[quote=em99010pepe;147466]Our progress:

Average of last 5 days - 3.64k/day
Average of last 3 days - 4.40k/day

This will reduce because we lost Lennart despite that we are moving fast.[/quote]

I'm having my new mobos express shipped to me. I hope to have my 2 bad quads back and running by Tuesday. Right now, 4 quads running port 5000...6 after I get the bad ones working again.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;147495]I'm having my new mobos express shipped to me. I hope to have my 2 bad quads back and running by Tuesday. Right now, 4 quads running port 5000...6 after I get the bad ones working again.


Gary[/quote]

Monday or Tuesday I will also add at least one duo core to IB5000, that's the machine I expect at my new work.
Humm...I don't see Karsten on drive 1....

Carlos

Max,

The first k/n pair remaining in port 5000 is now n>560K. Therefore, please process the results to me for n=540K-545K and 549K-555K. All results should be there.

The next range that I'll suggest you do is n=560K-580K when the lowest k/n pair is above that range.

n=555K-560K will be done at the very end of the server so we won't be able to fully complete n=540K-560K at PrimeSearch until a little later.


Thanks,
Gary

6 cores going strong and steady /panting :wink:

[quote=gd_barnes;147648]Max,

The first k/n pair remaining in port 5000 is now n>560K. Therefore, please process the results to me for n=540K-545K and 549K-555K. All results should be there.

The next range that I'll suggest you do is n=560K-580K when the lowest k/n pair is above that range.

n=555K-560K will be done at the very end of the server so we won't be able to fully complete n=540K-560K at PrimeSearch until a little later.


Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
Okay, sounds good. I'll do this while I'm doing the 1st Drive results tomorrow, as described in its respective thread. :smile:

LLRnet IB5000 has completed 540K-545K and 549K-555K, results emailed to Gary. :smile:

Hey Max, I don't see your cores on port 5000.

Carlos

[quote=em99010pepe;147736]Hey Max, I don't see your cores on port 5000.

Carlos[/quote]
Actually, I've still got one core of my dualcore on port 5000; however, I had to turn off my quad-core for the time being. I do, however, plan to get it back online within a few days, after which I plan to leave it on port 5000 until we finish Drive #3. :smile:

Gary,

Releasing 590-596, I think it's better to add it to the IB5000 server. When I get 596-600 done ( tomorrow at 50 %) I'll move all cores to llrnet. Thank you.

BTW, 555-560 is still missing and I think we have 15 days left to complete drive 3. Final push?

Edit: Almost forgetting, you should also add some work from Drive 1, IB5000 should not dry with drive 3.

Carlos

[quote=em99010pepe;147894]Gary,

Releasing 590-596, I think it's better to add it to the IB5000 server. When I get 596-600 done ( tomorrow at 50 %) I'll move all cores to llrnet. Thank you.

BTW, 555-560 is still missing and I think we have 15 days left to complete drive 3. Final push?

Edit: Almost forgetting, you should also add some work from Drive 1, IB5000 should not dry with drive 3.

Carlos[/quote]


1. OK, I'll send 590-596 to IronBits in the next day or two.

2. 555-560 is already in the server after 560-590. (lol)

3. I got my new mobos today, you should see a serious increase in testing starting early morning Weds. your time. (Increase from 4 to 6 quads on the port.)

4. It's OK to let port 5000 run dry. We'll just need to shift all of our resources to ports 400 and 443 to finish up the 1st drive. When all k's are at n=600K, we'll reactivate it. David, please leave it intact after it dries. We may use it on a rally or 2 on the 1st drive.

There was a discussion in one of the threads here about how to process n>600K. It was decided to leave k=300-400 as is but to add all k's once this drive is finished. Because of the immense amount of work for n=600K-1M, we discussed having separate drives and servers for k=400-600, 600-800, and 800-1001. Since we already have ports 400 and 5000, it'll just be a net add of 1 server. Port 443 can be left as a 'roaving' server for rallies and to put on the drives as needed.

