mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-10-12, 17:12   #1
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11×157 Posts
Default Bad LL-D Success Rate

I was exploring the data on the pretty new website, looking at the top producers. I was curious to see the success rate of double-checks (which isn't entirely fair given that none of us have any control over the integrity of the first test).

A good number of individuals on the top-500 have 100% success and some actually have quite a few attempts as well. Near the bottom, though, we have a number of people with a fairly poor success rate.

Code:
Rank	User			Credit		Att.	Succ.	Succ. %

297	Fretard Loic		709.048		19	15	78.9%
376	Judge Hale		538.735		14	11	78.6%
222	hoannis			1046.126	26	20	76.9%
49	George Woltman		7018.413	165	124	75.2%
387	Fedor Liudogovsky	516.796		12	9	75.0%
294	ChrisS94		713.285		11	8	72.7%
169	C.D.B.			1482.304	38	27	71.1%
450	XZT			439.278		10	7	70.0%
466	xiaoqi			422.77		10	7	70.0%
475	Jacques MOLNE		414.447		10	7	70.0%
390	antkh			514.832		13	9	69.2%
195	Chad Funderburg		1213.372	28	19	67.9%
458	pdazzl			426.524		6	4	66.7%
146	Viacheslav Chernetskiy	1731.953	44	27	61.4%
269	enrico			790.912		19	11	57.9%
271	Dusty			788.94		19	11	57.9%
395	crun			507.278		14	8	57.1%
201	Carsten Kossendey	1156.846	40	20	50.0%
368	outofoptions		550.113		14	7	50.0%
480	Robert_SoCal		410.896		2	1	50.0%
208	MikeBerlin		1099.267	30	14	46.7%
95	MrRoboto		2613.878	61	24	39.3%
61	Hinesp			4770.176	121	27	22.3%
451	CJCorley		437.784		10	2	20.0%
366	Eng_A_Morra		557.149		14	2	14.3%
464	technobuffalos		423.015		10	1	10.0%
400	Zach Devlin		499.994		14	0	0.0%
150	Manpowre		1674.447	10	0	0.0%
Given that the vast majority of people have a >90% success rate it is fairly clear that anyone significantly below that isn't just picking up badly done LL's but is returning bad results.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 17:20   #2
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

659610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Code:
Rank	User			Credit		Att.	Succ.	Succ. %
...
49	George Woltman		7018.413	165	124	75.2%
...
Given that the vast majority of people have a >90% success rate it is fairly clear that anyone significantly below that isn't just picking up badly done LL's but is returning bad results.
So that user is returning bad results? I wonder if he knows anything about computers and programming? :cheeky:

Yeah, I know that isn't a registered smiley, but it should be!
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 17:25   #3
kracker
 
kracker's Avatar
 
"Mr. Meeseeks"
Jan 2012
California, USA

1000011110012 Posts
Default

You only get a success IF your result matches the other computer's result. They might have the bad result.

EDIT: I may be wrong. But this is how I've seen it..

Last fiddled with by kracker on 2014-10-12 at 17:26
kracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 17:36   #4
legendarymudkip
 
legendarymudkip's Avatar
 
Jun 2014

23×3×5 Posts
Default

Manpowre 1674.447 10
This is very high for DCs - looks like almost all of them are LL cat4 sort of size.
legendarymudkip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 18:01   #5
srow7
 
Jul 2014

22×13 Posts
Default

I got this assignment,
which will basically be a quadruple check

I routinely get triple checks.

Exponent Status Data
33371803 No factors below 2^71
33371803 PM1 B1=390000,B2=10335000
33371803 LL Suspect;;Miyahara Shuhei;27C700DC9C27F0__
33371803 LL Unverified;;Matthias M ller;FB325856C46873__
33371803 LL Unverified;2014-08-14;Tan Loe Joo;E1DB914F3F6C76__
33371803 Assigned 2014-01-29;ANONYMOUS;D;expired on 2014-03-30
33371803 Assigned 2014-10-07;srow7;D
33371803 History 2012-09-20;Patrik Johansson;NF;no factor from 2^68 to 2^70
33371803 History 2014-01-24;Chuck;NF;no factor from 2^70 to 2^71
33371803 History 2014-08-14;Tan Loe Joo;C;E1DB914F3F6C76__
srow7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 18:02   #6
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

175318 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
I wonder if he knows anything about computers?
Apparently not

That Haswell was stable (apparently barely) at DDR3-2400 for its first six months. After getting a few roundoff errors, I switched to DC and had several failed attempts at getting it stable again. I'm now running the memory at 2133 and all is well again.

