Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2015-04-11, 00:24 #925 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 57258 Posts Odd factor-with-no-factor result noted on M48585853 (also xml) edit: there's a bunch of them... found so far: 48585853 48808681 48813043 48819677 48824753 48881629 48917471 48964859 49050139 49167337 Not all the same user, but all in the same range, presumably a server error of some kind when those results were submitted? PS: this one has a malformed NF result: 49305689 Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2015-04-11 at 00:56
2015-04-11, 01:07   #926
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

2×1,637 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich Odd factor-with-no-factor result noted on M48585853 (also xml) edit: there's a bunch of them... found so far: 48585853 48808681 48813043 48819677 48824753 48881629 48917471 48964859 49050139 49167337 Not all the same user, but all in the same range, presumably a server error of some kind when those results were submitted?
Just checked the data:
• 241 entries for factor found by P-1 and missing the actual text from the client
• 81 entries for factor found by ECM but missing the client text
• 18 entries for NO factor found by TF but missing the client text

The actual factor found was still recorded, it's just missing the actual text from the client showing the client info, factor, how far factored, etc.

The dates of those entries are generally in a narrow time period from Nov 10, 2008 to Nov 30, 2008 with a few outliers from late October 2008.

Nothing too common with all of them except they all appear to come from the manual results page.

Would anyone care for a list of those exponents and what method was used to find the factor (tf/p-1/ecm) ? Or is knowing the factor itself is peachy?

Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 2015-04-11 at 01:12 Reason: Fixed the types of results missing the text

2015-04-11, 01:11   #927
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

CCA16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich PS: this one has a malformed NF result: 49305689
The recorded text from the client on that one is simply:
" [UNASSIGNED]"

Must have been something going on with the text parser at the time. That one was from the same time frame as the others, Oct 27, 2008.

2015-04-11, 01:37   #928
James Heinrich

"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

13·233 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo ...it's just missing the actual text from the client showing the client info, factor, how far factored, etc.
If you're able to, can you twiddle the database to replace all the invalid "Factor: <nothing>" reports with "Factor: <factor>". The XML report at least already shows the user/date/method, just missing the actual factor:
Code:
<result dateReceived="2008-11-24 21:04" userName="TMarshall" resultType="F" resultText="factored by trial factoring">
<resultMessage>Factor: </resultMessage>
</result>

 2015-04-11, 15:45 #929 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 13·233 Posts Another type of not-useful result for M58182017 (xml). Note the "no factor" result that doesn't say no factor between what and what bitlevels, just "no factor". Same on: 58634963, 58182017, 58866581 Variant "no factor [UNASS" on 58155389, 59223029 Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2015-04-11 at 16:17
 2015-04-11, 16:25 #930 TheMawn     May 2013 East. Always East. 172710 Posts No factors?!?! It must be prime then!!!1
 2015-04-11, 22:20 #931 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 13·233 Posts Some exponents have factors displayed incorrectly: e.g. http://www.mersenne.org/M66362159: Code: result: M66362159 has a factor 124246422648815633 display: Factor: 159 Also noticed on M66001631 and M66000007. Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2015-04-11 at 22:21
2015-04-11, 23:20   #932
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

2·1,637 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich Another type of not-useful result for M58182017 (xml). Note the "no factor" result that doesn't say no factor between what and what bitlevels, just "no factor". Same on: 58634963, 58182017, 58866581 Variant "no factor [UNASS" on 58155389, 59223029
Yeah, those are all in that same timeframe of late October/early November 2008.

The result text as recorded in the DB is either blank or contains "[UNASSIGNED]" of all things.

Between you and George, do you think it would be easier to "fix" the weird DB entries, or change the "pretty" parsing to handle cases like that better?

For my money it's probably easier to correct the DB entries and try to fill it in with the basics of what the client probably had in there, although that won't always be the case.

Where it's a "no factor found" type of result, there's no way to know what the client sent in terms of "from bit X to bit Y", just that it didn't find any factor. I wonder if that log entry is meaningful at all in those cases and what to do about that.

For the ones where a factor was recorded but that log text is missing, we could at least "fill in" the info the client *should* have included, like the user/cpu info, the actual factor for whatever exponent, perhaps the app string. But to keep it simple maybe just the bare minimum to have it parse correctly.

 2015-04-11, 23:24 #933 chalsall If I May     "Chris Halsall" Sep 2002 Barbados 2×4,657 Posts Something's up with Primenet. Spidy's been reporting errors since 2235. Code: 20150411_223501 INFO: Get Manual Work spider starting... 20150411_223521 ERR : Bad response: 500 read timeout
 2015-04-11, 23:26 #934 lycorn     Sep 2002 Oeiras, Portugal 23×52×7 Posts Anything wrong with mersenne.org? I can´t get to the site, although I´m able to access any other site at will. (Seems like chalsall has beaten me to it...) Last fiddled with by lycorn on 2015-04-11 at 23:26
2015-04-11, 23:27   #935
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

22·1,789 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo The result text as recorded in the DB is either blank or contains "[UNASSIGNED]" of all things. Between you and George, do you think it would be easier to "fix" the weird DB entries, or change the "pretty" parsing to handle cases like that better?
You could delete the meaningless DB entry. That would make the result just like all results up to November 2008 -- the result text was not recorded.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ewmayer Lounge 39 2015-05-19 01:08 ewmayer Science & Technology 41 2014-04-16 11:54 cheesehead Soap Box 56 2013-06-29 01:42 cheesehead Soap Box 61 2013-06-11 04:30 Dubslow Programming 19 2012-05-31 17:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:46.

Fri Sep 25 00:46:18 UTC 2020 up 14 days, 21:57, 0 users, load averages: 1.59, 1.39, 1.38