mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   mersenne.ca (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=173)
-   -   Mersenne.ca Status Report (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20678)

Madpoo 2015-11-28 17:38

[QUOTE=Prime95;417446]It is easy to get "inflated" ECM credit by using GMP-ECM -- especially for small exponents.[/QUOTE]

In the case of M1217 and the ECM results from NOoE, the messages have what I think are the checksums (no assigmnent ID though, but that's not unusual).

The weird thing is, a lot of his results have the *same* 64-bit checksum value even though the message itself is different (diff # of curves or bounds). Some are the same message (same curves/bounds/checksum) which, again, isn't unusual for ECM since people can and do run the same # of curves and bounds on parallel threads.

But then, how do we know he really ran 17 x 91 curves, or just did that one time and submitted 17 times?

Also, the app ID indicated in the result says it came from: "Windows64 Prime95 v26"

250,000 curves with those bounds would have taken quite a bit of time, and for all I know he really did it: I have no opinion. :smile:

bloodIce 2015-11-28 20:28

[QUOTE]But then, how do we know he really ran 17 x 91 curves, or just did that one time and submitted 17 times?[/QUOTE]There are several ways of submitting reports, which will look legit, but are not (and you and George know them all + some extra). This particular user is also on my watch for several years and I will not be amazed if something is fishy. However, we cannot blame someone without evidence of wrongdoing, so by definition s(he) is innocent. There are two ways to contra-act the problem. Firstly factor completely 1217 (:grin:), but more seriously why not implement a ECM/Pm1/TF checksums dependent on the data/time of the [STRIKE]completion[/STRIKE] start of a task in any further versions of prime95.

Gordon 2015-11-28 22:33

[QUOTE=bloodIce;417544]There are several ways of submitting reports, which will look legit, but are not (and you and George know them all + some extra). This particular user is also on my watch for several years and I will not be amazed if something is fishy. However, we cannot blame someone without evidence of wrongdoing, so by definition s(he) is innocent. There are two ways to contra-act the problem. Firstly factor completely 1217 (:grin:), but more seriously why not implement a ECM/Pm1/TF checksums dependent on the data/time of the [STRIKE]completion[/STRIKE] start of a task in any further versions of prime95.[/QUOTE]

Because there are quite a few of us who do Stage 1 in P95 and stage 2 in gmp-ecm, no check-sums to check-in!

Gordon 2015-12-02 23:54

[QUOTE=Madpoo;417522]In the case of M1217 and the ECM results from NOoE, the messages have what I think are the checksums (no assigmnent ID though, but that's not unusual).

The weird thing is, a lot of his results have the *same* 64-bit checksum value even though the message itself is different (diff # of curves or bounds). Some are the same message (same curves/bounds/checksum) which, again, isn't unusual for ECM since people can and do run the same # of curves and bounds on parallel threads.

But then, how do we know he really ran 17 x 91 curves, or just did that one time and submitted 17 times?

Also, the app ID indicated in the result says it came from: "Windows64 Prime95 v26"

250,000 curves with those bounds would have taken quite a bit of time, and for all I know he really did it: I have no opinion. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Is perchance the checksum - Wd9: 00000000

Madpoo 2015-12-03 03:26

[QUOTE=Gordon;418073]Is perchance the checksum - Wd9: 00000000[/QUOTE]

LOL... nope. I would have noticed that. :smile:

Dubslow 2015-12-24 07:32

Does anyone know if and where I might find the mersenne.ca equivalent of [url]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_line_graph/1/0/[/url] ?

lycorn 2016-01-26 08:11

Prime count not yet updated in the reports

[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0"]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/1/0[/URL]

snme2pm1 2016-02-10 05:41

[QUOTE=Gordon;416688]It seems that the [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/0"]status report[/URL] han't been updated since 16th, can someone restart the script process...[/QUOTE]

Seems to be another pause in progress, now we're at UTC 2016-02-10 yet response from such as above reflect 2016-02-07.
It seems odd that mersenne.ca contents list doesn't include such (not quite so) new facilities, such that a person can encounter them without learning a link from mersenneforum.org.

James Heinrich 2016-02-11 13:14

Hmm, seems this thread is about mersenne.ca but I wasn't subscribed to it so I didn't know there was stuff going on. Thanks [i]snme2pm1[/i] for bringing my attention to it.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;420056]Does anyone know if and where I might find the mersenne.ca equivalent of [url]http://www.mersenne.info/exponent_status_line_graph/1/0/[/url] ?[/QUOTE]That would be here: [url]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/ll/0/0/2/0[/url]

[QUOTE=lycorn;424097]Prime count not yet updated in the reports[/QUOTE]Thanks, fixed.

[QUOTE=snme2pm1;425807]Seems to be another pause in progress, now we're at UTC 2016-02-10 yet response from such as above reflect 2016-02-07.
It seems odd that mersenne.ca contents list doesn't include such (not quite so) new facilities, such that a person can encounter them without learning a link from mersenneforum.org.[/QUOTE]I changed the database structure on 2016-02-08 and that actually went fine, but one small unrelated typo at the same time broke the daily jobs, so they didn't run for the last 3 days. I have spent the last hour or so rebuilding that data so it should be working as expected now. I also added a link to visualization from the menu (and changed the big graph link on the home page to point to visualization rather than graphs).

LaurV 2016-02-12 02:26

Nice! Thanks!
BTW I think you should start to collect clLucas results in that table of cudaLucas[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php?model=490"] fire power[/URL]. By the same logic as the [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd"]sister-table[/URL] of mfaktX results contains both AMD and Nvidia boulders, now after msft's last additions, clLucas became quite competitive, at least (or "not only"?) for some ranges where power of 2 fft's are adequate (I would argue about "not only", thinking about the prices for new amd cards, but that is a different discussion). The idea is that the table of xxLucas could contain AMD results too. What do you think?

LaurV 2016-02-12 05:39

[time limit]
It occurred to me that the prices in the tables have to be updated too. Especially for a K80, you could buy it now for $3800 (one used at $3900 and 13 new at $4100 on Amazon, just for example, the first popup when search by google). Therefore lowering the price from $5k on the table will [B][U]really[/U][/B] improve their "james' value ratio" (don't laugh, that is a very good indicator! :razz:), making it highly comparable with the Titans, especially as we switch to higher and higher exponents, more memory (and especially ECC memory!) for larger FFTs becomes [U]a must[/U] (and it should also count toward the score, but that is a different story). One can not anymore use the cheaper version of the gtx580 (the one with 1.5GB memory only) to run the higher FFTs required for a LMH exponent, at least 2-3GB is a must, therefore that will soon be only the niche of Titans and Teslas (or the elite versions of gtx 5/6/780 or 90 with 3GB of RAM) [edit, or other newer thingies yet to come, not forgetting AMD cards as clLucas got faster now]


All times are UTC. The time now is 19:28.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.