mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data > Marin's Mersenne-aries

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-07-29, 13:27   #1563
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

56438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
M59522479 remains "Unverified" so someone else will have to run it again.
Your result was correct: https://mersenne.org/M59522479
ATH is offline  
Old 2017-07-29, 16:18   #1564
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2·839 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Your result was correct: https://mersenne.org/M59522479
I ran another since and it yielded a matching result, Thank you for your efforts!
storm5510 is offline  
Old 2017-07-31, 15:43   #1565
PBMcL
 
PBMcL's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

3E16 Posts
Default

Sorry in advance if this is the wrong thread for this. A couple of days ago the server assigned 40631933 to me for double check. Yesterday an anonymous user turned in a verification for this exponent. However, it is still in my local file as the next assignment. What is the proper procedure to clear this and get a new assignment? Forcing manual communication with the server had no effect.
PBMcL is offline  
Old 2017-07-31, 16:11   #1566
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

B5E16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBMcL View Post
Sorry in advance if this is the wrong thread for this. A couple of days ago the server assigned 40631933 to me for double check. Yesterday an anonymous user turned in a verification for this exponent. However, it is still in my local file as the next assignment. What is the proper procedure to clear this and get a new assignment? Forcing manual communication with the server had no effect.
Stop/quit Prime95/mprime. Remove it from your worktodo.txt and delete the temporary files for the assignment. Start Prime95/mprime.
Mark Rose is offline  
Old 2017-07-31, 16:17   #1567
PBMcL
 
PBMcL's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

1111102 Posts
Default

Thanks, Mark!
--Phil McL.
PBMcL is offline  
Old 2017-08-07, 19:45   #1568
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

