mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-07-19, 12:37   #12
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

41×199 Posts
Default

Prime95 does revert to the last save file. The problem is not with the reported roundoff error - the auto-restart from the last save file ensures that that particular hardware error will not affect your final result. The problem is prime95 cannot detect every hardware error. If you happened to have one of these undetectable hardware errors your final result will be corrupt.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-19, 15:22   #13
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

22×32×151 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeD419 View Post
My question is - If there was an error in the calculation, why doesn't prime have some sort of 'save point', and recalculate from the last known good numbers that it was at?
It did. Don't worry about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeD419 View Post
What am I supposed to do about it?
Nothing. See posts #3 & 4.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-19, 17:48   #14
SeeD419
 
Jul 2011
Omaha, NE

23 Posts
Default

Ohh okay thanks guys. I was a little confused by the screen output.

Okay...so worst case scenario is that I did have a few undetected hardware errors - then what? When I get to the end of the calculation will that be apparent then? Or will I never really know if the result is correct?
SeeD419 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-19, 23:39   #15
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5·359 Posts
Default

You could ask me for (or even do yourself) an LL-D on the same exponent. Be ready to wait a month or two for the result. You could also have it TF'ed a bit further on a GPU on the off (about 1 in 10, at best) chance of proving it composite that way....
Up to you...
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-20, 00:53   #16
LiquidNitrogen
 
LiquidNitrogen's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Henlopen Acres, Delaware

7·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyled View Post
You might want to run the latest IntelBurn test. It's even tougher on the processor than Prime95, and identifies calculation errors in an hour or so.
I'd like to share something that you may find interesting.

One of the computers I built in Dec 2010 was starting to behave oddly in the March 2011 timeframe. I ran every stress test I could think of on it, every hardware diagnostic, and it passed them all, despite a 24x7 gauntlet being thrown at it for about a week.

Then, sure enough, during "normal use," the problem returned, the system rebooted "for no good reason."

Finally, I decided to blame the RAM, but I did not have any of the same rated speed to swap out. So, I wrote the world's simplest RAM testing application in C.

It called malloc() with large chunks (1 GB) until it failed, then in 512 MB chunks until it failed, then 256 MB, 128 MB, all the way down to the last available kilobyte.

Basically, it used every available byte of RAM it could.

And, for every byte that was allocated, I first loop through and set the byte = 0000 0001. Then, I looped around and "read" each byte, making sure the result was == 1. I repeated this for 0000 00010 to 1111 1111.

Sure enough, there were a few "flakey bytes" on one IC somewhere that could not retain their values. While the RAM chip would pass "hardware tests," there was no escaping this "byte-level" test which drilled down to the IC level.

It was just one faulty IC on one of the RAM chips.

I mention all of this because not every "stress test" can find "the exact problem." Sometimes RAM will behave fine on a large scale, but such a microscopic examination will uncover the problem.

If the problem was with my CPU instead of the RAM, this test would be of no help (possibly) in determining the true culprit.

Just something to think about.

Last fiddled with by LiquidNitrogen on 2011-07-20 at 00:55
LiquidNitrogen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-20, 01:02   #17
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

267538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjaj View Post
"Iteration: 25227368/48995293, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40"
That exponent is very close to the upper limit permitted by a 2560-Kdouble FFT, so I'm not surprised to see an occasional ROE > 0.4 error there.

OTOH, the exponent moebius notes for his errors is not near FFT boundary, at least of the kind my code uses (each power-of-2 length interval evenly subdivided into 8 subintervals of form [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]*2^n.) George, is p = 42818549 close to any of the length-breakovers used by your program?

Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2011-07-20 at 01:12
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-20, 02:36   #18
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

41×199 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
George, is p = 42818549 close to any of the length-breakovers used by your program?
Not really, 2240K can handle up to 43,060,000.

If you get roundoffs due being near the FFT size limit, then you usually see the roundoff error of 0.40625 or 0.4375, not 0.5
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-07-20, 03:04   #19
Christenson
 
Christenson's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Monticello

5×359 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidNitrogen View Post
I'd like to share something that you may find interesting.

One of the computers I built in Dec 2010 was starting to behave oddly in the March 2011 timeframe. I ran every stress test I could think of on it, every hardware diagnostic, and it passed them all, despite a 24x7 gauntlet being thrown at it for about a week.

(snip)
That hardware diagnostic include memtest86, which does much the same thing?
Christenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-12, 03:08   #20
Bench
 
Dec 2021

2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christenson View Post
That hardware diagnostic include memtest86, which does much the same thing?
Which module?

Also, I have a similar question: it is possible to do verify cpu calculations, without stress test? Just run the stability calculation test in the background. I want much more stability of my cpu calc.

I've just found that I my cpu never have downclock speed (throttling), rather whan just do incorrect calculations.
Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-15, 20:59   #21
ewmayer
2ω=0
 
ewmayer's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
República de California

5×2,351 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bench View Post
Which module?

Also, I have a similar question: it is possible to do verify cpu calculations, without stress test? Just run the stability calculation test in the background. I want much more stability of my cpu calc.

I've just found that I my cpu never have downclock speed (throttling), rather whan just do incorrect calculations.
You do realize the post you replied to is over 10 years old, yes? Probably better to PM Christenson, if said user is still around/active.
ewmayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-15, 22:00   #22
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

255078 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewmayer View Post
You do realize the post you replied to is over 10 years old, yes?
The reply from this new user you replied to. Days later.

Jolly good fun!

Last fiddled with by chalsall on 2021-12-15 at 22:05 Reason: s/to./to. Days later./ # Kinda weird. Almost attention seeking.
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4. Xyzzy Software 7 2016-12-20 00:01
Lots of roundoff errors TheMawn Software 18 2014-08-16 03:54
Memtest86+ shows no errors but computer crashes with Prime95 TObject Hardware 11 2013-05-09 11:43
Roundoff error bcp19 Software 4 2013-02-14 21:23
Roundoff Error Penalty nevarcds Software 5 2004-08-28 14:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:34.


Fri Feb 3 14:34:45 UTC 2023 up 169 days, 12:03, 1 user, load averages: 1.19, 0.98, 0.96

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
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