OFFICIAL "SERVER PROBLEMS" THREAD - Page 228

James Heinrich · 2023-01-30, 18:11

Wording changed.

S485122 · 2023-02-02, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

One the https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/ "PrimeNet Statistics" page, in the "Exponent Status Distribution" part, the 10M range still has one verified exponent too many, which, by the design of the page gives a negative "Untested" count. (As stated previously in this thread that last count is computed, not tallied).
Probably a wrongly counted PRP or CERT, perhaps about a cofactor.

Now there are 6 ranges with one or more "Verified" exponents too many :

2M -1
8M -1
9M -1
10M -1
14M -6

Andrew Usher · 2023-02-02, 13:47

I count 5 there, not 6, but the problem is evidently some exponents being classified as both 'factored' and 'verified', which are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

For another weird server mistake, look at M111597749, in the milestone list for a long time in what appears to be an abandoned LLDC - but it's not. The LL assignment was completed and returned 2 years ago, but never expired due to being wrongly (no previous test is recorded) classified as a DC. I imagine someone has to submit an actual DC to expire that one.

S485122 · 2023-02-04, 10:52

I believe I have identified the problem, looking at 14M PRP Results Page it is easy to verify that 6 of the "Verified PRP test results" should be in the "Factored PRP test results" section".

The wrongly classified PRP tests concern the following exponents in the 5 (indeed) ranges :

M2014997
M8833439
M9999991
M10000019
M14357429
M14357459
M14357489
M14357507
M14357527
M14357579

They were perhaps malformed attempts at cofactor PRP tests on exponents with factors ? But the result seems to be that the exponents status changed from factored to factored AND verified, and thus being counted twice.

Andrew Usher · 2023-02-04, 13:12

Yes, it appears that PRP tests without known factors were conducted and the server misinterprets these. They should be ignored as redundant - as an LL test would be - since the exponent is already factored.

LordJulius · 2023-02-23, 09:04

Minor thing:
On the Factoring Effort page, search returns 2170 results being factored only up thru 2^66.
Should be 2^67 minimum now, yes?

Andrew Usher · 2023-03-01, 13:05

The Primenet database, unlike mersenne.ca, does not seem to take TJAOI into account. The only
(unfactored) exponents affected are so small the TF level is far below the ECM level, and further TF
should never be considered anyway.

kriesel · 2023-03-08, 18:37

Re the limited support of exponents upon prior request somewhat above 1G on mersenne.org, I have added a list of what I think will currently work or not, based on recent experience, at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...8&postcount=36 in my reference info, and will try to keep it current as support changes.

kriesel · 2023-03-09, 19:13

Default page without a user specified returns no PRP results. https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/
Default page works, if including specifying a user. https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/?user_id=kriesel
But, specifying an exponent range also does not work.
If the user enters a value such as 200M for exponent low, the server forces exponent high to match, in its response.
Requesting PRP results for user kriesel from 200M to 999999937 should give some results for that range, but instead it returns a url and results for 200M to 200M. 200M being composite there are none.
It does this even if the correct url to retrieve over a specified range is pasted into the Firefox browser's URL box instead of using the page's get PRP results button.
In effect, it is treating any exp_lo >2 as get only that exponent, regardless of what the URL or form entries request.

If the exp_hi is reduced to 999999929, results are returned.
That seems more than a little user-unfriendly: we must know what the highest PRP result is, in order to get a listing to show us!

Why would we want to raise exp_lo?
To check on a specific subrange, to ignore lots of low-exponent PRP DC, or to see the upper exponents, if we've done more than 1000 total.

There's also no way to check on exponents added to the database that exceed 1G.

James Heinrich · 2023-03-09, 20:21

Fixed. These should both do what you expect now:
https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/...p_lo=200000000
https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/...p_hi=300000000

kriesel · 2023-03-09, 20:26

Thanks. Can't see M1000000007 though.

