20200930, 06:42  #23 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
101110100011_{2} Posts 
Yeah, it does not sound like they are interested in changing the assignment code, so if we get TF assignments in those categories that are not completed for weeks, we will have to poach them in an organized way.

20200930, 20:35  #24  
Aug 2020
2×3×17 Posts 
Quote:
Also a tip that for TF of a certain bit level the larger the exponent the shorter it takes. That's because there are less \(k\)s to try. So it's probably wiser to TF the largest exponent available for a certain bit level in itself, in addition to the argument of not blocking DC progress. Though I don't know much about factor possibility so I'm not really sure about the efficiency. I once reserved several assignments in the 53M range too, but I noticed that it had higher GHz*d credits per exponent (and did took longer) so I thought about why. As a result now I mostly do 60M's and 59M's, because I care about factors not credits. Last fiddled with by Ensigm on 20200930 at 20:37 

20200930, 21:05  #25 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
8882_{10} Posts 
All of the exponents look like they are at 74 bits already (I did a spot check of about a dozen). That is 1 bit above the recommended level as seen in yellow here: https://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/4/5300
It looks like everything below 100M is at the goal bit depth or above it. Maybe any TF in the DC should be aimed at those actually at the goal bit depth. 
20201001, 02:49  #26 
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2^{2}·7·11·29 Posts 

20201001, 09:54  #27 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
63D_{16} Posts 
manual assignment pages
I went to look at the Manual assignment page the lowest exponent I could get for TF wath in the 200M range : no problem there.
However on the "Manual GPU assignment page, if one select TF for double check the "optional" range starts at the lowest unverified exponent. The same applies for TF for fist time tests... It would be easy to modify the code to use the current CAT 2 or the CAT 3 threshold instead of the lowest unverified exponent. Jacob 
20201001, 12:12  #28 
"Bill Staffen"
Jan 2013
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
410_{10} Posts 
This still seems like mountains from molehills to me. There are lots of numbers inthat range, and taking 3 days to TF a couple dozen isn't hurting anything or slowing the project.
At worst, set the expiration to 57 days for cat 0 numbers and call it good. It looks like Villiam has pulled a new batch of numbers in that range yesterday (having returned the initial ones when complete) and so it's moving on. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 20201001 at 12:12 
20201001, 12:37  #29 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
22B2_{16} Posts 
But there have been some users holding TF assignments for months in that range. As noted elsewhere, there was a user in the 93M range with assignments many months old, with no progress.

20201001, 13:36  #30  
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
63D_{16} Posts 
Quote:
And at the moment those manual TF assignments are not subject to recycling rules, they have no expiry date. It would be easier not to assign CAT0 and CAT for manual testing as stated by the Assignment rules. At the moment CAT2 starts at 54571632 in the DC range and at 105751532 for the first time checks. This means that unverified numbers the ranges 53xxxxxx to 54571632, and untested numbers in the range 91000000 to 105751532 should not be handled out for manual testing, be it ECM or TF. Jacob (I'd say it is not as if there were not enough numbers to work on, to absolutely go for those numbers that hold up the milestones, and are more than sufficiently factored as well. Especially it it makes a number of people nervous and worried ;) Last fiddled with by S485122 on 20201001 at 13:37 Reason: added bit about "worried" people 

20201001, 15:29  #31 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
246B_{16} Posts 

20201001, 18:01  #32 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
11000111101_{2} Posts 
OK.
I thought I had seen exponents more than a year late in being reported about, but a quick search didn't find any in the relevant ranges... It even seems that the "first" rule "Since PrimeNet began, the server has recycled exponents where the client computer is 60 days past due in updating the server." is enforced in those ranges. Jacob 
20201009, 17:59  #33 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·4,441 Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
How many bits does/did the server trial factor to?  Jayder  Information & Answers  6  20150125 03:29 
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 
P95 Trial Factor speeds 40M vs 100M  harlee  Software  3  20061015 04:38 
Shortest time to complete a 2^67 trial factor (no factor)  dsouza123  Software  12  20030821 18:38 