mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   PRP discussion thread (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10759)

philmoore 2009-09-16 03:11

[QUOTE=philmoore;189900]Ben and I are currently double checking all the residues for exponents between zero and 1.24 million (but only for the 40291 and 41693 sequences.)
......
We could start by checking, say, a random 1% of our tests over the entire range (for just the 40291 and 41693 sequences, of course.)
[/QUOTE]

I tried to make it clear that we are only double-checking the 40291 and 41693 sequences. As for pfgw, it certainly should work just as well, but since we are using Prime95 (mprime) for everything else, it made sense to me to stick with it. One advantage of Prime95 is that its server protocol can be hacked to eventually coordinate assignments through a server. (Compare the recent adaptation of Seventeen or Bust.)

Ben, I tend to agree with you if the error rate is low. I would appreciate hearing from any prp testers who are overclocking, and we could rerun a sample of your tests first. It would not be too costly to retest one number from each work file to get a general idea of the error rate.

mdettweiler 2009-09-16 03:28

[quote=philmoore;189920]I tried to make it clear that we are only double-checking the 40291 and 41693 sequences. As for pfgw, it certainly should work just as well, but since we are using Prime95 (mprime) for everything else, it made sense to me to stick with it. One advantage of Prime95 is that its server protocol can be hacked to eventually coordinate assignments through a server. (Compare the recent adaptation of Seventeen or Bust.)

Ben, I tend to agree with you if the error rate is low. I would appreciate hearing from any prp testers who are overclocking, and we could rerun a sample of your tests first. It would not be too costly to retest one number from each work file to get a general idea of the error rate.[/quote]
Ah, I missed the note about checking only 40291 and 41693 the first time around--I see it now. I think I was also a little mixed up about the PFGW thing; the main reason why I suggested that was for the doublechecking of the stuff done with older versions of PFGW. Upon rereading your original post it seems that you're actually all done with that part--duh, my bad. :rolleyes:

Jeff Gilchrist 2009-09-16 16:28

[QUOTE=philmoore;189920]Ben, I tend to agree with you if the error rate is low. I would appreciate hearing from any prp testers who are overclocking, and we could rerun a sample of your tests first. It would not be too costly to retest one number from each work file to get a general idea of the error rate.[/QUOTE]

If the error rate is really low, I nominate Ben to start doing double checks since he is hoarding all the PRP finds... :toot:

Only one of my machines is overclocked but I think I only did a few PRP checks with that almost all of them were with normally clocked systems. But doing a random sample to get an idea of the error rate would be a good idea.

Jeff.

engracio 2009-09-16 17:50

My boxes are overclock only 14fsb for stability. That is less than 5% oc. For an overclocker that is very minimal. Since my goal is stability, anything more defeats the science. That is years of experience.:smile:

If you guys want to do double check on my wu's please do so. Just let me know if you find any discrepancies. I feel they will match but who knows. Non oc'd boxes also produces random errors due to peripheral errors like memory and such.

philmoore 2009-09-16 19:23

Here's my suggestion: we randomly pick one test to check out of each work file, going as far back as 1.25 million. Split these tests into 3 work files and ask for volunteers. (I can even arrange it so that no one has to double check their own work.) Each work file should require about 85-90% of the computation time as an average first-time work file. We get the results back and look at the error rate, and go from there.

engracio 2009-09-16 19:42

[quote=philmoore;190002] (I can even arrange it so that no one has to double check their own work.) [/quote]

Good idea about the not checking my own work.:smile:

paleseptember 2009-09-16 21:46

*waves a hand to do some more DC work*

engracio 2009-09-16 23:07

[quote=paleseptember;190015]*waves a hand to do some more DC work*[/quote]
You're a good man Ben:smile::bow:

philmoore 2009-09-17 03:54

Engracio says he is game to do a double-check file, and I can do the third. It may be a couple of weeks before I get them sorted out, so go ahead and grab some more first time checks if you run out of work in the meantime.

Jeff Gilchrist 2009-09-17 13:48

[QUOTE=philmoore;190028]Engracio says he is game to do a double-check file, and I can do the third. It may be a couple of weeks before I get them sorted out, so go ahead and grab some more first time checks if you run out of work in the meantime.[/QUOTE]

If you want/need to split it a bit more so people don't double check their own work, I can also take a DC work file as well.

philmoore 2009-09-17 17:31

Thanks, Jeff, that will be helpful. I'll set up 4 double check files then, each of which will be about 60-65% of the work in our current work files.


All times are UTC. The time now is 05:43.

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