Prime95 v30.3

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by kriesel

What file system do you use to run linux that is readable by Windows in that scenario?

I had to shrink my Windows volume on the SSD. I left 80 GB for the Ubuntu Installation. This was the only way I could get it to install. I had no luck with a USB drive. It presented so many partition options that I could not tell one from another. With the dual-boot from the SSD, it presents a menu which I could choose from.

The Windows partition is not visible in Ubuntu. I have not tried it the other way to see if Windows can read the Ubuntu partition. I sort of doubt that it will.

I did not have any problems getting things set up and running. The GUI portion is somewhat different than what I used before in small areas. The composition is the same.

Just in case anyone here thinks this is off-topic, this is very relevant to mprime.

[Xyzzy]

Your Windows partition is NTFS. There are experimental drivers that will read/write NTFS but we don't trust them.

Create a USB stick with either a FAT32 or ExFAT partition. Both Linux and Windows can read/write that format. Then store your mprime installation on that USB stick. Both Linux and Windows will auto-mount the key if you want them to.

There are many ways to do what you want to do. A shared USB stick might be the easiest.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Your Windows partition is NTFS. There are experimental drivers that will read/write NTFS but we don't trust them.

Create a USB stick with either a FAT32 or ExFAT partition. Both Linux and Windows can read/write that format. Then store your mprime installation on that USB stick. Both Linux and Windows will auto-mount the key if you want them to.

There are many ways to do what you want to do. A shared USB stick might be the easiest.

I have two USB sticks which are FAT32. Both can read them. This is how I shuttle things from one side to the other. As I figured, the Window side cannot see the Linux side. No problem though.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

You can navigate to the Windows filesystem.

Here is an example from our machine:

m@i9-10900KF:~$ pwd
 /home/m

m@i9-10900KF:~$ cd /mnt/c/Users/m/Desktop/
 
m@i9-10900KF:/mnt/c/Users/m/Desktop$ ls -l
total 44
-rwxrwxrwx 1 m m  6214 Oct  3 13:16 250w.txt
-rwxrwxrwx 1 m m  6209 Oct  3 13:16 25w.txt
drwxrwxrwx 1 m m  4096 Oct  3 12:41 benchmark
-rwxrwxrwx 1 m m   282 Sep 24 08:32 desktop.ini
-rwxrwxrwx 1 m m 27136 Oct  2 21:51 i9.png
drwxrwxrwx 1 m m  4096 Oct  3 13:20 mfaktc
 drwxrwxrwx 1 m m  4096 Oct  3 13:17 prime95

You can then use the Windows file manager for your Linux files.

In the Windows 10 File Explorer, there is a search bar above the file and folder names. Enter this: \\wsl$. Without the period, of course. It will show only the Ubuntu folder in the view area. It is listed as a network connection, for some reason. Double-click the icon and the entire file/folder structure is shown. Nothing appears to be hidden using this.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by storm5510

It is listed as a network connection, for some reason.

This might be using some kind of a loopback device trick to do this.

[Tad Mar]

I am going to do only LL DCs from now on but should I still upgrade? Also, will LL DCs get replaced by the PRP CERT in the future or is this just for the first time checks?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by Tad Mar

I am going to do only LL DCs from now on but should I still upgrade? Also, will LL DCs get replaced by the PRP CERT in the future or is this just for the first time checks?

For LL DC, there is little reason to upgrade, but no harm.

For DC in general, either an LL DC or a PRP w/CERT will do the job (barring a hardware error in one of the LL tests). Should your computer start exhibiting hardware errors, I'd definitely switch to doing DC using PRP w/CERT.

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by Prime95

For DC in general, either an LL DC or a PRP w/CERT will do the job (barring a hardware error in one of the LL tests).

If the user does a LL-DC and the it doesn't match the first-LL, we don't know which is wrong necessitating an (equally-long) triple-check. If the exponent is cleared by PRP+cert then we can either assume the original LL was correct (which may or may not be the case, but ultimately doesn't matter if we know it's not-prime), or we'll immediately know the PRP was faulty if it fails the cert (has this happened?) What's the current PRP+cert failture rate based on a month or so of data?

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

we'll immediately know the PRP was faulty if it fails the cert (has this happened?)

3 gpuowl proofs failed, the DC showed the PRP run was OK, the problem is in proof generation which Mihai thinks he's got a handle on.

1 prime95 PRP-CF proof failed, which I think was due to errors reading residues during proof generation. This has been hardened with MD5 checks on each residue.

This is out of 30000 or so proofs.

[kriesel]

So, ~0.013% PRP proof error rate (with big error bars on that ratio), versus ~1.5% error rate for LL tests.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by kriesel

So, ~0.013% PRP proof error rate.

75% due to programmer error (probably).

Once we feel we have all the bugs hammered out, you really want to know the error rate where a proof can not be generated (residue file corrupted, FFT error during proof generation).