I now permanently have one core of both my Haswells running DC so I can monitor for mismatches (that's why you can now click on the exponent in your account results page to quickly see if the result matched).

EDIT: Do you think I should mark the first 6 months of LL tests as suspect so that they get double-checked right now?

Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 2014-10-12 at 18:06
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 18:16   #7
legendarymudkip
 
legendarymudkip's Avatar
 
Jun 2014

23·3·5 Posts
Default

You can't tell whether they were bad or not. If the machines have a "history" afterwards of being unreliable, I would, but I don't know if that would be the best thing to do.
legendarymudkip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 18:40   #8
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

24×5×7×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
EDIT: Do you think I should mark the first 6 months of LL tests as suspect so that they get double-checked right now?
I would argue it would be better if effort was put into Primenet considered the situation where the DC was actually correct, proven by the TC (or QC), and then correct the percentages for the DC'er (and, potentially, TC'er).

Otherwise, IMO, the "meta stats" as presented by Primenet aren't terribly valuable.

(Personally, I use DCs to ensure the machines I'm responsible for are sane. Such monitoring once determined that a critical machine of mine was close to failing about two months before it actually did. FWTW.)
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-12, 21:10   #9
Xyzzy
 
Xyzzy's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

204748 Posts
Default

Vaguely related:

We wish there was a work option that consisted of double checks and first time work. You would have the option of setting the ratio. Say 1 double check for every 5 first time tests, or whatever you wanted. Taken further, it would be nice if the client checked to see if the double check you turned in matched the original, and then if it didn't, it would somehow alert the user, maybe with a pop-up message, or an email, or something like that.
Xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-13, 05:16   #10
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11·157 Posts
Default

I saw George's name on that list but I didn't think much of it since I know how much trouble he was having with the Haswell. If all is well now then that is good, but the question of whether the other tests by that machine are suspect is maybe valid.

To be honest I wasn't really trying to hint at anything. I tried fairly hard to write another paragraph to make something of the findings but I couldn't really think of anything.


I was wondering if there was a mechanism in place to say "Hey, this computer isn't particularly reliable" but it twigged right away that there is. It's called "reliability"
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-10-13, 05:31   #11
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kracker View Post
You only get a success IF your result matches the other computer's result. They might have the bad result.

EDIT: I may be wrong. But this is how I've seen it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
I would argue it would be better if effort was put into Primenet considered the situation where the DC was actually correct, proven by the TC (or QC), and then correct the percentages for the DC'er (and, potentially, TC'er).

Otherwise, IMO, the "meta stats" as presented by Primenet aren't terribly valuable.
I like the phrasing "meta stats" because that's exactly what I'm doing. I too question the value of some of the numbers because I've essentially given bias to the people lucky enough to only pick up good first-LL results for DC.

1. How can I look up the exponents for which I have returned a mismatched DC?

2. Does Primenet internally distinguish between "mismatch" and "incorrect" for residues?

3. Would it be valuable to change the headers in the top-500 reports to contain "Attempts" "Matches" "Mismatches" and "Incorrect" to help us see what's going on? I can think of no way to check which of George's 41 mismatches ended up being errors on his end, errors on someone else's end, or still unknown (i.e. a TC is pending).


Kracker brings up a point I tried to address. Primenet only currently gives a "success" if you get a matched residue, not if you get the correct one. Your 100% stable computer can get a "failure" because the original LL test returned a bad residue.

However, because of the overwhelming mass of 90% success rates and higher, it seems that there aren't all that many bad first LL's and it would be very unlucky for George to get 41 bad ones yet for me to only get 2 and for a bunch to have none at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by legendarymudkip View Post
Manpowre 1674.447 10
This is very high for DCs - looks like almost all of them are LL cat4 sort of size.
You know, I was too concerned over his 0 / 10 to pay any attention to the size of the exponents. He's been quiet on the forums lately but he was pretty big into his GPU's. I wonder if he was using them to double check some of his own big LL's and ran into some issues.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFS success probability in practice paul0 Factoring 2 2015-02-23 03:55
Another success (not)! ATH Data 133 2012-03-09 17:19
Success again?!? ATH Data 80 2011-11-15 11:40
Success?... (M46 related) lycorn News 631 2010-05-26 10:33
Success edorajh Lounge 5 2004-08-15 16:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:09.


Mon Sep 26 16:09:33 UTC 2022 up 39 days, 13:38, 1 user, load averages: 2.24, 2.14, 2.22

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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