Rally Apr. 17th-19th
 

Time for another rally! Let's do one on port 8000 from April 17th to 19th starting and ending at the usual 7 PM GMT.

There's no need to post the # of cores you'll be bringing. David's servers have proven that they are hearty enough to handle anything we throw at them. No proxy servers please.

David, can you bring a few Free-DC folks along for another BBQ? :smile:

Please post any questions or comments in this thread.


Gary

PCZ has prodded already. We'll see what comes to the table when it's time.
I assume Brian will remind everyone once more as the time gets closer to start the rally.

More tuning on the stats DB >processing< * completed.
Testing has revealed it can now process about 50,000 records per minute.
Bring it on!

*
>the DB software is already finely tuned by Bok, it was the data processing scripts that have been markedly improved upon<

OK, I've got 42 cores on this thing now. Let's get them warmed up for the after Easter Rally. :smile:

[QUOTE=vaughan;168766]OK, I've got 42 cores on this thing now. Let's get them warmed up for the after Easter Rally. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Holy crap Vaughan, you don't have to get mercenary about this you know!!! :smile:

[quote=Brucifer;168785]Holy crap Vaughan, you don't have to get mercenary about this you know!!! :smile:[/quote]


Bring on the mercenaries! :missingteeth:

Ok, Free-DC has been notified.
No telling how many cores will come to this one being it's only going to last just a couple days.

I'm fairly certain PCZ and I'll be there. :big grin:

[URL]http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18519[/URL]

I'll be pausing the mini-drive for this.

I only have a Q6600 so try to leave some primes for me. Gonna be a challenge for me to get some primes. :)

[quote=gamer007;168853]I'll be pausing the mini-drive for this.

I only have a Q6600 so try to leave some primes for me. Gonna be a challenge for me to get some primes. :)[/quote]

No more challenge than anything else at the same n-range. The only reason it will be more difficult then the mini-drive is because we'll be testing n>520000 so the tests are larger. Your mini-drive is only around n=422000.

Some people do have a bit of a distaste for the servers due to the random nature in which they receive the tests. But technically, you'll find no more or no less primes in the long run on them then when running manual tests like the mini-drive as long as the n-range and sieve depth are similar.

We appreciate anyone who can contribute, whether they have small, medium, or large resources. The goal is fun for everyone. What I've encourged people to do is find someone or several people with similar resources and make a game within a game out of the rally to see who can do the most tests. People with similar resources to yourself are Max (mdetweiller), Mini-Geek, and Chris (Flatlander), although I think Max and Chris may have 6-8 cores total that they are running now.


Gary

@gamer007
Yes, I have gone from 2 to 4 to 6 cores over the course of 4 years and have found 189 reportable primes! I'm sure you'll soon start finding them too. :smile:

[quote=Flatlander;168905]@gamer007
Yes, I have gone from 2 to 4 to 6 cores over the course of 4 years and have found 189 reportable primes! I'm sure you'll soon start finding them too. :smile:[/quote]
Somewhat similar situation here--for about a year or so I've had one Core 2 Duo which produced many of my primes, and then a few months back I added a Q6600. The Q6600 alone has produced plenty of primes; I've found that at current n-levels, it can crank out about 1000 k/n pairs per day on port 8000. Gary, what's the odds of finding a prime in 2000 k/n pairs on the 10th Drive at n~515K? I remember it was a bit less than 100% for n=400K, but I'm not sure about >500K.

[quote=mdettweiler;168909]Somewhat similar situation here--for about a year or so I've had one Core 2 Duo which produced many of my primes, and then a few months back I added a Q6600. The Q6600 alone has produced plenty of primes; I've found that at current n-levels, it can crank out about 1000 k/n pairs per day on port 8000. Gary, what's the odds of finding a prime in 2000 k/n pairs on the 10th Drive at n~515K? I remember it was a bit less than 100% for n=400K, but I'm not sure about >500K.[/quote]

The chances of something happening are almost never "a bit" less than 100% unless you run about 5 times more tests than are the chances of that thing happening. Example: On a sieve to P=20T at n=400K, to have a 99% chance of finding a prime, you'd have to run nearly 23,500 tests! For a 95% chance, you'd need nearly 15,300 tests.

I think what you mean is that you should find, on average, 1 prime at n=400K in 2000 tests. Regardless, your memory fails you. :smile: That's way too optimistic. No, it's not near that frequently. The odds of finding a prime at n=400K are as follows:

Sieve to P=4T like the mini-drive: One test: 1 in 5365; 2000 tests: 1 in 3.2
Sieve to P=20T like the 10th drive: One test: 1 in 5083; 2000 tests: 1 in 3.1

I gave Gamerz the odds of prime on the mini-drive at n=422K.

