSorbet | PrimeNet | 2 | 2009-08-28 18:37 |
| Who gets credit for first 10M prime if 2 are found,same time | eepiccolo | Lounge | 20 | 2003-08-03 02:23 |