1100110011012 Posts
Default New list

Here's an updated list of potentially bad results to do DC's on. The "bad/good" values shown are just for the particular month for that CPU.
Code:
exponent	Bad	Good	worktodo
50895409	2	1	DoubleCheck=50895409,73,1
57805271	2	0	DoubleCheck=57805271,73,1
59133343	2	0	DoubleCheck=59133343,73,1
55232743	2	1	DoubleCheck=55232743,73,1
55570961	2	1	DoubleCheck=55570961,73,1
55858961	2	1	DoubleCheck=55858961,73,1
55859129	2	1	DoubleCheck=55859129,73,1
55864343	2	1	DoubleCheck=55864343,73,1
55868689	2	1	DoubleCheck=55868689,73,1
56084641	2	1	DoubleCheck=56084641,73,1
56084689	2	1	DoubleCheck=56084689,73,1
56535389	2	1	DoubleCheck=56535389,73,1
58314797	2	1	DoubleCheck=58314797,73,1
58317373	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317373,73,1
58317383	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317383,73,1
58317449	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317449,73,1
58317481	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317481,73,1
58317509	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317509,73,1
58317629	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317629,73,1
58317823	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317823,73,1
58317979	2	1	DoubleCheck=58317979,73,1
45933301	1	0	DoubleCheck=45933301,73,1
46055543	1	0	DoubleCheck=46055543,72,1
55360093	1	0	DoubleCheck=55360093,73,1
50543137	1	0	DoubleCheck=50543137,73,1
57380027	1	0	DoubleCheck=57380027,73,1
58243741	1	0	DoubleCheck=58243741,73,1
57405221	1	0	DoubleCheck=57405221,73,1
50892319	1	0	DoubleCheck=50892319,73,1
46451477	1	0	DoubleCheck=46451477,72,1
59932349	1	0	DoubleCheck=59932349,73,1
57338317	1	0	DoubleCheck=57338317,73,1
59150717	1	0	DoubleCheck=59150717,73,1
58845481	1	0	DoubleCheck=58845481,73,1
59574397	1	0	DoubleCheck=59574397,73,1
59342483	1	0	DoubleCheck=59342483,73,1
59342489	1	0	DoubleCheck=59342489,73,1
59343653	1	0	DoubleCheck=59343653,73,1
48733831	1	0	DoubleCheck=48733831,72,1
50113937	1	0	DoubleCheck=50113937,73,1
54364027	1	0	DoubleCheck=54364027,73,1
56069149	1	0	DoubleCheck=56069149,73,1
45769877	1	0	DoubleCheck=45769877,72,1
59693677	1	0	DoubleCheck=59693677,73,1
55132873	1	0	DoubleCheck=55132873,73,1
59870053	1	0	DoubleCheck=59870053,73,1
50397913	1	0	DoubleCheck=50397913,73,1
57436123	1	0	DoubleCheck=57436123,73,1
57441157	1	0	DoubleCheck=57441157,73,1
57966593	1	0	DoubleCheck=57966593,73,1
57966613	1	0	DoubleCheck=57966613,73,1
57966761	1	0	DoubleCheck=57966761,73,1
50885231	1	0	DoubleCheck=50885231,73,1
50890663	1	0	DoubleCheck=50890663,73,1
50891573	1	0	DoubleCheck=50891573,73,1
53454707	1	0	DoubleCheck=53454707,73,1
53461313	1	0	DoubleCheck=53461313,73,1
53552483	1	0	DoubleCheck=53552483,73,1
53591299	1	0	DoubleCheck=53591299,73,1
53611007	1	0	DoubleCheck=53611007,73,1
53653813	1	0	DoubleCheck=53653813,73,1
53661637	1	0	DoubleCheck=53661637,73,1
52890251	1	0	DoubleCheck=52890251,73,1
52898959	1	0	DoubleCheck=52898959,73,1
52907317	1	0	DoubleCheck=52907317,73,1
52939609	1	0	DoubleCheck=52939609,73,1
52940297	1	0	DoubleCheck=52940297,73,1
52975843	1	0	DoubleCheck=52975843,73,1
52977017	1	0	DoubleCheck=52977017,73,1
52982513	1	0	DoubleCheck=52982513,73,1
53488879	1	0	DoubleCheck=53488879,73,1
50178343	1	0	DoubleCheck=50178343,73,1
50548907	1	0	DoubleCheck=50548907,73,1
54357169	1	0	DoubleCheck=54357169,73,1
54710561	1	0	DoubleCheck=54710561,73,1
54750329	1	0	DoubleCheck=54750329,73,1
54884051	1	0	DoubleCheck=54884051,73,1
55919653	1	0	DoubleCheck=55919653,73,1
58998371	1	0	DoubleCheck=58998371,73,1
54481951	1	0	DoubleCheck=54481951,73,1
54481969	1	0	DoubleCheck=54481969,73,1
54483907	1	0	DoubleCheck=54483907,73,1
54524461	1	0	DoubleCheck=54524461,73,1
54537739	1	0	DoubleCheck=54537739,73,1
54538381	1	0	DoubleCheck=54538381,73,1
54626917	1	0	DoubleCheck=54626917,73,1
54631123	1	0	DoubleCheck=54631123,73,1
56047373	1	0	DoubleCheck=56047373,73,1
56069933	1	0	DoubleCheck=56069933,73,1
56074229	1	0	DoubleCheck=56074229,73,1
56077699	1	0	DoubleCheck=56077699,73,1
56078719	1	0	DoubleCheck=56078719,73,1
59690161	1	0	DoubleCheck=59690161,73,1
59708153	1	0	DoubleCheck=59708153,73,1
59711929	1	0	DoubleCheck=59711929,73,1
59712101	1	0	DoubleCheck=59712101,73,1
Madpoo is offline  
Old 2017-08-09, 04:00   #1569
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

68E16 Posts
Default

@Madpoo. I was just looking at the current status of M59712101, (https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...9712101&full=1), which appears in your current list. Other than never having a DC ran in over four years, I do not see anything unusual in the detail. Is there something else that made you feel it was suspect?

Last fiddled with by storm5510 on 2017-08-09 at 04:00
storm5510 is offline  
Old 2017-08-09, 04:45   #1570
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

159310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
...
Other than never having a DC ran in over four years, I do not see anything unusual in the detail. Is there something else that made you feel it was suspect?
If you read the post where that exponent was cited :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpoo View Post
Here's an updated list of potentially bad results to do DC's on. The "bad/good" values shown are just for the particular month for that CPU.
you conclude that the reason that exponent was listed is that the same CPU turned in a bad result the same month it returned the result for the cited exponent.