The 10th drive is now near n=520K. At that level, the odds of prime on the sieve to P=20T are:
1 test: 1 in 6608
2000 tests: 1 in 3.8 or 26%
6608 tests: 1 in 1.6 or 63%

By the time the rally starts, we'll probably be at n=530K or higher and the rally will probably take us near or past n=540K by the end of it so it will be a little less than the above during the rally.

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet that I used to come up with these odds. It's fun to play with. Most of the formulas were given to me by AXN1 on the forums although I came up with a few myself such as the ones for twins, etc.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;168910]The chances of something happening are almost never "a bit" less than 100% unless you run about 5 times more tests than are the chances of that thing happening. Example: On a sieve to P=20T at n=400K, to have a 99% chance of finding a prime, you'd have to run nearly 23,500 tests! For a 95% chance, you'd need nearly 15,300 tests.

I think what you mean is that you should find, on average, 1 prime at n=400K in 2000 tests. Regardless, your memory fails you. :smile: That's way too optimistic. No, it's not near that frequently. The odds of finding a prime at n=400K are as follows:

Sieve to P=4T like the mini-drive: One test: 1 in 5365; 2000 tests: 1 in 3.2
Sieve to P=20T like the 10th drive: One test: 1 in 5083; 2000 tests: 1 in 3.1

I gave Gamerz the odds of prime on the mini-drive at n=422K.

The 10th drive is now near n=520K. At that level, the odds of prime on the sieve to P=20T are:
1 test: 1 in 6608
2000 tests: 1 in 3.8 or 26%
6608 tests: 1 in 1.6 or 63%

By the time the rally starts, we'll probably be at n=530K or higher and the rally will probably take us near or past n=540K by the end of it so it will be a little less than the above during the rally.

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet that I used to come up with these odds. It's fun to play with. Most of the formulas were given to me by AXN1 on the forums although I came up with a few myself such as the ones for twins, etc.


Gary[/quote]
Hmm...I see. I apparently have been somewhat mistaken as to the definition of the term "x in y odds"--I thought that if something has a 1 in 4 odds, then it's 1/4=25% and thus doing 4 runs means that it should on average produce at least one positive (assuming a random distribution). Is this incorrect?

I've started up all I7 cores on Port8000 until I receive the care package for sieving.
Not really Rally related, but, I wish it was counted towards the Rally. :smile:

[quote=mdettweiler;168937]Hmm...I see. I apparently have been somewhat mistaken as to the definition of the term "x in y odds"--I thought that if something has a 1 in 4 odds, then it's 1/4=25% and thus doing 4 runs means that it should on average produce at least one positive (assuming a random distribution). Is this incorrect?[/quote]


Please reread my post all the way through (and this one too). Obviously you have missed what I was attempting to imply.

Where does the 1 in 4 odds come from? No, believe-it-or-not, if something has a 1 in 4 chance of happening AT LEAST one time, if you do it 4 times, you should, on average, have it happen MORE THAN 1 time. What you're missing is the term "AT LEAST". If there is a 25% chance of it happening at least one time, occassionally it will happen 2, or even 3 or more times.

Also, it does not have "a bit" less than 100% chance of happening if you run it 4 times like you stated in your original post. It only has about a 62% chance of happening. You have to account for the fact that it can happen MORE than one time, which reduces the chance that it will happen one or more times.

62% is the "golden ratio" minus 1. See [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio[/URL]. It is the chance of something happening if you run it the same # of times as its chance of happening in one trial. Example:

Pick a number on a standard 38-number roulette wheel. Now spin that wheel 38 times. There is a 62% chance that the # will come up at least one time in those 38 spins. To average out to 1 hit, it will have to sometimes hit 2 times and sometimes even 3 or more.

The same applies to prime numbers. If there is a 1 in 4000 chance of a prime and you run 4000 tests, you have a 62% chance of AT LEAST one prime coming up, not a "bit less" than 100%.

Something more interesting: If there is a 1 in 4000 chance of a prime, if you run 1000 tests, you will NOT have a 1 in 4 chance of finding a prime number for the same reason that you will not have a 100% chance of finding a prime in 4000 tests. The odds have to account for the fact that there can be 2 or more prime numbers in your test such that the AVERAGE over the long run is 1/4th or 0.25 primes in 1000 tests.

The most remarkable thing though: For a 1 in 4000 chance of prime, if you run 1000 tests, the odds are only ~22% of finding one or more primes even though the long-term average is 0.25. If you run 2000 tests, the odds are ~39% of finding one or more primes even though the long-term average is 0.5.

What you're missing is that in order to average out to 0.25 primes in 1000 tests, you have to take into account the fact that you will sometimes hit 2 or more primes in that stretch. The long-term average will still be 0.25; it's just the chances of finding AT LEAST one prime in 1000 tests are less than 1 in 4.

