mersenneforum.org Accuracy of completion date estimates?
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-10-02, 23:16 #1 kdq     Sep 2008 Santa Clarita CA 2·7 Posts Accuracy of completion date estimates? I'm not complaining, mind you, but on all my machines, version 25.6 seems to be making very pessimistic estimations. Almost every day, the estimated completion is nearly a full day sooner than previous estimate. Is this usual/common?
 2008-10-02, 23:34 #2 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 22×7×389 Posts Since you are relatively new (a new return), it is not uncommon for a machine to have low ball estimates. How many hours a day are you letting the machine run and how many did you tell it that you were going to run? That will effect it.
2008-10-03, 02:36   #3

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kdq Almost every day, the estimated completion is nearly a full day sooner than previous estimate. Is this usual/common?
I have a similar problem with V24 estimates. It gradually gets better, and at the end of a sequence of tests the elapsed time is not all that far from the sum of original estimates. If I have several tests queued, the future estimates are consistent, but the in-progress test's estimate starts low then increases.

Prime95 does try to correct its estimates by keeping track of the ratio of actual times to estimated times. In file local.ini, there's a pair of lines like:

RollingAverage=457
RollingStartTime=1222988357

RollingAverage = 1000 * (initial estimated time) / (actual time)
= apparent speed of progress where 1000 = nominal

RollingStartTime is when its calculation started.

457 means that actual times are a bit over twice the unadjusted estimated times. In future estimates, Prime95 multiplies its formula-calculated estimates by 1/.457 to produce displayed estimates. Apparently, from my observations, it does not do that correctly for the in-progress test.

I do not know whether V25's estimation procedure differs from V24's.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-10-03 at 02:44

 2008-10-03, 05:51 #4 S485122     "Jacob" Sep 2006 Brussels, Belgium 35578 Posts I have noted this as well for trial factoring : with Prime95 25.6, 1,5 days are added to the first expected expected date, the following intervals are not inflated though. Jacob
 2008-10-04, 05:02 #5 kdq     Sep 2008 Santa Clarita CA 11102 Posts Well, that does explain it: it's adaptive. (24 hours and 24 hours to the first question.)

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post fivemack PrimeNet 7 2015-10-15 22:59 QuickCoder Information & Answers 2 2014-09-05 00:19 Unregistered Information & Answers 3 2009-11-21 23:57 Xyzzy PrimeNet 1 2009-04-24 07:50 Orgasmic Troll Software 4 2003-07-19 02:08

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:42.

Thu Feb 2 11:42:47 UTC 2023 up 168 days, 9:11, 1 user, load averages: 1.00, 1.10, 1.06

Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