Hmm i try to run the new worker.pl but it asks again and again for the ecm path.

[QUOTE=Andi_HB;185769]Hmm i try to run the new worker.pl but it asks again and again for the ecm path.[/QUOTE]

Try replacing the \ with /, or changing "ecm" to "ecm.exe". I don't know.

[quote=frmky;185729]The worker script doesn't seem to be working under 64-bit Linux, though. My clients show in the status page, but even when the status says that they have work to do, all I see on the screen is

[code]Starting 2 worker threads
No suited work in queue. Waiting ..
No suited work in queue. Waiting ..
No suited work in queue. Waiting ..
No suited work in queue. Waiting ..
Not connected. Connecting ..
[/code][/quote]
it works for me

[quote=kar_bon;185750]@Tim & Max

after installing cygwin under WIN and starting 'perl worker.pl', ecm started and doing some work from the DB but after a few minutes, the task of ecm.exe is still there but no CPU-time!

please check yours, if it's working properly![/quote]
I ran it for at least a few hours and it worked fine for me.

When I start the pearl script the first time (Windows XP, starting it from a dos box) (I just downloaded the newest(?) version - it would be nice if the script would contain a version number to make it easier to check if the local copy is up do date), it asks me for username, password and worker name, and then it asks for the path to ECM. I entered <my ecm-path>\ecm.exe, then it says "Testing ecm binary", but when I look into the task manager, ecm.exe is just sitting there with 0% cpu-useage and waiting forever....

Edit: When I kill ecm.exe (clicking "close program" in the task manager), the script says "ecm-test passed" and proceeds to the msieve test. The msieve process too seems just to sit there doing nothing. When I kill it, the script asks again to enter the path for msieve, so I disabled.

Then the script logged in and sayed something like "no suitable work" for one minute or two. Afterwards it sayed that it had 1 (and later 2) jobs in queue. I let it run for a minute, but again it seemed to do nothing. (should I try to keep it running for ten minutes or more?)

Same for me now

The C139 from 162126.4222 appears to have 3400 curves at 11M from Andreas Schindel. Is this the "work finishes instantly" bug?

Database
 

Gentlemen:

Before you embarked on creating this (IMO, superfluous) database,
did you check with Sam Wagstaff Jr. to get permission????

I strongly suspect that what you are doing consists of

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.


And I see it as unnecesary. All the information is already present
in Sam's on-line tables.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;185938]And I see it as unnecesary. All the information is already present
in Sam's on-line tables.[/QUOTE]

The database was not created just as a place to store the Cunningham tables. I myself think that Sam's tables are good enough for that (if you know how to work out the algebraic factors). But the database stores other things: aliquot sequences, for example. In fact, storing aliquot sequences is currently the database's main purpose.

[QUOTE=10metreh;185939]The database was not created just as a place to store the Cunningham tables. I myself think that Sam's tables are good enough for that (if you know how to work out the algebraic factors). But the database stores other things: aliquot sequences, for example. In fact, storing aliquot sequences is currently the database's main purpose.[/QUOTE]

If one can't work out the algebraic factors, then one has no business
working in this area of mathematics.

I think the database is a TERRIFIC idea. But including the Cunningham
tables is not necessary and (as I said) may be a copyright infringement
on tables [b]already published[/b] by others.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;185938]Gentlemen:

Before you embarked on creating this (IMO, superfluous) database,
did you check with Sam Wagstaff Jr. to get permission????

I strongly suspect that what you are doing consists of

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.


And I see it as unnecesary. All the information is already present
in Sam's on-line tables.[/QUOTE]

I am guilty of an omission. The database itself is fine. It is the
Cunningham part that is superfluous. Mea. Culpa. I should have been
more specific.