2 final things:
(1) For a 1 in 4000 chance of prime, to have a 50% chance of finding at least one prime, you have to run ~2775 tests.
(2) For a 1 in 4000 chance of prime, to have a 25% chance of finding at least one prime, you have to run ~1150 tests. But here is the kicker: If you run ~1150 tests 4 times, you will, on average, get 1.15 primes because you will have run ~4600 tests. As stated in the 1st para., it's more than 1 prime!

Confused yet? :-) Probability and statistics are anything but intuitive unless you study them more in depth. Math is fun. Take the spreadsheet and fiddle around with it. That will help.


Gary

My brain hurts.

Can you please formulate a proof to show that it is impossible for my wife to change her blouse without first removing her sweater. She keeps doing it and it's really annoying.

:threadhijacked:

What does any of that have to do with Rally Apr. 17th-19th ?

[quote=IronBits;168975]:threadhijacked:

What does any of that have to do with Rally Apr. 17th-19th ?[/quote]
Well, it makes a wee bit more sense when you see how the topic changed. The split began around #8 and was complete by #12. (talking about not having many cores to bring to the rally, which led to the odds of finding a prime with said, or similar, small resources)
[quote=Flatlander;168973]My brain hurts.[/quote]I second this recommendation:
[quote=gd_barnes;168972]Math is fun. Take the spreadsheet and fiddle around with it. That will help.[/quote]It's much more intuitive and fun when you're playing around with it than reading a bunch of numbers in Gary's post. :smile:

[quote=Mini-Geek;168976]Well, it makes a wee bit more sense when you see how the topic changed. The split began around #8 and was complete by #12. (talking about not having many cores to bring to the rally, which led to the odds of finding a prime with said, or similar, small resources)
I second this recommendation:
It's much more intuitive and fun when you're playing around with it than reading a bunch of numbers in Gary's post. :smile:[/quote]

LMAO. Oh, come now, like Mini hasn't posted a few odds of his own in a thread or 2 here.

That said, yes, math is much more fun then reading my annoying and rambling posts. I just get into the odds of stuff so much that my enthusiasm rambles a little.

Chris, my nearly 14-year-old daughter, when I'm taking her from a soccer game to soccer refereeing sometimes will change her top in the car on the way. She leaves her soccer jersey on top while pulling off her tshirt underneath and then putting on her referee jersey underneath. She then takes off her soccer jersey and she's all done! :-) If I look over at it her, she just grins real big like she's being mischevious. I think it's hilarious. I've witnessed some of her friends do the same thing right before a game when coming from some other activity.

Therefore I have a theory: It is possible for a woman to change her top underneath an outer garment. I haven't formulated a mathematical proof yet but I'm sure there is one. :missingteeth:


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;168978]LMAO. Oh, come now, like Mini hasn't posted a few odds of his own in a thread or 2 here.[/quote]I know, but that doesn't mean I think my posts about odds are more interesting than the math. :smile:
[quote=gd_barnes;168978]Chris, my nearly 14-year-old daughter, when I'm taking her from a soccer game to soccer refereeing sometimes will change her top in the car on the way. She leaves her soccer jersey on top while pulling off her tshirt underneath and then putting on her referee jersey underneath. She then takes off her soccer jersey and she's all done! :-) If I look over at it her, she just grins real big like she's being mischevious. I think it's hilarious. I've witnessed some of her friends do the same thing right before a game when coming from some other activity.

Therefore I have a theory: It is possible for a woman to change her top underneath an outer garment. I haven't formulated a mathematical proof yet but I'm sure there is one. :missingteeth:[/quote]
:huh: Hard to imagine how that's possible. Any idea?

[quote=Mini-Geek;168980]I know, but that doesn't mean I think my posts about odds are more interesting than the math. :smile:

:huh: Hard to imagine how that's possible. Any idea?[/quote]

Point taken on the 1st part. Although I never claimed my posts were more interesting than the math, perhaps I implied it. (lol)

On the 2nd one, it's tricky but not difficult once you've done it a couple of times. She has to slip her arms out of both garments while leaving both garments on her body with both arms underneath both of them. Once that is done, then it's easy enough to pull the undergarment off after slipping it up over her head (under the outer garment) and then pulling it out of one of the arm holes or the head hole of the outer garment.

As for putting the new garment back on, actually, I think I misstated. I had originally said that she put it on under the existing one and then pulled the old one off but after thinking it through, I remember it better. What she actually does is put the new garment on OVER the one that is already on and then pull the "now" undergarment off the same way she did the original under-garment. In other words, during the whole ordeal, she doesn't have her arms in any of the arm holes until the very end when she puts them through the final garment.

