Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2017-10-11, 21:58 #1321 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 55 Posts Please try again
2017-10-12, 09:12   #1322
ramgeis

Apr 2013

22·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich Please try again
Submitting a factor seems to work again.
Thanks...

 2017-11-03, 20:43 #1323 GP2     Sep 2003 29·89 Posts One of my machines was assigned the same exponent 2538959 twice in a row for a PRP-CF test, resulting in a self-double-check. This exponent stood out among the rest because it was out of the usual sequence: it was assigned a PRP-CF test because a new factor was discovered. The other exponents in worktodo were in the 3.1M range and hadn't had a first-time test on Primenet yet. When the first PRP test completed, the exact same assignment (with same residue type 5) was assigned again, as part of the same communication with the server! I noticed a few cases like that for Oliver Kruse and others doing PRP-CF tests, but until now I thought maybe they did a self-verify on purpose. Here is the extract from prime.log, where the result is sent in for the old assignment, and then the new assignment is made at the same time: Code: [Thu Nov 2 13:19:37 2017 - ver 29.4] Sending result to server: UID: GP2/c4.xlarge, M2538959/25110366968391401/26621637266814029887 is not prime. Type-5 RES64: A87DC36CC4F0C31E. Wg8: 5D905E14,1247745,00000000, AID: 7014D24D0BF69D360E9EBE83BFF9888C PrimeNet success code with additional info: PRP test successfully completes double-check of M2538959 -- CPU credit is 0.1761 GHz-days. Getting assignment from server PrimeNet success code with additional info: Server assigned PRP work. Got assignment A6AAED2F0142C4EE83C068749B5D39BB: PRP M2538959 Sending expected completion date for M2538959: Nov 3 2017 Sending expected completion date for M3227717: Nov 2 2017 And results.txt: Here is results.txt: Code: c4.xlarge-prp/i-03aa0960019cf8075/results.txt:{"status":"C", "exponent":2538959, "known-factors":"25110366968391401,26621637266814029887", "worktype":"PRP-3", "res64":"A87DC36CC4F0C31E", "residue-type":5, "fft-length":131072, "shift-count":1247745, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"5D905E14", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"29.4", "build":2, "port":8}, "timestamp":"2017-11-02 13:19:37", "errors":{"gerbicz":0}, "user":"GP2", "computer":"c4.xlarge", "aid":"7014D24D0BF69D360E9EBE83BFF9888C"} c4.xlarge-prp/i-03aa0960019cf8075/results.txt:{"status":"C", "exponent":2538959, "known-factors":"25110366968391401,26621637266814029887", "worktype":"PRP-3", "res64":"A87DC36CC4F0C31E", "residue-type":5, "fft-length":131072, "shift-count":2364730, "error-code":"00000000", "security-code":"5D905E14", "program":{"name":"Prime95", "version":"29.4", "build":3, "port":8}, "timestamp":"2017-11-03 15:34:04", "errors":{"gerbicz":0}, "user":"GP2", "computer":"c4.xlarge", "aid":"A6AAED2F0142C4EE83C068749B5D39BB"} The same flaw has probably existed all along for LL assignments, it's just much less likely to happen. Right now there are only a handful of us doing PRP-CF tests, with two of us doing the bulk of them, and new assignments for exponents below the wavefront get sent whenever a new factor is discovered, so it's much more likely to happen. Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2017-11-03 at 20:44
2017-11-03, 21:35   #1324
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

713810 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 One of my machines was assigned the same exponent 2538959 twice in a row for a PRP-CF test, resulting in a self-double-check..
Actually, there is SQL code in place to prevent assigning double-checks to the same user that did the first test. I believe that code is working.

Your bug was in the SQL code that classifies the next work needed on the exponent. On your first test, you returned a type-5 residue that matched the type-5 residue returned when there was one fewer factor. Your result classified the exponent as double-checked. The SQL code that classifies the next work type for the exponent was not expecting just one row marked as double-checked and classified the exponent as needing a first-time test rather than needing ECM.