Based on that, here's the way I see it in the future for servers processing n=600K-1M:
k=300-400; left for manual reservations on all k's as is
k=400-600; port 400
k=600-800; (new) port 600
k=800-1001; port 5000

Port 443 can be used to help out on any effort and with rallies. When we do rallies, any port of people's choosing can be used. Since lower n-ranges LLR faster, that will encourage people to pick out the server that is at the lowest searched range and hence 'catch up' that drive with the others so to speak.

Anyone...thoughts, concerns, etc.?


Gary

reserving n=590K-596K for port 5000

I prefer to keep C443 online with work from 300<k<400. That's the range I want to process in the future or I can dedicate my cores to individual-k efforts.

Carlo

[quote=em99010pepe;148007]I prefer to keep C443 online with work from 300<k<400. That's the range I want to process in the future or I can dedicate my cores to individual-k efforts.

Carlo[/quote]


OK, whatever works. We'll play it by ear as we get closer. The idea is still to leave k=300-400 for individual-k reservations. If you want to load a specific k or up to ~5 k's in port 443, that works fine.

David,

I had a PM exchange with Max. We may not need any new servers. He has already set up a server on one of my quads and may set up another if needed. We can use those for the additional drives that we will have. That said, I don't know how 'robust' my servers would be. Yours have been shown to be very able to handle what appears to be upwards of 100 cores or more, which is what we need.

Note that this may all change but I want everyone to be aware of what may be around the corner.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;148012]OK, whatever works. We'll play it by ear as we get closer. The idea is still to leave k=300-400 for individual-k reservations. If you want to load a specific k or up to ~5 k's in port 443, that works fine.

[/quote]

That would be a good idea. After the end of Drive 1 we go back to this conversation. Are your two new quads already online?

[quote=em99010pepe;148015]That would be a good idea. After the end of Drive 1 we go back to this conversation. Are your two new quads already online?[/quote]


Yep. My 2 repaired quads (new mobos) went online ~noon GMT today (6 total) and are smoking those port 5000 pairs now. :smile: ETA on this drive should be prior to Nov. 15th now. That should still give us a possible chance to complete the 1st drive by year end, which would be a huge accomplishment after taking 7 weeks out for the 4th drive.


Gary

Schweet! :smile:

I really would like to know who processed one candidate under my nickname...lol

[quote=em99010pepe;148091]I really would like to know who processed one candidate under my nickname...lol[/quote]
Ah, I think I have the answer to that. :smile: Yesterday I manually inserted the k/n pair shown on the nplb.ironbits.net status page as the lowest remaining k/n pair for port 5000, into my workfile.txt, so that it would get cleaned up faster--since it appeared to have been abandoned, and thus would eventually expire and be reassigned anyway. It appears that this k/n pair must have been assigned to you, because I've discovered that if one user processes a k/n pair that's assigned to another user, it will still be credited to the user it was originally assigned to (assuming, of course, that it was returned within the original user's deadline). This would also explain the very large Time value listed for that result. :smile:

Hey Lennart, a little push to reduce the drive end to 7 days?
596-600 is 70 % completed, more 3 days and I'll put the cores on IB5000 server.

[quote=mdettweiler;148100]Ah, I think I have the answer to that. :smile: Yesterday I manually inserted the k/n pair shown on the nplb.ironbits.net status page as the lowest remaining k/n pair for port 5000, into my workfile.txt, so that it would get cleaned up faster--since it appeared to have been abandoned, and thus would eventually expire and be reassigned anyway. It appears that this k/n pair must have been assigned to you, because I've discovered that if one user processes a k/n pair that's assigned to another user, it will still be credited to the user it was originally assigned to (assuming, of course, that it was returned within the original user's deadline). This would also explain the very large Time value listed for that result. :smile:[/quote]

That's very interesting to know. Thanks for discovering and explaining that. One thing to note: If you happen to discover a prime by doing that, the person whose name the pair is credited to would get to report the prime. Of course that is my opinion only but I base it on the fact that the pair is considered 'reservered' until it is returned to the server. If it ever comes up, I'm sure everyone will 'work it out' in an amicable manner.