Now, as for Chris's wife changing blouses completely underneath her sweater: That is more difficult and is what I had implied originally. It would require putting on the new blouse underneath the sweater in the reverse manner that she pulled off the original one.

I've tried it the way Amy (daughter) does it with a regular shirt and tshirt a couple of times and it takes a time or 2 to get used to it but it's not hard once you've done it a couple of times.

Now the only question is: Can they do it with their pants? Chris, ask your wife to do that. I'm pretty sure it would be impossible with a standard pants design. With a shirt, you can pull your arms out and keep it on your body. With pants, you can't pull your legs out and still keep them on your body.


:smile: Gary

They can if it's one of them pants/skirt things. :grin:

I'm bringing quite a few cores, how many are the rest of you bringing to the Rally?
Are you going to let Free-DC slam dunk you again ????

[quote=IronBits;168983]They can if it's one of them pants/skirt things. :grin:

I'm bringing quite a few cores, how many are the rest of you bringing to the Rally?
Are you going to let Free-DC slam dunk you again ????[/quote]

40 fast and 2 slower here. I'll PM Lennart shortly to give ROLP a fighting chance.

[quote=gd_barnes;168982]Point taken on the 1st part. Although I never claimed my posts were more interesting than the math, perhaps I implied it. (lol)[/quote]I don't know if you implied it, just pointing out that I don't think my posts are.
[quote=gd_barnes;168982]On the 2nd one, [stuff][/quote]Sounds a bit tricky, but I guess you could get used to it. Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense now.
[quote=IronBits;168983]I'm bringing quite a few cores, how many are the rest of you bringing to the Rally?[/quote]Just my two, as usual. (big surprise there, huh?)

There is a skip just down the road but there were no PCs in it, so I'll be bringing my usaul 6 cores.

Where does the constant "1.781" come from in C10 of the spreadsheet?

Re. pants:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8pJIiV9KWo[/URL]

@Gary regarding your big post about probability and odds: ahh, I think I get it now. :smile: So, I guess one could say that, on average, if for a given range of numbers the odds of a prime are 1 in 4000, then someone will most likely score at least one prime (or, to be more exact, 1.15 primes :smile:), if they do ~4600 tests--correct?

Oh, one last thing that I just thought of: is there any difference between the terms "1 in x odds" and "a chance of x to 1", besides the obvious reciprocation of the placements of x and 1? If there is a difference, then maybe that was at least a partial contributor to my confusion, since I'd always thought they were equivalent.

(P.S.: I'll play around with the spreadsheet a bit later today as you suggest; hopefully that will shed further light on this topic. :smile:)

[quote=mdettweiler;169020]@Gary regarding your big post about probability and odds: ahh, I think I get it now. :smile: So, I guess one could say that, on average, if for a given range of numbers the odds of a prime are 1 in 4000, then someone will most likely score at least one prime (or, to be more exact, 1.15 primes :smile:), if they do ~4600 tests--correct?

Oh, one last thing that I just thought of: is there any difference between the terms "1 in x odds" and "a chance of x to 1", besides the obvious reciprocation of the placements of x and 1? If there is a difference, then maybe that was at least a partial contributor to my confusion, since I'd always thought they were equivalent.

(P.S.: I'll play around with the spreadsheet a bit later today as you suggest; hopefully that will shed further light on this topic. :smile:)[/quote]


Yes, correct on your first paragraph! Cool, I'm glad you got it. It's very strange but true. Keep in mind that they still will "most likely" score one prime at 4000 tests. They have a 62% chance of doing so. It's just that 38% of the time they won't find a prime. If that was all there was, then it would only amount to an average of 0.62 primes per 4000 tests, which is obviously incorrect. What brings the average up to 1 prime in 4000 tests is when 2 or more primes are found during that span.

BTW, you could check this in all of your results files. If you have enough 6500-test samples around n=~500K (odds are 1 in ~6500 of prime), you'll come in close to ~62% of them will contain a prime, although some will contain 2 or more.

On your 2nd paragraph, you came to the right guy for that. :-) In roulette, they pay you 35 to 1 if your number hits but you get to keep the bet that you placed. Therefore it also can be stated 36 FOR 1. Some casinos will try to "mess" with you by quoting odds different ways like that. So in order to break even at roulette over the long run, your number has to hit 1 out of every 36 times.

Therefore for something that happens 1 out of every 36 times you have:
Odds of 1 in 36 -or-
Chances of 35 TO 1 -or-
Chances of 36 FOR 1

Of course if you've played roulette, you know that the true odds are 1 in 38 since there are 38 #'s on the (American) roulette wheel. That's the house "vig" of 5.26% there. [For the Europeans around, I realize that it is 1 in 37 where the house vig is only 2.63%. It's a far more popular casino game in Europe than the U.S. The better odds for the player are probably a big part of it.]

