Hey Lars,

How are things going on the DC front?

Update to the latest release is finished.
Changing of the paths is finished.
Data transfer from the server to the main DB is also working.

Next step is to create some download package with the client software like it is available at primegrid. (I have allready asked and they allow me to grap their package and modify it for our use)

If somebody allready has the prpnet client and wants to help you only have to modify the following entries in the prpclient.ini
[CODE]
email=your@mail

// userid= is a REQUIRED field that will be used by the server
// to report on stats, etc. without having to reveal the user's
// e-mail address.
userid=place the PSP nickname here

// This value differtiates clients using the same e-mail ID
clientid=1

server=PSPtestDC:100:1:[url]www.psp-project.de:7101[/url]
[/CODE]

By the way if everything works as I expect there will be a prpnet server for the first pass available this weekend!!!!!!!! I only have to wait for the first result to be returned and check if everything is booked as expected.

[quote=VJS;183022]How are things going on the DC front?[/quote]

Also, I've added 8-10 cores that are running offline DC tests. They have mostly done clean-up ranges so far.

Just a thought... Could it be an idea to reverse the queue on the double check prpnet server so that it offers the newest tests first? Then we would be able to notify participants that are producing garbage a lot earlier...

Interesting idea but the server does not offer a posibility to revers the order at the moment.

opyrt,

Yup good idea in theory but consider the following.

The lower the n the more likely its prime, the higher the n the more likely there is an error. Not sure if these too are a wash or not...

In anycase the best senario is to get the one k approach to the firstpass level.

With one double check k at firstpass level it will ultimately accomplish what your talking about.

I think we will all be supprised once Lars has all of the double check stats on-line. I have been pounding away with somewhat of a top down approach like you talked about with 8 cores, also there is a chunk in there that's already complete...

I'm going to send in another 30 or so tests, at that point (time permitting) perhaps lars can make a comment about what's left. In the mean time please put as much effort as you can into getting this mini one k project accomplished.

Jason

[quote=VJS;183542]The lower the n the more likely its prime, the higher the n the more likely there is an error. Not sure if these too are a wash or not...

In anycase the best senario is to get the one k approach to the firstpass level.

With one double check k at firstpass level it will ultimately accomplish what your talking about.[/quote]

Agreed. I did not mean that we should step away from the one k strategy. I meant we could revert the queue so that we don't end up with alot of candidates to rerun because someone was hammering away with an overclocked computer. I'm currently re-running 130 tests from one user that mostly produced garbage...
That said... We would still have to finish the gap as you said. :)

[quote]I think we will all be supprised once Lars has all of the double check stats on-line. I have been pounding away with somewhat of a top down approach like you talked about with 8 cores, also there is a chunk in there that's already complete...[/quote]

I did not know that. Well as long as both you and I are double checking fresh results (n>7M) we should be able to see if there are any rotten eggs quite quickly! :)

-Kai

I am looking forward to getting the prpnet servers up. Once that happens I can shut down the one I have here and get my machines back to the daily stats. Prpnet should allow to easily split time between first and second pass with a single system or setting some up for first and others second.


S.

I don't think I did too much or anything above 7M, I worked from 7M down. SOunds like Lars is sending you what I find/have found.

I don't really even know where I currently am on it have a few runnig around 5.8M some 6.3M. With splitting stuff up etc etc etc, all I know is I'm finally getting close to done. I have another 40 now to send to Lars.

He seems pretty busy lately so I havn't bothered him much on sending another batch or updating what I have (less factors etc).

My main goal right now is bring that k up to firstpass.

Jason

Another update to what is going on at DC.

First of all the number of open test for k=168451 till we are at first pass level has droped to 1443 ( 20.7 it was 1491)

Second the following work is in progress:
1. Second pass server is again online to the public (k=168451)
2. there is manual work assigned to VJS and opyrt (k=168451)
3. Joe O and ltd run third pass tests on data where the second pass did not match
4. opyrt runs second pass tests for data where the third pass tests have shown a error pattern
5. I am bringing the overall dc level to 1.7M at the moment and depending on the other dc results I will either run DC tests on error pattern or increase the lower bound to 2M.

A very ineteresting result of the DC tests is that we had several bad result sets in the range between 4m and 5M but so far from 5.1M to 5.5M we are back to extrem low error rates.

has droped to 1443 ( 20.7 it was 1491) :sad:

I though we were closer than than...

As far as the pattern goes around 4-5M any ideas?
A prime would certainly help out the lower limits...

[QUOTE=VJS;183721]has droped to 1443 ( 20.7 it was 1491) :sad:

I though we were closer than than...

As far as the pattern goes around 4-5M any ideas?
A prime would certainly help out the lower limits...[/QUOTE]

To get the drop in perspective I have to add the following number We drop to this point even with the first pass adding 62 new tests to the queue.

For the 4-5M range we had at least two user with very bad results and one where we make triple checks at the moment to find out more about the quality of the tests.

For one of the users already all his tests have been redone for the second we have 130 tests left and for the third one this would mean at first 140 tests below 5M and if we later find that we should redo everything another 640 tests above 5.4M. But for now I hope it will only be the low range as this results seem to be from manual reservations while most of the high range seems to be done by llrnet which typicaly means different PCs.