That brings up something that would help us greatly: Whenever people stop processing a server or change servers, it would be greatly appreciated if you could clear out your queue (workfile.txt file) in the server that you are currently on, especially if you have multiple candidates in your queue. Here are some instructions for doing it:

If your WUCacheSize is > 1:
1. Kill your current LLRnet process as you would normally.
2. Change your WUCacheSize to 1.
3. Restart LLRnet and let it run until there is only 1 k/n pair left in the workfile.txt file. (You don't need to watch it. It will just keep right on processing 1 pair at a time even after the queue is down to 1.)
4. Kill LLRnet again.
5. Uncomment the --once=1 line by removing the 2 dashes at the beginning.
6. Restart LLRnet. It will process the final pair and then stop.

If your WUCacheSize = 1:
1. Kill your current LLRnet process as you would normally.
2. Uncomment the --once=1 line by removing the 2 dashes at the beginning.
3. Restart LLRnet. It will process the final pair and then stop.

After it is done, be sure and put the 2 dashes back in the once=1 line.

I realize that sometimes people won't have time for this but if everyone will make an effort to at least clear out their queues more often, it will make for less straggling pairs that have to wait 3 days to be reprocessed. There's no use to wait any longer to have a reported prime than we have to. :smile:


Gary

Or you could simply tell the server to cancel your reservations on the remaining pairs by running LLRnet with the -c switch. That is, you open a command window, go to your LLRnet folder, and run "llrnet -c" (or "./llrnet -c" on Linux) until it says "no more k/n pairs to cancel". :smile:

I've only ever tested this on Linux, though; does anyone know if this works on Windows?

[quote=mdettweiler;148148]Or you could simply tell the server to cancel your reservations on the remaining pairs by running LLRnet with the -c switch. That is, you open a command window, go to your LLRnet folder, and run "llrnet -c" (or "./llrnet -c" on Linux) until it says "no more k/n pairs to cancel". :smile:

I've only ever tested this on Linux, though; does anyone know if this works on Windows?[/quote]
Yep, works fine on Windows too. LLRnet probably needs to be killed before you do it though, and any progress will be basically lost (the save file should exist, but it won't finish it off). Plus it means a little less work for NPLB is done. :wink:

[quote=Mini-Geek;148151]Yep, works fine on Windows too. LLRnet probably needs to be killed before you do it though, and any progress will be basically lost (the save file should exist, but it won't finish it off). Plus it means a little less work for NPLB is done. :wink:[/quote]
Of course, I was assuming that LLRnet would be shut down prior to canceling the k/n pairs. (I guess I could have made that a bit more clear, though. :smile:)

What I often do to avoid losing work is to stop LLRnet, then run it with the "-1" option (that's a one, not an L) to tell it to do one k/n pair and then stop--essentially, finish the current k/n pair, return it to the server, and then exit before starting the next one. After that I then proceed with cancelling the remaining unprocessed k/n pairs. :smile:

I had no idea about the -c option. Very good. That's much easier.

[quote=mdettweiler;148167]What I often do to avoid losing work is to stop LLRnet, then run it with the "-1" option (that's a one, not an L) to tell it to do one k/n pair and then stop--essentially, finish the current k/n pair, return it to the server, and then exit before starting the next one. After that I then proceed with cancelling the remaining unprocessed k/n pairs. :smile:[/quote]
Ah, I didn't know about that option. I'll do that in the future instead of watching for it to finish and stopping it before it gets much work done. :smile:

Flags you can use (llrnet.lua):

-h :
print this message

-d :
detach client and run in background

-v :
set verbose mode on

-c :
cancel current work unit

-no-sse2 :
disable SSE2 instructions, may improve performance on athlon 64 CPUs

-1 :
perform just one test

-no-gui :
do not launch the gui

Max,

The 1st k/n pair remaining on port 5000 is now n>580K. Therefore, can you process the results to me for n=560K-580K after you get back.