So no, you cannot just reciprocate the placement of the odds when stating it in xx to xx format. But also no, I do not believe that was what caused your confusion. I believe that was caused by forgetting that you can actually find 2 or more primes in a 1000 test sample. So even for a 1 in 4000 chance of something, you have to run 1150 tests to have a 25% chance of it occuring but you COULD find 2 or more primes during that time.

Making it easier, sometimes you'll hear someone say something has about an "even chance" of happening or that it is an "even chance" bet. What that means is that the chance of it happening or that the bet pays is 1 TO 1. (The two 1's is why it is referred to as even chance; i.e. they are the same.) If you win, you get paid $1 and you keep your original bet or stated differently 2 FOR 1 or odds of 1 in 2.

If you ever hear about a horse or dog going off at 3 to 5, you'll know he's very good. People are willing to bet $5 to win $3. The animal has to win 5 out of every 8 times for you to break even in the long run. (I've seen one go off at 1 to 5 but it is quite rare. It would require that the animal win 5 out of 6 times for you to break even in the long run.) Almost always the left side of the xx to xx form is higher.

BTW, if I remember right, about a month ago, the Patriots were about a 4 to 1 or 7 to 2 (i.e. 3.5 to 1) favorite to win the Super Bowl next year. That's probably pretty good considering there are 32 teams. :smile: I think the odds on various things like that are quite interesting but have never placed a sports bet in my life. I think a week before the presidental election, Obama was about a 1 to 7 favorite to win. Obviously McCain was given little chance a week out.

OK, rambled and gambled again. :smile:


Gary

Ah, I get it now. Thanks--that makes sense. :smile:

Start 00:00:00 April 17th GMT right?
Ends 00:00:00 April 20th GMT right?

[quote=IronBits;169281]Start 00:00:00 April 17th GMT right?
Ends 00:00:00 April 20th GMT right?[/quote]
[quote=gd_barnes;168321]...from April 17th to 19th starting and ending at the usual 7 PM GMT.[/quote]
So no. Start 19:00:00 April 17th GMT, Ends 19:00:00 April 19th GMT.

LA 12am Friday 17th
SA 2pm Friday 17th
NY 3pm Friday 17th
Montreal 4pm Friday 17th
London 8pm Friday 17th
Paris 9pm Friday 17th
Berlin 10pm Friday 17th
Delhi 1.30am Saturday 18th
Sydney 5am Saturday 18th

Funny old thing time it's all over the place :)

We attempt to start and end it a time that is convienient for the most people, i.e. in the U.S. and Europe.

We'll leave it as is for this rally but with Dave (AMDave) in Australia, we could consider starting them a little later, perhaps at 9 PM GMT. That'd still be early (7 AM) in Sydney but not as bad as 5 AM and it would allow a few folks to be home from work in the U.S., especially in the summer. It would only push it to midnight in Berlin so that wouldn't make it too bad for Karsten.

I don't think we have anyone east of Germany except for Dave so that might actually be a better alternative for future rallies.

That said, I'm not sure it makes much difference on the start and end time. I think that people usually just set their machines to crunch before they go to work or bed and let 'er rip. I usually get them all crunching except my slower cores a day or more before the rally.


Gary

GMT -0 1900
EDT -4 1500
CDT -5 1400
MDT -6 1300
MST -7 1200 (Arizona)
PDT -7 1200
:smile:

Gary i think you forgot vaughan is in Sydney.

Anyway i was bored so had a look at the world clock.
I wasn't 'having a dig'

Oops, yeah Vaughan is the one in Sydney. I don't know where AMDave is. lol

Yeah, I knew you weren't having a dig. I just used it as a reason to potentially come up with a better start/end time in the future.

Dave is in Brisbane but we are both on the same time zone now that Daylight Saving is over.

Just added and I7-920 @ 3.5 GHz - let's see what that adds to my daily output on port 8000. :smile:

If the rally start times were changed to +5 hours, I'd be home to make the switch over :wink:
18hrs 35 mins to go :grin:

You'll just have to switch them over before you leave home or the night before. :smile:

I move all mine over the night before because I'm generally not out of bed until almost 2 PM CDT anyway, which is when the rally starts local time here.

With 2 people in Australia, we can consider moving the next rally 1-3 hours later, which would put it between 6 and 8 AM local time there, 9 PM to 1 AM in Europe, and 2 to 5 PM in the mainland U.S.


Gary

Works for me, could go 5 hrs earlier with no problems here. :)
Looks like the I7 does ~60 per hour.

It would be another option to start them fairly early to mid morning in the U.S., which would be mid to late afternoon in Europe, and around 11 PM to 1 AM in Australia...perhaps 2-3 PM GMT.

