Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-10-01, 18:17 #1981 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 4,751 Posts Manual submission of an LL result advises to upgrade to v30.3 (the current version for prime95 or mprime). Even when the result line submitted clearly indicated it was from CUDALucas, for which the current version is v2.06, supporting neither Jacobi check for LL, nor PRP nor GEC nor PRP proof. (And in this case since CUDALucas does not include user/cpu/gpu info in the result line, the server has no way to know whether the gpu involved is compatible with gpuowl.) Code:  M( 161000009 )C, 0xcb6eec7da5fc040a, offset = 9507, n = 9216K, CUDALucas v2.06beta Some branching based on application indicated in the result seems in order, to avoid recommending upgrading GPU applications to a cpu app version number. All prime95 instances feasible have been upgraded to prime95 v30.3 already here. But the various gpu applications are not prime95. Attached Thumbnails   Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-01 at 18:20
2020-10-01, 18:50   #1982
James Heinrich

"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

7×457 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel Manual submission of an LL result advises to upgrade to v30.3 .. even when the result line submitted clearly indicated it was from CUDALucas Some branching based on application indicated in the result seems in order, to avoid recommending upgrading GPU applications to a cpu app version number.
Thanks, the warning check should be more selective now. Please let me know if you get any further inappropriate warnings.

 2020-10-09, 17:25 #1983 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 112178 Posts Certs and countdowns to first-test milestones The form that produces https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...xtf=1&exdchk=1 needs an exclude CERTS check box. Certs are a type of brief PRP DC and throw off the count of first tests active before reaching a milestone exponent level. But Certs are included in the list and count even when exclude double checks is in effect. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-09 at 17:25
 2020-10-09, 17:57 #1984 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 5·1,787 Posts Yet again we have someone taking 100's of exponents for TF down in the DC Cat 0-1 range. The user "Hacker" has over 700 assignments in the 53-53M range and the lowest ETA is over 4.5 years. It might be time for honest contributors to ignore any TF assignments in DC Cat 0-2. Or give up on working the bottom and work elsewhere.
2020-10-09, 18:20   #1985
Prime95
P90 years forever!

Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

160708 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly Yet again we have someone taking 100's of exponents for TF down in the DC Cat 0-1 range. The user "Hacker" has over 700 assignments in the 53-53M range and the lowest ETA is over 4.5 years. It might be time for honest contributors to ignore any TF assignments in DC Cat 0-2. Or give up on working the bottom and work elsewhere.
A weird case. User account created in 2011, so it seems unlikely that this is a mischief maker. Requests were from prime95 because expected completion dates were sent. At first I thought it might be a "runaway" execution (perhaps unable to write to worktodo.txt thus requesting more and more). However, the requests stopped at 700 some-odd.

I freed the assignments. If it happens again, it isn't too hard to suspend the account.

 2020-10-09, 20:26 #1986 Aramis Wyler     "Bill Staffen" Jan 2013 Pittsburgh, PA, USA 19B16 Posts I used to like putting DC work on my slower processors, but now I just group them up and work on PRPs because in this new era of Prime95 30+ the DCs are actually a limited and vanishing resource. This is volunteer work and people can do as they like - I am certainly not suggesting rule or anything - but I think that the DCs should probably be saved for prime95 < v30, as that should be the only work they do. There are infinite larger numbers to work on. Last fiddled with by Aramis Wyler on 2020-10-09 at 20:26
2020-10-09, 20:41   #1987
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

475110 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aramis Wyler I used to like putting DC work on my slower processors, but now I just group them up and work on PRPs because in this new era of Prime95 30+ the DCs are actually a limited and vanishing resource. This is volunteer work and people can do as they like - I am certainly not suggesting rule or anything - but I think that the DCs should probably be saved for prime95 < v30, as that should be the only work they do. There are infinite larger numbers to work on.
S..l...o...w systems may be too slow for DC soon too. P-1 or Cert work would be ok a while. Eventually, it's better to shut them down and invest the electricity saved into newer faster hardware.
(But yeah, I have some ancient gear slogging along now.)

There is value to getting the remaining LLDC done, up to 58M, or to 83M. It clarifies whether a prime below Mp48* to Mp51* got missed in the first pass due to an error.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-09 at 20:43

 2020-10-09, 20:46 #1988 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 4,751 Posts PRP misrepresented as LL PRP reservations are listed as LL in exponent lookup. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1 is an example of a PRP first test assignment incorrectly displaying as LL first test work type. These are primenet-connected prime95 where it hasn't started running that assignment yet. There are cases where work type says LL first test but stage says PRP; https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1 for example. These are primenet-connected prime95 in progress. Manual assignments appear to be handled correctly: https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1 Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-09 at 20:51
2020-10-09, 21:02   #1989
ATH
Einyen

Dec 2003
Denmark

2×3×7×71 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 A weird case. User account created in 2011, so it seems unlikely that this is a mischief maker. Requests were from prime95 because expected completion dates were sent. At first I thought it might be a "runaway" execution (perhaps unable to write to worktodo.txt thus requesting more and more). However, the requests stopped at 700 some-odd. I freed the assignments. If it happens again, it isn't too hard to suspend the account.
Ehh now Curtisc has approximately the same assignments?

https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...first=1&exp1=1

2020-10-09, 21:15   #1990
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

100010111001112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ATH Ehh now Curtisc has approximately the same assignments? https://www.mersenne.org/assignments...first=1&exp1=1
I bet that the screen name is the same, but not the e-mail associated with the account.
And the estimated completion date is nearly 8 years away.

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2020-10-09 at 21:17

 2020-10-09, 21:32 #1991 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 4,751 Posts scroll down. 10939d/365 ~30 years. This shall not stand. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-09 at 21:33

 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 22:51.

Wed Dec 2 22:51:37 UTC 2020 up 83 days, 20:02, 2 users, load averages: 1.14, 1.29, 1.64