mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   GPU to 72 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=95)
-   -   Future requests? (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16727)

LaurV 2012-06-27 08:37

@chalsall
Man, we have a saying: the dogs are barking, the bear is passing. Instead of wasting your time arguing with Mr.D. in the parallel thread (thanks god some mod decided to close it!), better invest that time in modifying those tables I am talking about since ages... and let the dogs bark.

To remind you, [U]first case[/U] was about the "view assignments" page, first table (I think is called production heuristics), where the LL and DC are together in the same line, there is no line for "total" or "overall" like in individual reports tables, and this really started to piss me off since we have more/different work types (like LLP-1 and DCP-1), they may need separate rows too. That is minor, but counting how many of my assignments are LL and how many are LLDC makes me crazy. If I leave to look in the other table where they are separate, when I come back I need to input the password again (I don't store passwords, except for my computer at home).

The [U]second case[/U] (less but still important) is the visualization tool table, cutting first line, or having custom ranges (the post which started this very current "[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16727"]feature request[/URL]" thread, still so long time ignored....)

chalsall 2012-06-27 17:04

[QUOTE=LaurV;303484]@chalsall Man, we have a saying: the dogs are barking, the bear is passing.[/QUOTE]

LaurV... Please appreciate that GPU72 and Mersenne.info are a hobby. Although, admittedly, one that consumes quite a bit of my time...

Everything (or, at least, just about everything) that anyone asks for is placed on a todo list. Some are easy to do and are done quickly. Others are a bit more involved, and take some time.

Your request for breaking out the heuristics information is more involved that it might appear, because that data is used by the system for more than just presenting the information to the user.

The changes on Mersenne.info you suggested are underway in my development environment. I'm taking the opportunity to doing a fairly major upgrade to that system. The videos I just exposed were something I had almost competed months ago, and finally got back to.

Patience grasshopper....

Mini-Geek 2012-06-29 12:05

I have a suggestion for a feature: I'd like to know whether my DCs came back that my result was 1. good, (matched a previous result) 2. unverified, (didn't match any previous result) or 3. bad (other results matched). My reason for this is that monitoring DC results is a good indicator that my machine is, without a doubt, stable. Mersenne.org doesn't already show you this information on your [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/results/"]results[/URL] page, it just shows that the LL returned as "C" (composite) and shows the result with the last two bytes masked, regardless of whether your result was good or bad.

LaurV 2012-06-29 12:25

when manually reporting, PrimeNet is saying if the residues matched or not, indirectly, by saying "this clears the exponent" bla bla. This can also be implemented in the spiders (or maybe is already, I don't use spiders).

Mini-Geek 2012-06-29 18:04

[QUOTE=LaurV;303646]when manually reporting, PrimeNet is saying if the residues matched or not, indirectly, by saying "this clears the exponent" bla bla. This can also be implemented in the spiders (or maybe is already, I don't use spiders).[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. I've been using Prime95 to work and report the work. I haven't checked the logs or comm. window to see if it reports this info to the user (I can't check it at the moment). If it reports this, I for one am OK with how it is now (though the spiders reporting it as well - if they don't already - would be a good addition IMHO). :smile:

Dubslow 2012-06-29 18:10

In Prime95 it will look like this:
[code][Work thread Jun 27 07:59:22] Iteration: 25020000 / 25024693 [99.9812%]. Per iteration time: 8.304 ms.
[Work thread Jun 27 08:00:01] M25024693 is not prime. Res64: 505B65B8808CE497. We8: 9C81285E,11843949,00000000
[Work thread Jun 27 08:00:01] No work to do at the present time. Waiting.
[Comm thread Jun 27 08:00:01] Sending result to server: UID: Dubslow/Gravemind, M25024693 is not prime. Res64: 505B65B8808CE497. We8: 9C81285E,11843949,00000000, AID: 153DF6EA5F0CC33CB045339C4DDE22D0
[Comm thread Jun 27 08:00:01]
[Comm thread Jun 27 08:00:02] PrimeNet success code with additional info:
[B][Comm thread Jun 27 08:00:02] LL test successfully completes double-check of M25024693[/B]
[Comm thread Jun 27 08:00:02] CPU credit is 21.4448 GHz-days.[/code]
If you get a mismatch, that line will be missing.

As far as I know, the only spider that submits LL results is the one I made for CUDALucas (based on chalsall's mfakt* spider). That one checks for a mismatch before submitting, so that if you didn't get a match, you retain the assignment so you can ask somebody else here to run their own quick TC for you.

Xyzzy 2012-06-29 18:20

Request: Overtake dates?

[SIZE=1](Newegg should sponsor that column!)[/SIZE]

KyleAskine 2012-07-05 22:20

So since I figured that we would be taking all of the remaining exponents to 73 since we seem to be safely over 58M, I decided to put in that I wanted to go to 73, and asked it to grab what makes sense.

It gave me exponents from 72->73 from 52M to 55M.

This is not what I wanted so I threw them all back and just went back to doing it to 72.

chalsall 2012-07-05 23:00

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;304109]So since I figured that we would be taking all of the remaining exponents to 73 since we seem to be safely over 58M, I decided to put in that I wanted to go to 73, and asked it to grab what makes sense.

It gave me exponents from 72->73 from 52M to 55M.

This is not what I wanted so I threw them all back and just went back to doing it to 72.[/QUOTE]

The problem was you changed the highest range to be 60,000,000, rather than leaving it as the default of 100,000,000.

"What makes sense" falls back to exactly what you ask for if you change the ranges.

Sorry -- that probably doesn't make sense....

KyleAskine 2012-07-06 13:50

[QUOTE=chalsall;304117]The problem was you changed the highest range to be 60,000,000, rather than leaving it as the default of 100,000,000.

"What makes sense" falls back to exactly what you ask for if you change the ranges.

Sorry -- that probably doesn't make sense....[/QUOTE]

That is because I saw there was a lone 58M exponent sitting at 70 bits. I wanted to grab it so I clicked that I wanted to take the lowest TF to 72.

This gave me only the numbers > 60M since they were all at 69 bits. :(

I can just try to set better ranges and do it myself. I mean, the tools are there to grab everything myself, but I am lazy and stupid.

Also... after you grab some exponents, you go to a screen telling you what they are and giving you an option to download a worktodo.txt. Can we also have a throw these back button? I mess up quite often (like last night), and have to go back and click the radio boxes 100 times to throw them all back.

I am the idiot user you need to idiot proof for!

James Heinrich 2012-07-06 14:09

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;304173]Can we also have a throw these back button?[/QUOTE]I would also like to see that, I assume it should be a fairly simple implementation.


All times are UTC. The time now is 00:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.