Short version: bug fixed.

 2017-11-04, 19:25 #1325 ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter     "Danny" Dec 2002 California 44048 Posts I recently requested that a P-1 result be manually added because PrimeNet keeps complaining that it wasn't needed. However, I still don't see it after almost two weeks. Is there some sort of administrative backlog? If manually updating the database isn't practical, then I fully understand, but can someone at least let me know instead of never responding to my thread? Last fiddled with by ixfd64 on 2017-11-04 at 19:37
2017-11-04, 20:28   #1326
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

2·43·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ixfd64 If manually updating the database isn't practical, then I fully understand, but can someone at least let me know instead of never responding to my thread?
Lack of response usually means the 2 or 3 people with access to the server are not real interested in fixing or the effort was too great.

When I looked at it the first time, I found it too tedious to manually generate the needed rows.

Today, I figured out a much easier shortcut. I deleted the factor and re-submitted the result using manual forms. I don't think that will cause any problems, we'll see.....

 2017-11-04, 20:54 #1327 ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter     "Danny" Dec 2002 California 90416 Posts Thanks, George. This is much appreciated!
 2017-11-06, 16:23 #1328 GP2     Sep 2003 29×89 Posts Some exponents have a long list of expired assignments in red, which slows down display of the status. Especially the smaller exponents, which can have a lot of expired "factor ECM small" assignments. These are mostly of historical interest and could be omitted by default. In other words, how about changing the checkbox from: Include full ECM history (every "no-factor ECM" result) to Include full history (every "no-factor ECM" result, every expired ECM assignment) By default, we already omit completed NF-ECM assignments from the display, so why do we display uncompleted (expired) ECM assignments? They should be controlled by the same checkbox. Actually, it might even be desirable to omit all the red lines by default (all expired assignments, whether ECM or not). But at least omitting "factor ECM small" by default would be a good start. Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2017-11-06 at 16:24
2017-11-06, 20:16   #1329
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

29×113 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by GP2 Some exponents have a long list of expired assignments in red, which slows down display of the status. Especially the smaller exponents, which can have a lot of expired "factor ECM small" assignments. These are mostly of historical interest and could be omitted by default <....> Actually, it might even be desirable to omit all the red lines by default (all expired assignments, whether ECM or not). But at least omitting "factor ECM small" by default would be a good start.
Maybe it could exclude expired assignments by default with a checkbox to enable them if someone were so inclined.

Yeah, I'm not sure how much value is added by showing expired stuff by default, but I can imagine there'd be times when so-and-so would want to look at the full assignment history. Maybe the next prime will be discovered and someone will look back at that and say "oh man, so-and-so had this assignment but never worked on it" and we can all laugh at them.

(M74207281 has an expired assignment, but it was assigned after we'd made the discovery... not sure how that happened, it shouldn't have gone out as an assignment).

 2017-11-06, 21:28 #1330 Mark Rose     "/X\(‘-‘)/X\" Jan 2013 1011001110002 Posts I like to see expired LL/TF assignments so I have a good idea if I'm about to get poached if I'm manually reserving an assignment.
2017-11-07, 06:57   #1331
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·2,399 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo Maybe it could exclude expired assignments by default with a checkbox to enable them if someone were so inclined.
Not even a checkbox, a more aethestic version (IMO) would be a single line with something like "x expired assignments (click to expand)", which expansion would replace said line.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ewmayer Lounge 39 2015-05-19 01:08 ewmayer Science & Technology 41 2014-04-16 11:54 cheesehead Soap Box 56 2013-06-29 01:42 cheesehead Soap Box 61 2013-06-11 04:30 Dubslow Programming 19 2012-05-31 17:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:26.

Tue Oct 27 00:26:11 UTC 2020 up 46 days, 21:37, 0 users, load averages: 2.10, 1.83, 1.80