2023-03-08, 18:37	#2505
kriesel "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 2·3²·419 Posts	Re the limited support of exponents upon prior request somewhat above 1G on mersenne.org, I have added a list of what I think will currently work or not, based on recent experience, at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...8&postcount=36 in my reference info, and will try to keep it current as support changes. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2023-03-08 at 18:38

2023-03-09, 19:13	#2506
kriesel "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 7542₁₀ Posts	server PRP results detailed report issue Default page without a user specified returns no PRP results. https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/ Default page works, if including specifying a user. https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/?user_id=kriesel But, specifying an exponent range also does not work. If the user enters a value such as 200M for exponent low, the server forces exponent high to match, in its response. Requesting PRP results for user kriesel from 200M to 999999937 should give some results for that range, but instead it returns a url and results for 200M to 200M. 200M being composite there are none. It does this even if the correct url to retrieve over a specified range is pasted into the Firefox browser's URL box instead of using the page's get PRP results button. In effect, it is treating any exp_lo >2 as get only that exponent, regardless of what the URL or form entries request. If the exp_hi is reduced to 999999929, results are returned. That seems more than a little user-unfriendly: we must know what the highest PRP result is, in order to get a listing to show us! Why would we want to raise exp_lo? To check on a specific subrange, to ignore lots of low-exponent PRP DC, or to see the upper exponents, if we've done more than 1000 total. There's also no way to check on exponents added to the database that exceed 1G. Attached Thumbnails Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2023-03-09 at 19:24

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Official "Faits erronés dans de belles-lettres" thread	ewmayer	Lounge	39	2015-05-19 01:08
Official "all-Greek-to-me Fiction Literature and Cinema" Thread	ewmayer	Science & Technology	41	2014-04-16 11:54
Official "Lasciate ogne speranza" whinge-thread	cheesehead	Soap Box	56	2013-06-29 01:42
Official "Ernst is a deceiving bully and George is a meanie" thread	cheesehead	Soap Box	61	2013-06-11 04:30
Official "String copy Statement Considered Harmful" thread	Dubslow	Programming	19	2012-05-31 17:49

2023-01-30, 18:11	#2498
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 2×2,083 Posts	Wording changed.

2023-02-02, 13:47	#2500
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 312₁₀ Posts	I count 5 there, not 6, but the problem is evidently some exponents being classified as both 'factored' and 'verified', which are supposed to be mutually exclusive. For another weird server mistake, look at M111597749, in the milestone list for a long time in what appears to be an abandoned LLDC - but it's not. The LL assignment was completed and returned 2 years ago, but never expired due to being wrongly (no previous test is recorded) classified as a DC. I imagine someone has to submit an actual DC to expire that one.

2023-02-04, 10:52	#2501
S485122 "Jacob" Sep 2006 Brussels, Belgium 77E₁₆ Posts	I believe I have identified the problem, looking at 14M PRP Results Page it is easy to verify that 6 of the "Verified PRP test results" should be in the "Factored PRP test results" section". The wrongly classified PRP tests concern the following exponents in the 5 (indeed) ranges : M2014997 M8833439 M9999991 M10000019 M14357429 M14357459 M14357489 M14357507 M14357527 M14357579 They were perhaps malformed attempts at cofactor PRP tests on exponents with factors ? But the result seems to be that the exponents status changed from factored to factored AND verified, and thus being counted twice.

2023-02-04, 13:12	#2502
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 2³×3×13 Posts	Yes, it appears that PRP tests without known factors were conducted and the server misinterprets these. They should be ignored as redundant - as an LL test would be - since the exponent is already factored.

2023-02-23, 09:04	#2503
LordJulius "Doug K" Aug 2021 California 37₁₀ Posts	Minor thing: On the Factoring Effort page, search returns 2170 results being factored only up thru 2^66. Should be 2^67 minimum now, yes?

2023-03-01, 13:05	#2504
Andrew Usher Dec 2022 470₈ Posts	The Primenet database, unlike mersenne.ca, does not seem to take TJAOI into account. The only (unfactored) exponents affected are so small the TF level is far below the ECM level, and further TF should never be considered anyway.

2023-03-09, 20:21	#2507
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 2×2,083 Posts	Fixed. These should both do what you expect now: https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/...p_lo=200000000 https://www.mersenne.org/report_PRP/...p_hi=300000000

2023-03-09, 20:26	#2508
kriesel "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 1110101110110₂ Posts	Thanks. Can't see M1000000007 though.