With Lennart back on here (thanks Lennart!), we should hit n=590K sometime on Sat. At that point, the 555-560 range will begin to process. When the latter range is done, then you'll be able to send me the results for it and we'll have n=540K-560K ready for entering into the Primesearch site also.

If Lennart stays here for ~3 days, we may just finish this drive up by ~Tuesday! :smile: Then we'll be done with this messier area and will be back to the 1st drive on ports 400 and 443 where we should find more new primes.


Gary

Lennart helped us just for a few hours but that was a nice boost.

Gary, my manual range will tomorrow be completed (at 91.2 %) so I'll move the cores to IB5000.

Carlos

[quote=em99010pepe;148325]Lennart helped us just for a few hours but that was a nice boost.[/quote]

He's back, maybe the net went down or something.

[quote=em99010pepe;148336]Gary, my manual range will tomorrow be completed (at 91.2 %) so I'll move the cores to IB5000.

Carlos



He's back, maybe the net went down or something.[/quote]


Wow and he's back with more than his typical 50 cores (I think). We've already processed up thru n=590K and are now processing the 555-560 range that got out of order. After that, it will be the final 590-596 range. At the current rate, this drive will finish late Sunday (early Monday GMT)! :smile:

Carlos, if Lennart stays until late Sunday, after you're done with your manual range, you can just move directly to your port 443. Once done here, that's where I'll be moving until its current range is dry. Then I'll move back over to port 400.

Dang, you guys are making more work for me. lol With all k=300-400 at n=600K, I'll have to open all the k's in the individual-k reservations drive after this drive is over.

Edit: David, this has been a great test of your servers and it's going very well! I estimate that at this moment, with Lennart perhaps having 60-65 cores on here, me 24, and about another 20-25 from others, we likely have ~100-120 cores on port 5000. Weeeeee!!


Gary

Gary,

I'll help to dry port 5000 then I'll move to C443. I would like to run my cores on my server so I intend to reserve a high range for it from drive 1.

Carlos

[quote=em99010pepe;148437]Gary,

I'll help to dry port 5000 then I'll move to C443. I would like to run my cores on my server so I intend to reserve a high range for it from drive 1.

Carlos[/quote]

There's still quite a bit left in it for its current range, which is below the port 400 range. That's what I would help clear out.

By high range, do you mean something for n>599K (or 595K or 590K)?

Yes, from 595k-600k....

[quote=em99010pepe;148439]Yes, from 595k-600k....[/quote]


That's a whole lot of work for the 1st drive; > 50000 pairs. As long as you and others can finish it by year end, that's what we're shooting for.

Every 1k has something like 11k candidates so maybe it's better to reduce to a 3k junk, 597-600?

[quote=em99010pepe;148442]Every 1k has something like 11k candidates so maybe it's better to reduce to a 3k junk, 597-600?[/quote]


OK, sounds good. When you want to reserve it, just post it in the 1st drive thread.

I'm going to sleep, one core is already on IB5000, the others will follow when they get free from the manual range work.

Carlos

596-600 complete.

[url=http://em99010pepe.googlepages.com/lresults_NPLB-596-600.zip]lresults_NPLB-596-600[/url]

Everyone plan ahead to move your machines: If Lennart stays on port 5000 with his current firepower for 12 more hours or about 10 PM GMT on Sunday, the port will be dry and this drive will be mostly finished. The only thing left will be to wait 2-3 days for the few abandoned k/n pairs to be returned to the server for final testing.

At that point, the 1st drive on Carlos' port 443 will be a slight priority over David's port 4000 since it has the lower n-range but feel free to take your choice.

