mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Lone Mersenne Hunters > LMH > 100M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-05-17, 17:39   #628
TObject
 
TObject's Avatar
 
Feb 2012

34·5 Posts
Cool

aurashift, your usslcburnin57 reports as anonymous user. You may want to check that out.
TObject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-22, 13:44   #629
Lorenzo
 
Lorenzo's Avatar
 
Aug 2010
Republic of Belarus

2628 Posts
Default

Intresting thing.

For last exponent that already tested by aurashift:
Code:
2016-05-22	aurashift	C	70BD2A34463E69__
2016-03-19	aurashift	NF	no factor from 2^76 to 2^77
2016-03-08	aurashift	NF-PM1	B1=3165000, B2=104445000, E=12
2015-02-05	Jacques MOLNE	NF	no factor from 2^75 to 2^76
2015-02-02	Jacques MOLNE	NF	no factor from 2^74 to 2^75
2015-01-28	Xebecer	NF	no factor from 2^73 to 2^74
2013-01-25	LaurV	NF	no factor from 2^72 to 2^73
2011-06-12	rduerr	NF	no factor from 2^68 to 2^71
2010-04-03	Team_Inspector	NF	no factor from 2^67 to 2^68
TF test from 71 to 72 was skipped.

I checked this diapason and didn't find factor ... But why it possible and Prime95 starting LL test.

And finally ... When i tried to upload reuslt it said me:
Code:
Found 1 lines to process.
processing: TF no-factor for M332402051 (2^71-2^72)
Error code: 40, error text: TF result for M332402051 was not needed
But result was uploaded.

Could someone explain it?

http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...2402051&full=1
Lorenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-22, 14:38   #630
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

5×787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorenzo View Post
TF test from 71 to 72 was skipped.
Actually, it wasn't skipped.

I think it's a side effect of how the results log is displayed on mersenne.org when two results exist with identical timestamps. In this example, LaurV submitted both 71-72, and 72-73, at the same timestamp of 2013-01-25T06:47:00. You can see this on the mersenne.ca page for M332402051.
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-22, 16:49   #631
Lorenzo
 
Lorenzo's Avatar
 
Aug 2010
Republic of Belarus

2×89 Posts
Default

Ahhh, yes. Anyway it looks like bug on mersenne.org that should be fixed.
Lorenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-23, 01:40   #632
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

2·47·109 Posts
Default

Ha! Was it me again?!
This is side effect of Misfit reporting the results in buckets, every hour or so, and not when they are found (which is good, otherwise we would need to connect to the server every few seconds, to send a couple of bytes).

Now, I think the problem should be easily fixed (temporarily) by you or Madpoo, just query the db for results with same time stamp [edit: for the same exponent], and move one or the other few seconds up or down. In the future, this phenomenon will be rarer and rarer as we progress to higher bitlevels, so a "firmware" fix is not very imperative. If you remember, in the past I suspected this might be the case for some exponents from the "skipped bitlevels" project, the work was done, but not shown in the DB, and we did it again. [edit: the work for bitlevel 58 or so, we did it triple times actually, considering Tjaoi's work]

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-05-23 at 02:09
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-05-25, 02:22   #633
aurashift
 
Jan 2015

11·23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TObject View Post
aurashift, your usslcburnin57 reports as anonymous user. You may want to check that out.
Oops. Thank you.
aurashift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-04, 19:32   #634
aurashift
 
Jan 2015

11·23 Posts
Default

http://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/332232893

51 days
aurashift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-12, 22:28   #635
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11·47 Posts
Default

I did some hardware testing for further contributions to the 100M range:

108 days for a 100M test on a Fury X.
($629, 200/220W during test - 518.4kWh , $52/test in power - $115/test over three years)
vs.
82 days on a GTX1080-FE
($699, 110/180W during test - 216.48kWh, $22/test in power - $75/test over three years)
vs.
55 days on a TitanBlack
(~$500 used, 247/250W during test - 326kWh, $33/test in power - $58/test over three years)
vs.
52 days on an E5-2698v3 16-core Xeon with Quad-Channel DDR4.
($5000+, 110W during test - 137.28kWh, $13/test in power - $251/test over three years)



That Xeon has a result due in 13 hours :) Those new GPUs are starting to look tempting though....

Last fiddled with by airsquirrels on 2016-06-12 at 22:31
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-12, 22:57   #636
James Heinrich
 
James Heinrich's Avatar
 
"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

5·787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airsquirrels View Post
Those new GPUs are starting to look tempting though....
If you have access to a GTX 1080 and/or 1070 I would really appreciate cudalucas and mfaktc benchmarks.
James Heinrich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-12, 23:30   #637
airsquirrels
 
airsquirrels's Avatar
 
"David"
Jul 2015
Ohio

11×47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Heinrich View Post
If you have access to a GTX 1080 and/or 1070 I would really appreciate cudalucas and mfaktc benchmarks.
mfaktc isn't working quite right yet since it requires cuda-8.0, which still has a bug. I'm working with Oliver on that, but my results were showing 1071 GhzDay/Day at 75 bits on a test build of 0.22.