I personally have a distaste for mornings so I haven't throw out that option but if people like that idea better, then we could do it.

I think it would force almost all U.S. folks and some from Europe to switch their machines over the night before if they work typical office business hours. Since it can take quite a while to move many cores over, a lot of people wouldn't have the time in the morning. So I'm not sure if it is the best idea unless people don't mind doing that.


Gary

Rally is port 8000
 

I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that like last time, the rally will be on port 8000.

By the next rally that we have, port 8000 will likely be nearing or above n=600K so we could consider having a rally on multiple ports since most will be at n>600K by that point.

Let's roll! :smile:

[QUOTE=IronBits;169561]Works for me, could go 5 hrs earlier with no problems here. :)
Looks like the I7 does ~60 per hour.[/QUOTE]

IB is that on each of the 4 cores or in total? Have you tried it with hyper-threading ie 8 cores?

All 8 cores, full HT mode on at 3.5GHz.

[quote=IronBits;169561]Looks like the I7 does ~60 per hour.[/quote]
Wow...I think that's around 7-8 hours on my Athlon (X2 4800+ 2.5 GHz, dual core). That makes me feel kinda bad. :sad: *looks up price of i7's* Ok, now I don't feel so bad! :smile: $289, $560, or $1000 depending on the model. (from Newegg) Wow. My CPU cost $100 about 17 months ago, it's around $50 for an equivalent one now. (sounds related to Moore's Law)
Which i7 do you have and what clock speed is it at?

I7-920s. Get good, no, make that GREAT 3rd party HSF, go into BIOS and set BCLK/fsb to 173-174 and your good to go at 3.5GHz.
It's a tad shy, but close enough and rock solid.

Just fired up all cylinders over here.
5 hrs early, but better than being late to the party :smile:

Another ROLP BBQ coming right up. :big grin:

Rally started 30 mins. ago. Good luck everyone!

On a good note: It looks like the project picked off 5 primes (all new) in the 6 hours directly proceeding the rally. A precursor of things to come! :smile:

Rollin', rollin', rollin'.


Gary

I want one of those.
 

For comparison with Ironbits' i7, I'm also getting ~60 per hour but I'm using a C2Quad @3.09GHz AND a C2Duo at 2.38GHz. A total of 17.12GHz.

One of my 2.6 Ghz Intel quads is doing ~33 per hour. Not overclocked. A crappy AMD at the same speed is doing ~29 per hour.

David I7's are 8 cores at ~60 per hour so that's pretty equivalent.

Chris, you're getting some serious processing power out of only 6 cores to get ~60 per hour. It's taking 2 of my non-overclocked 2.6 Ghz quads to reach that.

I can see that it's about time to add an I7 to my arsenal. I'll definitely be looking into that before the next rally. :smile:


Gary

1925*2^534824-1 is not prime. Res64: 8584255FA354F6E8 Time : 260.810 sec.
Result 1925/534824 succesfully sent to the server.
1941*2^534843-1 is not prime. Res64: 3F3189CD70A7CAA6 Time : 261.291 sec.
Result 1941/534843 succesfully sent to the server.
1981*2^534861-1 is not prime. Res64: 710340AB7C90CA17 Time : 261.466 sec.
Result 1981/534861 succesfully sent to the server.
1709*2^534880-1 is not prime. Res64: EE1E286CB1F8B408 Time : 261.135 sec.
Result 1709/534880 succesfully sent to the server.
1825*2^534899-1 is not prime. Res64: 50800ACEE7002307 Time : 261.059 sec.
Result 1825/534899 succesfully sent to the server.
1951*2^534915-1 is not prime. Res64: 327AF958FCD9622F Time : 261.293 sec.
Result 1951/534915 succesfully sent to the server.
1455*2^534936-1 is not prime. Res64: 075F6EF383A1816F Time : 262.851 sec.
Result 1455/534936 succesfully sent to the server.


A snippet of lresults from one core of a 45nm quad running at 3.825 GHZ [450x8.5]
Thats about 55 an hour across the 4 cores.

It's my gaming PC i don't normally crunch on it, except for rallies :)

Oh, now that is just WRONG! You shouldn't be able to crunch that fast! lol

Anyway, that's truly amazing.

You should put that bad boy to use more often; i.e. at night or other times you aren't playing games on it. :-)

I have a question for you techno whizzes and geeks: :-)

Does it use more electricity to overclock a machine or to buy a new one such that both result in the same total processing power? More specifically:

If I added 10% in speed to my 10 quads, that would be the equivalent of buying another quad. So...would 11 quads at "normal" speed use more electricity than the 10 quads overclocked by 10%?