The 1st drive will have far more NEW primes to find since it has a very low percentage of double-check k's in it. If everyone currently on port 5000 moves there, we'll likely knock down a reportable prime per day or more! :smile:


Gary

Funny stats, I found the first and last new and confirmed primes of this drive...lol

Gary, by myself I can clean my server in less than a week but I think it's better to have the most cores on IB400 because I don't know if my server can handle such connections.
Another thing, can you tell me who picked up the first pair of IB5000 still not tested (327 581565)? Last Monday I tried to run llrnet on my work laptop but temps raised to 80 ºC!!! I gave up, waiting for the new desktop machine, so probably that's my abandoned pair.

Carlos

user=ArsTechnica_BlisteringSheep
[03/09/08 14:04:18]
309*2^387221-1 is prime! Time : 5419.0 sec.

[url]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_5000.txt[/url]
[url]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_400.txt[/url]

[quote=IronBits;148484]user=ArsTechnica_BlisteringSheep
[03/09/08 14:04:18]
309*2^387221-1 is prime! Time : 5419.0 sec.

[URL]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_5000.txt[/URL]
[URL]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_400.txt[/URL][/quote]


?? Why is this prime from March posted here? To the best of my knowledge, it's already been reported everywhere it should be.

Because Carlos asked for the 1st prime found on IB5000, and yes, it was reported everywhere it should have been.

Just a few minutes to complete this drive. We made an amazing effort.

Carlos

I am no longer receiving new work from IB5000 so I suggest people to start moving the cores to IB400 and/or C443, thank you.

Carlos

LLRNet
 

Ok I don' get any more WU. And all clients is empty.

I have closed all, and will move over todo some work on PG.

I think the server was working hard :bs meter:
Good luck :smile:

Lennart.

[quote=Lennart;148544]Ok I don' get any more WU. And all clients is empty.

I have closed all, and will move over todo some work on PG.

I think the server was working hard :bs meter:
Good luck :smile:

Lennart.[/quote]
Thanks Lennart for the huge boost! :grin: Now Drive #3 is essentially complete--we've only got to wait for a few straggling k/n pairs to come in, and then I'll be able to process all of the remaining results for port 5000! :smile:

46 candidates remaining to finally complete Drive 3.

This server just begs to be beaten up, with so many cores and not one hiccup.
I am amazed at the difference between a windows vs linux 64bit Server. :smile:

[quote=IronBits;148556]This server just begs to be beaten up, with so many cores and not one hiccup.
I am amazed at the difference between a windows vs linux 64bit Server. :smile:[/quote]


I agree. That was a most outstanding performance by your server! :smile: I couldn't have asked for better!

Lennart had reported to me that he had 68 cores on it so I estimate we were around a total of 110-115 cores running it at the end.

I'll be moving to port 443 shortly. In a day or so after it gets up to n=540K processed, I'll move to port 400.

Hang on to port 5000. Besides some straggling pairs yet to be returned and reprocessed, we'll likely use it for a rally or two or perhaps for one of our drives at larger n-ranges.

Thanks to all for the great effort on this drive! Now, there's one more drive to finish by year end! :smile:


Gary

[quote=em99010pepe;148480]Another thing, can you tell me who picked up the first pair of IB5000 still not tested (327 581565)? Last Monday I tried to run llrnet on my work laptop but temps raised to 80 ºC!!! I gave up, waiting for the new desktop machine, so probably that's my abandoned pair.

Carlos[/quote]

[quote=IronBits;148484]user=ArsTechnica_BlisteringSheep
[03/09/08 14:04:18]
309*2^387221-1 is prime! Time : 5419.0 sec.

[URL]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_5000.txt[/URL]
[URL]http://nplb.ironbits.net/primes_400.txt[/URL][/quote]

[quote=IronBits;148500]Because Carlos asked for the 1st prime found on IB5000, and yes, it was reported everywhere it should have been.[/quote]



No, he asked who has the first pair not yet tested on port 5000. He didn't ask for the first prime found on the port. lol See above.

Can you give him that info.? He thinks it's an abanded pair from his work laptop that raised to too high of a temp.