Code:
|  Jun 12  19:26:44  |  M57885161     10000  0x76c27556683cd84d  |  3136K  0.19141   2.7796   27.79s  |   1:20:41:15   0.01%  |
|  Jun 12  19:27:13  |  M57885161     20000  0xfd8e311d20ffe6ab  |  3136K  0.18750   2.8876   28.87s  |   1:21:32:50   0.03%  |
|  Jun 12  19:27:43  |  M57885161     30000  0xce0d85ab0065a232  |  3136K  0.18750   3.0057   30.05s  |   1:22:27:41   0.05%  |
|  Jun 12  19:28:14  |  M57885161     40000  0x6746379dfc966410  |  3136K  0.17969   3.0245   30.24s  |   1:22:59:22   0.06%  |
|  Jun 12  19:28:44  |  M57885161     50000  0xa5797ceaebc59091  |  3136K  0.17773   3.0120   30.12s  |   1:23:15:46   0.08%  |

Using threads: square 256, splice 128.
Starting M74207281 fft length = 4096K
|   Date     Time    |   Test Num     Iter        Residue        |    FFT   Error     ms/It     Time  |       ETA      Done   |
|  Jun 12  19:31:06  |  M74207281     10000  0xaa08c91f2f626775  |  4096K  0.10938   3.4714   34.71s  |   2:23:32:52   0.01%  |
|  Jun 12  19:31:43  |  M74207281     20000  0xa216434787875d0f  |  4096K  0.10938   3.6575   36.57s  |   3:01:27:21   0.02%  |
|  Jun 12  19:32:21  |  M74207281     30000  0x35b1ad9d5eba82cb  |  4096K  0.10938   3.7899   37.89s  |   3:02:59:40   0.04%  |
|  Jun 12  19:32:58  |  M74207281     40000  0x7c7f3019c13f21ca  |  4096K  0.11719   3.7631   37.63s  |   3:03:37:12   0.05%  |

Last fiddled with by airsquirrels on 2016-06-12 at 23:30
airsquirrels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-06-20, 17:11   #638
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

2A2516 Posts
Default

Here is the status report for the range from 332192831 to 332399999 (plus other data out to 332999999):

Code:
Date of data				2016/06/20
Average bit depth for first 100 expos	79.22
Average bit depth for first 1000 expos	78.66
Average bit depth for first 5000 expos	76.74
Average bit depth for first 10000 expos	75.94
100th active expo (no factor found)	332198443
1000th active expo (no factor found)	332247691
5000th active expo (no factor found)	332451953
10000th active expo (no factor found)	332701157
Unitless total effort number		552,321,024
Number of first 100 expos to 2^79	100
Number of first 1000 expos to 2^78	882
Number of first 5000 expos to 2^77	2163
Number of first 10000 expos to 2^76	4329
Number left in (classic) range		3988

(The range from 332192831 to 332399999 has less than 4000 left, the range to 332599999 has less than 8000 left, and the range to 332999999 has less than 16000 left.)

Estimated expos in range to be removed	102
(by taking all expos to 2^79)
Estimated expos in range to be removed	240
(by taking all expos to 2^82)
Code:
Bit	# at bit level
75	505
76	1395
77	722
78	383
79	771
80	115
81	92
82	2
83	1
84	0
85	2
P-1     731
The range to 332599999 is all at 75 bits or higher.
In rummaging around my HD last night I ran across an early 100M Digit Prefactor Project status graph. The file date is 2004-09-08. That is on the left. On the right is a current graph that covers more than that range. Note the scales on both.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	100mstat.gif
Views:	167
Size:	12.5 KB
ID:	14545   Click image for larger version

Name:	100mdstatus-160620.png
Views:	164
Size:	5.7 KB
ID:	14546  
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPU72 / MISFIT use for 100M digit range? Uncwilly GPU to 72 64 2013-03-31 02:45
I want a 100M digit Mersenne that.... JuanTutors PrimeNet 8 2012-12-06 13:47
How far along are you in your 100M digit LL test? JuanTutors Lounge 6 2012-02-21 07:36
100M-digit n/k pairs __HRB__ Riesel Prime Search 0 2010-05-22 01:17
100M digit prime Unregistered Information & Answers 10 2010-03-24 20:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:10.


Wed Dec 7 10:10:35 UTC 2022 up 111 days, 7:39, 0 users, load averages: 0.74, 0.95, 0.97

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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