OFFICIAL "SERVER PROBLEMS" THREAD

[ATH]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I'm not surprised. I re-did how it's calculated and that part did have me confused. I wasn't sure if an error/suspect result should count as "untested" or not. I should have looked closer at some of the rows that had an example to look at.

I'll check on that again and try to get it fixed up soon, but it may not happen right away.

The NO-LL column is too low by the amount of "LL ERR" so just don't subtract LL ERR from NO-LL if you are doing that, or otherwise add "LL ERR" to "NO-LL".

But yes maybe it is good to check in detail that the calculations are correct.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by S485122

You seem to subtract the number of exponents of the ERR column twice to get the number of untested exponents.

Originally Posted by ATH

In the new table the lines with any LL ERR has the wrong sum (it is correct in the old version). It is the "NO-LL" column that is wrong in the new version:

Thanks ! Your explanation got a result ;-)

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by S485122

Thanks ! Your explanation got a result ;-)

I wasn't ignoring your earlier report of it, I just hadn't got around to checking it yet. ATH just piled on. LOL

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I wasn't ignoring your earlier report of it, I just hadn't got around to checking it yet. ATH just piled on. LOL

Want to get something done? Ask a busy person. Who already has too many toits... 9^)

Thanks, Aaron.

[Madpoo]

Good news... we should be back on track with getting these results coming in like they were prior to Nov 23rd. That should get things reporting correctly again. Be sure to give James a thumbs up for making some changes to make that possible, and possibly opening it up for some future improvements in how those results are submitted.

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by Andrew Usher

It seems the best single place to see the problem and the solution is
https://www.mersenne.ca/userfactors/ecm/recent/bits and page down.

Originally Posted by Madpoo

George just took care of it on the Primenet server. James will need to make any corrective changes on his mersenne.ca site (he's been cc'd on that as well).

Mersenne.ca has been corrected for the false ECM/P-1 TJAOI factors (Query OK, 328 rows affected).

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by tuckerkao

Even the full details of a single exponent without ECMs take 2~3 seconds to load now, it used to be only a fraction of a quarter second.

The report generation has been improved, it shouldn't take more than 0.5s to generate the report for any exponent now.

[LordJulius]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

The report generation has been improved, it shouldn't take more than 0.5s to generate the report for any exponent now.

PrimeNet Exponent Status page only giving "No results matching search parameters" for any search now; also same for links from mersenne.ca

Servers updating?

EDIT: All better. Thx for all the work!

[tuckerkao]

I hope the full details of the exponents can be shown up to 1,000 for the range instead of only under 10.

[kriesel]

Briefly (seems fixed now);
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...=1&swversion=1
showed a recent PRP result in the history section, but no corresponding PRP section.
Similar applied to one which has had proof upload and cert successful: https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by tuckerkao

I hope the full details of the exponents can be shown up to 1,000 for the range instead of only under 10.

If you're trying to query full details of 1000 exponents at once, I think perhaps the data you're looking for might better served by different report. Please start a different thread explaining your use-case, ie what data you're trying to harvest, PM me the thread URL so I know to look at it, and I'll recommend a better way to get the data you seek.