If it's his, I'm sure he'll process it on one of his other machines to clear it out faster.


Thanks,
Gary

[quote=em99010pepe;148480]Gary, by myself I can clean my server in less than a week but I think it's better to have the most cores on IB400 because I don't know if my server can handle such connections.

Carlos[/quote]


OK, that's fine. I'm getting ready to move my machines. I'll just put them on port 400.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;148571]No, he asked who has the first pair not yet tested on port 5000. He didn't ask for the first prime found on the port. lol See above.

Can you give him that info.? He thinks it's an abanded pair from his work laptop that raised to too high of a temp.

If it's his, I'm sure he'll process it on one of his other machines to clear it out faster.


Thanks,
Gary[/quote]
Gary, that k/n pair has since been cleared out--just look at the nplb.ironbits.net status page. No need to worry. :smile:

However, what would be useful is to know who the heck has those 33 remaining k/n pairs reserved. David, would you possibly be able to post the joblist.txt and knpairs.txt file here, so that we can bug whoever's got all those k/n pairs reserved, or at least just get them cleared out ourselves (since quite like the original "owner" dropped them by accident and isn't coming back for them)? :smile:

Joblist.txt
[code]
jobList = {
["355/584591"] = {
["seconds"]=1226099241,
["k"]="355",
["user"]="Kman1293",
["date"]="07/11/2008 04:07:21 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="584591",
},
["377/584610"] = {
["seconds"]=1226099406,
["k"]="377",
["user"]="Kman1293",
["date"]="07/11/2008 04:10:06 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="584610",
},
["351/584771"] = {
["seconds"]=1226100509,
["k"]="351",
["user"]="Kman1293",
["date"]="07/11/2008 04:28:29 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="584771",
},
["325/584797"] = {
["seconds"]=1226100793,
["k"]="325",
["user"]="Kman1293",
["date"]="07/11/2008 04:33:13 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="584797",
},
["383/585648"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108156,
["k"]="383",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:35:56 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585648",
},
["351/585649"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108157,
["k"]="351",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:35:57 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585649",
},
["327/585652"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108219,
["k"]="327",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:36:59 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585652",
},
["393/585652"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108221,
["k"]="393",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:37:01 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585652",
},
["321/585673"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108292,
["k"]="321",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:38:12 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585673",
},
["387/585742"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108960,
["k"]="387",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:49:20 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585742",
},
["355/585745"] = {
["seconds"]=1226108961,
["k"]="355",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 06:49:21 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585745",
},
["357/585833"] = {
["seconds"]=1226109726,
["k"]="357",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 07:02:06 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585833",
},
["327/585834"] = {
["seconds"]=1226109730,
["k"]="327",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 07:02:10 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585834",
},
["377/585834"] = {
["seconds"]=1226109733,
["k"]="377",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 07:02:13 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585834",
},
["369/585837"] = {
["seconds"]=1226109734,
["k"]="369",
["user"]="sm5ymt",
["date"]="07/11/2008 07:02:14 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="585837",
},
["387/586033"] = {
["seconds"]=1226111649,
["k"]="387",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="07/11/2008 07:34:09 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="586033",
},
["371/559714"] = {
["seconds"]=1226210520,
["k"]="371",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="08/11/2008 11:02:00 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="559714",
},
["309/591845"] = {
["seconds"]=1226226951,
["k"]="309",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="09/11/2008 03:35:51 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="591845",
},
["327/592420"] = {
["seconds"]=1226231538,
["k"]="327",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="09/11/2008 04:52:18 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="592420",
},
["375/593484"] = {
["seconds"]=1226240198,
["k"]="375",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="09/11/2008 07:16:38 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="593484",
},
["365/594122"] = {
["seconds"]=1226245375,
["k"]="365",
["user"]="Nomarcland",
["date"]="09/11/2008 08:42:55 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594122",
},
["327/594516"] = {
["seconds"]=1226248487,
["k"]="327",
["user"]="Nomarcland",
["date"]="09/11/2008 09:34:47 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594516",
},
["335/594880"] = {
["seconds"]=1226251241,
["k"]="335",
["user"]="IronBits",
["date"]="09/11/2008 10:20:41 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594880",
},
["331/594913"] = {
["seconds"]=1226251469,
["k"]="331",
["user"]="IronBits",
["date"]="09/11/2008 10:24:29 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594913",
},
["329/594936"] = {
["seconds"]=1226251677,
["k"]="329",
["user"]="IronBits",
["date"]="09/11/2008 10:27:57 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594936",
},
["365/594944"] = {
["seconds"]=1226251717,
["k"]="365",
["user"]="IronBits",
["date"]="09/11/2008 10:28:37 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594944",
},
["327/594981"] = {
["seconds"]=1226251940,
["k"]="327",
["user"]="IronBits",
["date"]="09/11/2008 10:32:20 AM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="594981",
},
["317/595636"] = {
["seconds"]=1226257202,
["k"]="317",
["user"]="MyDogBuster",
["date"]="09/11/2008 12:00:02 PM",
["status"]="working",
["n"]="595636",
},
}[/code]