Jacob
S485122 is offline  
Old 2017-08-09, 15:45   #1571
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

110100011102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S485122 View Post
If you read the post where that exponent was cited :you conclude that the reason that exponent was listed is that the same CPU turned in a bad result the same month it returned the result for the cited exponent.

Jacob
I asked because said exponent has only one LL test. Now, if the same user has other results which were bad, then I see the reason. Otherwise, no.
storm5510 is offline  
Old 2017-08-09, 16:56   #1572
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

37·127 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
I asked because said exponent has only one LL test. Now, if the same user has other results which were bad, then I see the reason. Otherwise, no.
It may not be on a per-user basis, but on a per-device basis or per-instance basis of prime95, cudalucas, virtual core # in manual assignment... Madpoo wrote "for that CPU". Some users run multiple systems. Some systems have multiple cpus. Some (most now) cpus have multiple cores. Prime95 supports multiple worker threads using multiple or single cores each.

I assume Madpoo meant for that primenet computer name (which is prime95 computer name, or all manually reported results lumped under the name Manual test regardless of source for that user); not sure what misfit does, but it's not supported for LL testing; other scripting behavior unknown).

Tracking by system, bad results, can help identify systems less reliable so the issue may be resolved or a failing system removed from service.

What's the current primenet average percentage of bad LL test residues?

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2017-08-09 at 17:07
kriesel is offline  
Old 2017-08-09, 17:12   #1573
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

327710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
I asked because said exponent has only one LL test. Now, if the same user has other results which were bad, then I see the reason. Otherwise, no.
Yeah, that's the point of this little project, is finding the exponents only tested once and try to predict if that solo test was good or bad.

By looking at the CPU's history of bad/good results, we can make some educated guesses on these unknowns.

Without having to re-read all the previous posts, I'll summarize a few of my methods:
  • Look at the overall history of that CPU (not per user as kriesel pointed out, I mainly look at the individual CPU) and figure the bad/good ratio
  • Look at the history of the CPU broken down by month & year (some systems may be fine much of the time but had periods where they put out bad results)
  • Systems where no double-check has ever been done on any of their past results, so they're a total unknown ... preference given when the *user* has a generally bad track record over all of their systems combined although that's not always predictive, but sometimes it's been useful.

Obviously, when the bad/good ratio for a CPU (whether for it's lifetime or on a monthly basis) is high, we've seen our strategic double-checks mismatch that first check in excess of 50% of the time. This is a weird project where we actually hope to get mismatches, because we're hoping to find the bad runs from the past.

When doing the more speculative testing, like doing at least one DC for any system that hasn't had one, even when the user has a generally bad track record I haven't really seen a mismatch rate any higher than the overall average. That said, it's still useful because when we do find those new mismatches, it puts that CPU on our radar and we can do further mining of it's other results.

One of my side projects, that is never-ending, is doing daily checks for any exponents that need a triple-check and getting it done. Besides the ones where I've already done one of the checks, I think there are only about 65 or so outstanding. I've got something like 28 of them queued up and the other 37 are assigned to someone else.

I've even poached some of those triple-check assignments that were abandoned or hadn't progressed at all since being assigned > 30 days ago (usually they're in the "churn zone" in the 45M range, picked up by anonymous users, probably doing stress testing and quitting).

Those triple-checks have helped pick the winner/loser in the previous mismatches. My queries tried to guess the winner in those cases, based on the record of each system involved, but it was only a guess and knowing the real winner/loser is much better.
Madpoo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double-Double Arithmetic Mysticial Software 50 2017-10-30 19:16
Clicking an exponent leads to 404 page marigonzes Information & Answers 2 2017-02-14 16:56
x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th? jasong jasong 7 2015-08-17 10:56
What about double-checking TF/P-1? 137ben PrimeNet 6 2012-03-13 04:01
Double the area, Double the volume. Uncwilly Puzzles 8 2006-07-03 16:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:54.

Mon Nov 23 19:54:53 UTC 2020 up 74 days, 17:05, 3 users, load averages: 2.29, 2.36, 2.47

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.