20201013, 02:15  #45 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1001001011011_{2} Posts 

20201013, 15:13  #46  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3^{2}×331 Posts 
Quote:
There was back in the day when only Prime95/mprime was used for factoring. Plus it would block everyone who wants to factor deep for example in <50M range like the "under 20M unfactored exponents" project. 

20201013, 15:20  #47 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
37×127 Posts 
Ok, if that application of excessive TF is accepted, cap TF assignments for p>40M to no more than one bit higher than the corresponding tf target in the gpu72 line of mersenne.ca lookup for the exponent concerned, or the approximate linear interpolation of that. It's common to see random exponents at the wavefront wastefully TF 2 or 3 levels above optimal, and/or P1 skipped, before primality testing commences.
Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20201013 at 15:23 
20201013, 15:29  #48 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2×5×13×19 Posts 
That would be about half the GhZ cost of a prp, right? Or is it a quarter?

20201013, 17:49  #49  
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
5·11·29 Posts 
Quote:
Jacob 

20201013, 18:42  #51  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1001001011011_{2} Posts 
Quote:
95000533 is already TF 2 levels higher than goal, and P1 done rather thoroughly too. https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/95000533 Justifiable TF level is lowered by P1 integration into gpuowl primality testing, resulting in higher economic P1 bounds than previously. And lowered by PRP proof reducing primality effort by ~50%. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20201013 at 18:45 

20201013, 18:43  #52  
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium
5×11×29 Posts 
Quote:
And it could concern only untested exponents in the first test range and the unverified exponents in the double check range (for the time it will exist.) And if adding those conditions would be too difficult, the TF of verified exponent can wait until the wavefront passed. Then it is possible that the size of the different categories could benefit from a review. Jacob 

20201013, 18:46  #53  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·59·79 Posts 
Quote:
Further, because of the way TF assignments are handled, even if someone did the TF'ing to 78 (which would be silly) the assignment /still/ wouldn't be released. 

20201013, 21:16  #54 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3^{2}·331 Posts 
Server should block TF in Cat 0+1 and probably Cat 2 (and maybe Cat 3?) and it should give no AID on the TF assignments either from manual assignment or through Prime95/mprime. Particularly since all the El Dorkos and morons and idiots out there are using this strategy to annoy and block progress.
Before handing out AID the server already checks the category anyway to see if the users computer requirement are met for Cat 0/1/2/3 and denies the AID if not. I do not know how this is programmed, but logically it seems reasonable that an additional check could be put in like: IF (Cat<3 AND Assignment == TF) DENY! Last fiddled with by ATH on 20201013 at 21:27 
20201013, 21:44  #55 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
10001010100110_{2} Posts 
There is this batch down in the DC Cat 1 range (just above the Cat 0 level).
https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...first=1&exp1=1 ATH and S485122 have suggested server rules that would prevent this. 
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 