mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   No Prime Left Behind (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   LLRnet supports LLR V3.8! (LLRnet2010 V0.73L) (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13165)

kar_bon 2010-09-22 19:50

[QUOTE=Flatlander;230963]I'm getting occasional drops in my internet connection so I've seen the odd 'waiting 60 seconds' message, but I've just received errors that are strange:

I only had these pairs reserved for 20 mins so they shouldn't have timed out. And the 'bad header' messages are a concern.
It's now working. (Apparently.)[/QUOTE]

I've moved the post to this thread.

Do you by chance got the whole client-folder for sending me?

The error "net_Recv : bad header 'OKR '" seems in the 'tosend.txt'-file, something went wrong here. Anything before is ok.

I'll try to figure out such loss of connection and this error, although I've encountered several times no connection to the server and got back communication without such error.

Flatlander 2010-09-22 20:10

Here is a snapshot taken just after your post.
[url]http://www.sendspace.com/file/1e8etn[/url]
I think the connection might have dropped whilst communicating with the server. It's working fine now.

kar_bon 2010-09-22 20:21

Thanks, but there's no error in that folder:

All looks good: 4 pairs tested in lresults.txt, 10 pairs reserved in workfile.txt, llr.ini is at PgenLine=5 (next/current testing pair of workfile.txt for LLR), all *.lua correct, all awk-script without any error, no hint in lresults_hist.txt, no tosend.txt -> all results sent and new pairs reserved from server.

So if I would start with 'do' in this folder, it should work properly (except the results should rejected because they're done already by you).

Short: no error in here. I try to figure out the no-connection issue while sending results.

kar_bon 2010-09-24 19:55

Jean Penné just released the new LLR V3.8.2 with gwnum-lib 26.2.

He mentioned a 10% faster testing with that version.

To use the new cLLR, download it from [url=http://jpenne.free.fr/Development/cllr382dev.zip]here[/url], stop the client-script by hitting CTRL-C, overwrite the old cLLR.exe with the downloaded one and start the script again by calling 'do'.

I'll check if the speed is as assumed.

Later on I'll update the links in the first post with this new cLLR version.

MyDogBuster 2010-09-25 06:42

[QUOTE]I'll check if the speed is as assumed.[/QUOTE]

I'm getting the 10% across the board. All cores.

gd_barnes 2010-09-25 07:22

Max and/or Karsten,

Can we just put the new cLLR 3.8.2 in our LLRnet clients and have it run correctly? If so, is there a Linux version?

The speedup is very good news. :smile:


Gary

kar_bon 2010-09-25 07:30

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;231364]Can we just put the new cLLR 3.8.2 in our LLRnet clients and have it run correctly? If so, is there a Linux version?
[/QUOTE]

I've done this as discribed above: stop client, overwrite cLLR.exe, start client.

No problems on 16 cores here under XP, Vista, Win7.

The Unix source is available on Jean's page.

Short timings:

On a Quad all 4 core doing LLRnet for port 3500 with n~1.15M:

cLLR 3.8.1: ~1930s
cLLR 3.8.2: ~1400s

So about 9min less from 32min before.

mdettweiler 2010-09-25 20:09

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;231364]Max and/or Karsten,

Can we just put the new cLLR 3.8.2 in our LLRnet clients and have it run correctly? If so, is there a Linux version?

The speedup is very good news. :smile:


Gary[/QUOTE]
Yes, as Karsten said, you can swap the cllr.exe binary out directly. The same goes for Linux.

I'll post an updated do.pl client package with the new LLR shortly.

mdettweiler 2010-09-25 20:29

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;231429]Yes, as Karsten said, you can swap the cllr.exe binary out directly. The same goes for Linux.

I'll post an updated do.pl client package with the new LLR shortly.[/QUOTE]
Done. I've named the new version of the Linux client v0.74, so as to line up with Karsten's forthcoming update of his client. (It was very confusing before with the Linux client on 0.71 and the Windows one on 0.73, so I figured it would be best to skip a couple version numbers on the Linux side.)

I also reworded some of the first post so as to put the latest versions of each client front and center (rather than having the latest v0.73 Windows client [i]below[/i] the older v0.73).

gd_barnes 2010-09-26 08:26

The version number was for the script, not for the client. I haven't changed the script since 0.71 because it hasn't appeared to have the problems of the Windows client. (It virtually always restarts nicely after it can't connect for a while due to a server drying or outage.) Shouldn't it stay at 0.71? The only known problem is that it needs to delete the workfile.res in some situations. It hasn't had all the changes that have been made to the Windows client. Do we really want the version numbers to be the same?

One more thing: If you are changing it from 0.71 to 0.74, was the version number updated within the comments/documentation for the script? I can't download a big file while in the hotel so I can't tell at the moment.

I'm not saying to change it back at this point. It's just food for thought.

mdettweiler 2010-09-26 14:22

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;231501]The version number was for the script, not for the client. I haven't changed the script since 0.71 because it hasn't appeared to have the problems of the Windows client. (It virtually always restarts nicely after it can't connect for a while due to a server drying or outage.) Shouldn't it stay at 0.71? The only known problem is that it needs to delete the workfile.res in some situations. It hasn't had all the changes that have been made to the Windows client. Do we really want the version numbers to be the same?

One more thing: If you are changing it from 0.71 to 0.74, was the version number updated within the comments/documentation for the script? I can't download a big file while in the hotel so I can't tell at the moment.

I'm not saying to change it back at this point. It's just food for thought.[/QUOTE]
Ah, good catch. I changed it in the script's internal comments but not in the readme. That is fixed now and the corrected zip file is uploading right now. (I also added an entry in the changelog indicating that the version number was changed to match the Windows script, but that no actual changes to the do.pl script were made.)

Karsten, just to clarify: are you using V0.73 or V0.74 to denote the latest version of your script with LLR 3.8.2 in it? Either's fine with me, but if you're sticking with V0.73 then I should probably make sure that the Linux client matches that instead of being V0.74 (since, after all, the whole point of raising the version number is so that they match).


All times are UTC. The time now is 07:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.