I think, though, for me, I have to get them running cooler first. I've taken a couple of steps and have now only blown 1 mobo in the last ~3 months, knock on wood. But I had enough problems with them before that that I think I'd need to buy some heavier-duty coolers before I overclocked them. $50-60 for a mobo is not a big deal but it gets a little expensive when you've had to replace 6 of them in a year. As Max pointed out in a PM at some point, I could have almost bought another quad for the amount I've spent on mobos. :-(


Gary

Do you PC's all have harddrives VC's CD roms etc ?
If they are fully equipped PC's then 10 OC'd would use about the same as 11 non OC'd.

A mild OC to say 3GHZ woud hardly affect the power consumption at all. voltages all remain at stock.
Processor will use 33% more juice but the rest of the components in the PC will use the same amount whether OC'd or not.

A q6600 g0 uses about 95w at 2.4 GHZ.
Running at 3GHZ that increases to about 127w, assuming no core voltage increases.

What does a whole PC draw 300watts ?
overclock 10 quads to 3GHZ and use 320 watts extra
Use another PC instead of overclocking and its another 300watts or so.

In my example the 10 overclocked PC's are have the equivalent crunching power of 13.3 non OC'd ones, but the power consumption equal to 11 non OC'd ones.

When my KoW meter worked (just noticed it's dead now) it showed one at 230 watts and another one at 280 watts.
Gary, I7s are true 4 cores with HT which makes it look like it has 8 cores.
Four true cores are doing ~60 per hour :wink: x 5 :big grin:

Ahh.. you guys and your I7's... :razz:

All I have is a Q6600, which did about 30/hour on stock. Now I'm currently trying a 2.66GHz OC, though I have a stock heatsink/fan so I don't really want to go too high. I'm also testing out a Pentium 4 (3.0Ghz) to see how it runs during this rally.

[quote=IronBits;169680]When my KoW meter worked (just noticed it's dead now)...[/quote]
Too much spinning for it to handle huh?
:jokedrum:

Don't know, it used to work, who knows, it may have been dropped on the floor with all the spring cleaning.
No matter, they don't cost that much, I'll get another. :smile:

Rats! I woke up this morning and found that all four cores of my quad are frozen at 99%! (Stupid bug! :razz:) I hope I have time to get them restarted before I have to head out shortly...

Edit: Hmm, another look at the progress report tells me that they've been frozen since BEFORE the rally started (they froze at ~7AM 4/17 server time). :sick: And I didn't notice it?!? :wink:

Froze at 99% of what?

[quote=gd_barnes;169751]Froze at 99% of what?[/quote]
99% on the progress bar. You know--the classic Windows 99% client bug. I'm sure you've encountered it before. (On Linux it often manifests itself as a 100% complete bug instead, which on the terminal console usually just shows the last result as the last line, and nothing after that with the client completely idle.)

Anyway, they're all back online now. :smile:

[quote=mdettweiler;169764]99% on the progress bar. You know--the classic Windows 99% client bug. I'm sure you've encountered it before. (On Linux it often manifests itself as a 100% complete bug instead, which on the terminal console usually just shows the last result as the last line, and nothing after that with the client completely idle.)

Anyway, they're all back online now. :smile:[/quote]
Oh, you mean the status of the prime tests all get to 99% and then stop? I wasn't sure what you meant either, but I think I know now.

[quote=Mini-Geek;169769]Oh, you mean the status of the prime tests all get to 99% and then stop? I wasn't sure what you meant either, but I think I know now.[/quote]
Yes, that's it. I've noticed it tends to be triggered at times when the client tries to connect but can't due to an interruption at some point down the line (which happens quite frequently with my internet connection). Sometimes it can simply try again when the connection comes back on and all will be OK, but nonetheless it will sometimes freeze.

I've got a theory as to exactly what causes it to freeze: say a test finishes while the internet connection is out. The client moves on to the next test, and tries to report the result. It can't, so it times out and waits before trying again. However, I'm pretty sure that if the *next* test finishes while the previous one's result is still waiting to be reported, *then* it will crash. (Note: this is just a somewhat unscientifically-derived hypothesis; I haven't done any hard tests to see if it's true.)

Halfway through the rally, we have:

9 new primes and 2 confirmed primes.

All have been reported. Nice work everyone. That was actually quite a bit better than expected for the range that we processed. Let's keep 'er going for the 2nd half!

Now I have one question: Where is my prime? 10 quads haven't found one in nearly 3 days or 20K+ tests. Ergh!


:smile: Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;169781]Halfway through the rally, we have:

9 new primes and 2 confirmed primes.

All have been reported. Nice work everyone. That was actually quite a bit better than expected for the range that we processed. Let's keep 'er going for the 2nd half!

Now I have one question: Where is my prime? 10 quads haven't found one in nearly 3 days or 20K+ tests. Ergh!


:smile: Gary[/quote]

I must of got the prime headed for you since you we're do. Looks like I was really lucky.

