mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-04-23, 12:21   #1
sixblueboxes
 
sixblueboxes's Avatar
 
Feb 2013
Charlotte, North Carolina

1F16 Posts
Default What is a "suspect" result

http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...5936641&full=1

Says my "C" result was "suspect". What does that mean?
sixblueboxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 13:25   #2
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

426710 Posts
Default

Throughout the test, Prime95 does some self-checks to see if you're making good results. If one or more of these checks show some problems, your test may be considered "suspect", which means that it is more likely to have errors than a typical test. Just like any test, it will eventually be independently double-checked until two matching tests happen.
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 16:14   #3
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

329310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixblueboxes View Post
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...5936641&full=1

Says my "C" result was "suspect". What does that mean?
Ditto what mini-geek said.

In your case, the client reported this an error code of 07000800

I'm not familiar with what the different bits in the error code signify. Specifically, the last 4 hexits: If the error code ends with 0001 or 0100 I guess it's slightly more reliable... if those last 4 are "0000" then it's actually marked as unverified/clean. The first 4 must be related to some other non-critical errors encountered during the run.

George has probably already explained somewhere in the past what those indicate.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 17:37   #4
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11·157 Posts
Default

How does a person look into their error code? I have a suspect run of my own on a machine that has been running clear for quite a while. I am waiting for the triple-check but I really don't like the idea of having a not 100% machine.

FYI: http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...4246697&full=1
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 18:46   #5
TObject
 
TObject's Avatar
 
Feb 2012

1100101012 Posts
Cool

• Go to “Reports–Detailed Reports–LL Results”
• In the second “Exponent range” box put 999999999.
• Activate the “Display results for user name” radio button.
• Uncheck the “Exclude known bad results” and “Exclude results with known factor” check boxes.
• Check the “Exclude verified results” check box.
• Click the “Get LL Data” button.

Then check out the “Error code (if any) column in the unverified test results grid.

HTH
TObject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 18:49   #6
TObject
 
TObject's Avatar
 
Feb 2012

34·5 Posts
Default

For a particular exponent, you can just do this:
www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=34246697&exp_hi=34246697
TObject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 19:02   #7
TObject
 
TObject's Avatar
 
Feb 2012

34×5 Posts
Default

The error code “00000100” or "00000200" means your memory could be fried. Try running Memtest86 (I prefer the one without “plus”) for a couple of days non-stop.

If the memory is fine, maybe you had a misfortune of cosmic particle flipping some data during the test.
TObject is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 20:18   #8
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

2×5×167 Posts
Default

A reminder for the significance of error codes from a post by George Woltman (http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...0&postcount=12)

Jacob

error code = AABBCCDD (in hex)

AA = top bit on means "test was started using a version that did not count errors", remaining 7 bits is count of errors that were reproducible

BB = count of ILLEGAL SUMOUTS

CC = count of round off > 0.4 errors

DD = count of SUM(IMPUTS) != SUM (OUTPUTS)

Last fiddled with by S485122 on 2015-04-23 at 20:20 Reason: I always have to edit "or" instead of "of" this time around
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 21:45   #9
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

37×89 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S485122 View Post
A reminder for the significance of error codes from a post by George Woltman (http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...0&postcount=12)

Jacob

error code = AABBCCDD (in hex)

AA = top bit on means "test was started using a version that did not count errors", remaining 7 bits is count of errors that were reproducible

BB = count of ILLEGAL SUMOUTS

CC = count of round off > 0.4 errors

DD = count of SUM(IMPUTS) != SUM (OUTPUTS)
Good info. According to that and what the code does when a result is checked in, if there's only 1 error in either CC or DD then it'll still get checked in as clean if that's the first time check.

I can't be sure, but if it's a double-check and it doesn't match the first-time residue, the one with any kind of non-zero error at all will be marked suspect (or if both had some kind of error, both are marked suspect I think).

For example, in the case of The Mawn's result, it logged and error of 00000100. Had that been a first time check it wouldn't have batted an eye, but since it mismatched the first check The Mawn's entry is marked suspect. Nothing personal... the first one could very well have been the bad one.

It's assigned for a triple-check now so you'll know soon enough. Fingers crossed that yours is the winner.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-23, 23:41   #10
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11×157 Posts
Default

Aight thanks.

This one was a bit different. I went back through the logs to see what went wrong. Roundoff was 0.5 and it just straight up went back to the save file as opposed to re-attempting the iteration. This leads me to believe hope that the error was fixed and that nothing else is wrong.

The computer MawnRVE has returned two double-checks since and they match. I know which worker / which core was in charge of the problematic assignment so I'll be keeping an eye on it. At any rate, roundoff = 0.5 is proof that stability isn't exactly 100%. The likelihood of me getting a corrected error while working on an exponent that had a bad residue isn't something I'm holding my breath for either.


Would anyone here like to queue 57499583, 57517877, 57557993 and 57568403 for a double-check? These are first-time LL tests that were running on that CPU at the time of the error and I would like to know sooner rather than later if anything else blew up.

Last fiddled with by TheMawn on 2015-04-23 at 23:45
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-04-24, 03:52   #11
cuBerBruce
 
cuBerBruce's Avatar
 
Aug 2012
Mass., USA

2×3×53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Would anyone here like to queue 57499583, 57517877, 57557993 and 57568403 for a double-check? These are first-time LL tests that were running on that CPU at the time of the error and I would like to know sooner rather than later if anything else blew up.
I'll be willing to do the first one, 57499583 (or one of the other ones), if you're willing to do a "triple check" of M51903653.
cuBerBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!" wildrabbitt Miscellaneous Math 11 2015-03-06 08:17
mfaktX result: "found 1 factor for M" swl551 GPU Computing 2 2012-12-20 15:20
Intermittent (?) "result not needed" apsen PrimeNet 4 2011-09-22 17:47
Can "Recent Result" list be longer? ATH PrimeNet 1 2011-07-08 14:48
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier? nitai1999 Software 7 2004-08-26 18:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:00.

Mon May 17 20:00:35 UTC 2021 up 39 days, 14:41, 0 users, load averages: 2.57, 2.79, 2.69

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.