![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Oct 2010
F16 Posts |
![]()
I just re-started an old primality test after completing another and Prime 95 is throwing up round off errors:-
"Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4" The other 3 cores of my i7 are running other tests without errors. Should I be concerned? Should I do anything about it? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,127 Posts |
![]()
It is not "throwing up round off errors". It is telling you that you have had one during the course of the LL test. This could be quite normal. Look in results.txt for the actual error message. If the roundoff error was barely over 0.4 (like 0.40625 or .4375, not 0.4997) and the error was reproducible then this is a non-issue.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Oct 2010
3×5 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Actually it's generating the same error report for each successive set of 10,000 iterations. It's not one isolated incident. results.txt only contains a single error report "Iteration: 25227368/48995293, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40" but the screen for that worker reports a new one every 7-8 minutes or so. [Apr 16 17:16] Waiting 10 seconds to stagger worker starts. [Apr 16 17:16] Worker starting [Apr 16 17:16] Setting affinity to run worker on logical CPUs 4,5 [Apr 16 17:16] Resuming primality test of M48995293 using Core2 type-3 FFT length 2560K, Pass1=640, Pass2=4K [Apr 16 17:16] Iteration: 25336590 / 48995293 [51.71%]. [Apr 16 17:16] Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4. [Apr 16 17:16] Confidence in final result is fair. [Apr 16 17:18] Iteration: 25340000 / 48995293 [51.71%]. Per iteration time: 0.039 sec. [Apr 16 17:18] Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4. [Apr 16 17:18] Confidence in final result is fair. [Apr 16 17:25] Iteration: 25350000 / 48995293 [51.73%]. Per iteration time: 0.040 sec. [Apr 16 17:25] Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4. [Apr 16 17:25] Confidence in final result is fair. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Feb 2011
648 Posts |
![]()
See also: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...3&postcount=71
Quote:
Code:
You can control how the "count of errors during this test" message is output with every screen update. These messages only appear if possible hardware errors occur during a test. In prime.txt set: ErrorCountMessages=0, 1, 2, or 3 Value 0 means no messages, value 1 means a very short messages, value 2 means a longer message on a separate line, value 3 means a very long message possibly on multiple lines. Default value is 3. Last fiddled with by S34960zz on 2011-04-16 at 17:48 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Jul 2009
Germany
12658 Posts |
![]()
And what about this mysterious phenomen? At First time LL-Test (with Mprime26.5-linux64 ) of M42818549 running on 1 Worker (core) twelve similar Round OFF Error occured.The other 3 LL Tests who are running on the 3 other cores are without errors.
[Tue Mar 8 07:31:28 2011] Iteration: 18872759/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 07:55:14 2011] Iteration: 18903381/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 08:09:58 2011] Iteration: 18916265/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 08:58:00 2011] Iteration: 18989396/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. Iteration: 18977799/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 10:29:45 2011] Iteration: 19103776/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 11:19:09 2011] Iteration: 19171522/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 21:32:58 2011] Iteration: 19959306/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 21:39:15 2011] Iteration: 19956922/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. Iteration: 19953354/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 21:50:22 2011] Iteration: 19963829/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. [Tue Mar 8 23:32:26 2011] Iteration: 20067548/42818549, ERROR: ROUND OFF (0.5) > 0.40 Continuing from last save file. ..........led to a Suspect LL. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,127 Posts |
![]()
That core looks pretty flaky to me. Any better luck on the next exponent.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Oct 2010
3·5 Posts |
![]()
So just to clarify - what has happened is that there was only one error (so far), but the prime95 worker keeps a cumulative score, and will report the same error every time it logs a new batch of 10,000 iterations on the screen. If there are subsequent errors then they will show up as separate entries in results.txt as in moebius post and the worker would report
"Possible hardware errors have occurred during the test! N ROUNDOFF > 0.4" if N errors occurred? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×4,127 Posts |
![]()
You understand correctly
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Dec 2010
Monticello
70316 Posts |
![]()
Is it worth manually assigning either of these exponents to one of my machines, knocking out some ECM progress?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
May 2010
32×7 Posts |
![]()
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. Crank the memory setting up close to maximum, and it will hit your processor harder than Prime95. I.e. if it passes this stress test, you won't have a hardware issue with running LL tests.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/...BurnTest.shtml |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Jul 2011
Omaha, NE
23 Posts |
![]()
Damnit I've been running this test for so long, and it figures this POS laptop locks up and now Prime spews the error message every line just to remind me about it.
It first occurred at 70%. 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? What am I supposed to do about it? I figured Prime would have some sort of 'checkpoint' it could revert to. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
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 |