knpairs.txt
[code]
355 584591
377 584610
351 584771
325 584797
383 585648
351 585649
327 585652
393 585652
321 585673
387 585742
355 585745
357 585833
327 585834
377 585834
369 585837
387 586033
371 559714
309 591845
327 592420
375 593484
365 594122
327 594516
335 594880
331 594913
329 594936
365 594944
327 594981
317 595636
[/code]

Okay, thanks! I've inserted all the remaining k/n pairs into the workfile.txt on an LLRnet client running on port 5000; this should get all the rest of the stragglers cleaned up by morning. :smile: (All the users represented in joblist.txt appear to either have moved their cores off port 5000 by now, so I'm figuring that I won't be stepping on anyone's toes by doing this. :smile:)

[quote=mdettweiler;148603]Okay, thanks! I've inserted all the remaining k/n pairs into the workfile.txt on an LLRnet client running on port 5000; this should get all the rest of the stragglers cleaned up by morning. :smile: (All the users represented in joblist.txt appear to either have moved their cores off port 5000 by now, so I'm figuring that I won't be stepping on anyone's toes by doing this. :smile:)[/quote]
...and now port 5000 is officially dried! :grin: I'll get to work processing the results shortly.

LLRnet IB5000 has completed 555K-596K, results emailed to Gary. Now Gary's just got to verify all the completed ranges on his end, and then the 3rd Drive will be officially done! :w00t:

Now my duty is to start teasing people to run Drive 1.

i've verified the results from port 5000 server for the open ranges upto n=600k.

ALL IS OK!

so i'm showing Team Drive #3 complete on [url]www.rieselprime.org[/url] now!

last verification to show all ranges to n=600k on the 300<k<1000 page depends on Gary now.

i'm waiting! :grin:

Max,

The final results file sent to me was incorrect. See the LLRnet servers thread for the issue. I'll need to get a corrected file to feel comfortable that the primes found match those here and elsewhere.


Gary

I have verified the results for n=540K-600K. In comparison with post 1 of this thread, the 3rd drive page, the Rieselprime.org page, and the top-5000 site, no problems were found.

The drive is now officially complete. Karsten, you can mark all k=300-400 at n=600K that are currently at a lower testing limit.

Also, you can update k=400-1001 to show all k's now at n=540K if they are currently at a lower testing limit with the exception of k=415 that Curtis is working on and that I believe is still at n=500K.


Gary

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;148933]The drive is now officially complete. Karsten, you can mark all k=300-400 at n=600K that are currently at a lower testing limit.

Also, you can update k=400-1001 to show all k's now at n=540K if they are currently at a lower testing limit with the exception of k=415 that Curtis is working on and that I believe is still at n=500K.
[/QUOTE]

DONE!