Nice going all you teams that are ahead of XtremeSystems (which is all of them :smile:) .

At least you guys are finding primes. :razz: The only prime I found was one hours before the rally started.

Same here.
I think i must be a composite proving specialist :)

PS
Output will be slightly down for a couple of hours, got a few boxes off line.
Cant do much about it as they are remote.

And here I thought you were gaming... like me :big grin:

No it's the boxes at work under my desk.
Now you mention gaming, the pair of 260's are nice.
Overclocked pretty good 720 1512.

[QUOTE=PCZ;169807]
Output will be slightly down for a couple of hours, got a few boxes off line.
...
[/QUOTE]
I woke this morning to find several Windows 7 boxes has decided to perform a Windows Update at 3am so they had re-booted and were idling on the Login Screen.
I forgot to disable windowsupdates for the Rally.

[quote=vaughan;169817]I woke this morning to find several Windows 7 boxes has decided to perform a Windows Update at 3am so they had re-booted and were idling on the Login Screen.
I forgot to disable windowsupdates for the Rally.[/quote]
I usually prefer to set Windows Update on my boxes to "download updates when available but don't install them until I tell you to". That way I can install them when *I* want to install them, not at whatever time in the inconvenient dead of night that Windows wants to do it. :smile:

Actually, what would really be ideal is to have the computer not do that annoying "countdown to reboot" thing after an update; instead, it could, say, just leave a somewhat-noticeable icon down in the system tray that says "Your system needs to be rebooted" and wait until the user reboots on his own. That's the way it's done in Ubuntu and it works great in my experience.

Come to think of it, I could have sworn that a few years ago in PC Magazine I read an article on how to tweak something in the Registry that makes Windows cut out the automatic reboots. If I come across it again I'll be sure to post it here since I'm sure a number of you guys would find it quite useful. :smile:

[quote=mdettweiler;169821]Come to think of it, I could have sworn that a few years ago in PC Magazine I read an article on how to tweak something in the Registry that makes Windows cut out the automatic reboots. If I come across it again I'll be sure to post it here since I'm sure a number of you guys would find it quite useful. :smile:[/quote]
Something like this? [URL]http://4sysops.com/archives/disable-restart-after-windows-automatic-updates/[/URL] :smile: I'm using that to tweak my settings. It's annoying restarting when I don't want it to...

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;169825]Something like this? [URL]http://4sysops.com/archives/disable-restart-after-windows-automatic-updates/[/URL] :smile: I'm using that to tweak my settings. It's annoying restarting when I don't want it to...[/QUOTE]
Ah, perfect! Thanks--that's exactly what I was looking for! :smile:

That's why I despise Window's...stupid things like auto update and the countdown to reboot thing. To me, the defaults are all wrong. I won't even let mine do updates at all until I tell it to because I don't want that countown to reboot thing. The default should not be automatic updates and it should stop hounding you constantly to update them or reboot your computer if you have. Even with the auto updates turned off, every day, that little bubble is popped up with "Windows updates are available". Go away, already!

I update mine about once/month. I've had one virus in the last 2 years and that was due to my own stupidity when I failed to update them for 3-4 months and I clicked on something that I had a kind of "bad feeling" about.

It's like they practically force you to do things their way and you have to jump through hoops to not be forced to do it that way.

As Ian is fond of saying, thanks Willie!


Gary

Holy cow. This is very good news. Stuff is happening fast. Later today, I'll get on that site and get registered and start answering questions.

In the mean time...Does anyone know if Bok and pfb know how to submit top-5000 primes. Pfb had a prime yesterday.

I'll only be on on-and-off for a few mins. at a time until later today.


Gary

And Free-DC does another resounding STOMP! :big grin:

Thank you everyone for particating in the rally! It was another resoundingly success! We all appreciate your interest and help with the project.

By my calculations, we found 22 new and 4 confirmed primes in just 2 days. Nice work!

We do have a lot of unreported primes from today. All except one were reported as of 7 AM GMT this morning. Here is what we have yet to report:

pfb: 1
Bok: 2
vaughan: 1
IronBits: 1


Before continuing on, I think we need to iron out the administratrive stuff here first.

Vaughan and David know what they need to do. For pfb and Bok, no one answered my question from earlier if they know they need to report their primes at the top-5000 site. I'll go ahead and Email them.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;169937]For pfb and Bok, no one answered my question from earlier if they know they need to report their primes at the top-5000 site. I'll go ahead and Email them.


Gary[/quote]


Just to say I did report it (as mentioned in the email :)); was a bit tied up with work stuff after the rally but my prime was reported :)

Not normally into wholly into math projects but this has piqued my interest ;)

Good rally (esp for Free-DC ;)) and looking forward to the next one ;)