Small bug report for resumed P-1 work
 

Input

[CODE]
$ cat worktodo.txt

Pminus1=1,2,10061,-1,200000,200000
Pminus1=1,2,10061,-1,100000,5000000

$ ./mprime -d
(some lines omitted)
[Work thread Nov 30 02:05] P-1 on M10061 with B1=100000, B2=5000000
[Work thread Nov 30 02:05] M10061 stage 1 complete. 288828 transforms. Total time: 0.169 sec.
...
[Work thread Nov 30 02:05] Using 3168MB of memory. D: 510510, 46080x580022 polynomial multiplication.
[Work thread Nov 30 02:05] M10061 stage 2 complete. 4317618 transforms. Total time: 23.979 sec.
[Work thread Nov 30 02:05] M10061 completed P-1, B1=100000, B2=249059450640, Wi8: FD5E25C1
[/CODE]

Expected

[CODE]
$ cat results.txt
UID: ANONYMOUS, M10061 completed P-1, B1=200000, Wi8: 00431AF1
[Tue Nov 30 02:05:31 2021]
UID: ANONYMOUS, M10061 completed P-1, B1=[B]200000[/B], B2=249059450640, Wi8: FD5E25C1
[/CODE]

Actual

[CODE]
$ cat results.txt
UID: ANONYMOUS, M10061 completed P-1, B1=200000, Wi8: 00431AF1
[Tue Nov 30 02:05:31 2021]
UID: ANONYMOUS, M10061 completed P-1, B1=100000, B2=249059450640, Wi8: FD5E25C1
[/CODE]

I assume the P-1 is resumed from the residual after B1=200000 so it seems like prime95 should report the larger (and correct) B1 value in the 2nd result.

[QUOTE=techn1ciaN;594113]The amount of P-1 being done by users running the PRP and GIMPS work preferences makes me throw in a vote for "yes." 30.7's significant P-1 improvements over 30.3 should create at least some boost to overall throughput even if most of the people reached by an announcement aren't doing P-1 full time.[/QUOTE]

I agree as well. 30.3 had been around for only a year on the front page. I wouldn't have known about 30.7 unless I checked somewhere like majorgeeks (which is where I get my latest Prime95 version) or the forums.

I found a paper co-authored by George that talks about the new prime-pairing method used in P-1: [url]https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1462[/url]

It seems that in the latest versions of Prime95 30.7 build 7 the successful communication with the server on completion of a successful LL test is entered in the prime.log without a date stamp.

[QUOTE=S485122;594309]It seems that in the latest versions of Prime95 30.7 build 7 the successful communication with the server on completion of a successful LL test is entered in the prime.log without a date stamp.[/QUOTE]

Looks like it's related to this issue: [url]https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=561866[/url]

[QUOTE=ixfd64;594311]Looks like it's related to this issue: [url]https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=561866[/url][/QUOTE]Indeed !

And I must conclude after a more thorough look at the log file that my impression that there was no problem with 30.7 build 5 is wrong as well.
I would prefer to have each communication session preceded by a time stamp in the log file even if seconds apart.

Icing on the cake would be to have Prime95 output all date and times in ISO format, on screen and in the log files, or have an option for choosing the time format. But this is only cosmetic and thus not urgent.

Some comments about the latest release:

1. It's probably a good idea to mention in [C]whatsnew.txt[/C] that the Brent-Suyama extension has been completely removed. Or at least I'm assuming that's the case because it's not even mentioned in [C]undoc.txt[/C] anymore.

2. You might also want to clarify that the new [C]tutorial.txt[/C] file is in the source code package. I was about to post that the file is missing until I thought to check the Prime95 source code.

3. I ran the documentation through a spell checker and found some typos:

[B]readme.txt[/B]

Line 560: "The most common [COLOR="red"]errors[/COLOR] message is [...]"

I assume you meant a singular "error" here.

[B]undoc.txt[/B]

Line 77: "This [COLOR="red"]let's[/COLOR] you do certifications [...]"

Line 101: "[...] if a hardware error has [COLOR="red"]occured[/COLOR] in the last [...]"

Line 640: "This may lead to more consistent benchmarks that are more [COLOR="Red"]indicitive[/COLOR] of what will happen running [...]"

Lines 674-675: "This tells the program how [COLOR="Red"]wany[/COLOR] workers are allowed to use lots of memory."

Lines 753-755: "[...] error check of doing each iteration twice and [COLOR="red"]periodicly[/COLOR] comparing residues. Set to 3 to force the much slower error check of doing each iteration twice and [COLOR="red"]periodicly[/COLOR] comparing residues."

Line 806: "In [COLOR="red"]linux[/COLOR] you can select [...]"

Should probably be capitalized.

[QUOTE=ixfd64;594378]I ran the documentation through a spell checker and found some typos:[/QUOTE]

Thanks!

I am running prim95 v30.7b9 WIN64 - latest version from [url]https://www.mersenne.org/download/[/url] .

I am/was in the middle of "factor P-1 large"/"PM1-L" for candidate 108043021 in the context of GIMPS project - [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=108043021&full=1[/url]

I paused the worker via GUI (opened window Test->Stop) as I had some other work to do on the PC.
Half an hour later I continued searching. Via opened window I went Test->Continue.

The logs are causing some concern to me - attachment [B]prime_95_feature.png[/B] .

When I clicked Stop stage 1 M108043021 was 71.23% complete. When I continued all of a sudden the stage 1 was at 71.78% complete.

I don't know if this is expected behaviour or is it a bug, it skipped a step, and my run is thus invalid. Any thoughts?

Screenshot is attached.

Thanks for the help.

Cheers.

[QUOTE=jakasi2;594654]I am running prim95 v30.7b9 WIN64 - latest version from [url]https://www.mersenne.org/download/[/url] .

I am/was in the middle of "factor P-1 large"/"PM1-L" for candidate 108043021 in the context of GIMPS project - [url]https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=108043021&full=1[/url]

I paused the worker via GUI (opened window Test->Stop) as I had some other work to do on the PC.
Half an hour later I continued searching. Via opened window I went Test->Continue.

The logs are causing some concern to me - attachment [B]prime_95_feature.png[/B] .

When I clicked Stop stage 1 M108043021 was 71.23% complete. When I continued all of a sudden the stage 1 was at 71.78% complete.

I don't know if this is expected behaviour or is it a bug, it skipped a step, and my run is thus invalid. Any thoughts?

Screenshot is attached.

Thanks for the help.

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

Prime95 doesn't output at every step. It runs 100s of iterations per update. When you paused it will have written a save file wherever it was up to. This will be the point it resumed from. There is nothing to worry about.

Thanks for the answer