Error in Worktodo file
 

A few months ago I posted when I had problems with saved files for 46,266,683 disappearing. Then I decided to have another try after seeing the thread

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12766[/URL]

and seeing the note from Mini Geek

"trial factoring, it's one of the options for what to run in Test > Worker Windows"

Unfortunately although it was only two days ago I can't remember how I did it. However I do remember being asked to paste this text into my worktodo file:

[Worker #1]
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

Nothing happened until this morning when I got the following messages:

Too many sections in worktodo.txt, Line #7
Error: Worktodo.txt file contained bad LL exponent: 0
Illegal line in worktodo file: Test=exponent,68,1
Error: Worktodo.txt file contained bad LL exponent: 0
Illegal line in worktodo file: Test=DoubleCheck=exponent,66,1
Starting workers.
Too many sections in worktodo.txt, Line #7
Error: Worktodo.txt file contained bad LL exponent: 0
Illegal line in worktodo file: Test=exponent,68,1
Error: Worktodo.txt file contained bad LL exponent: 0
Illegal line in worktodo file: Test=DoubleCheck=exponent,66,1

Questions:

1) This was two days afterwards. One of my exponents had reached 75%; was this the trigger?

2) I guess some lines need to be removed from worktodo, which currently reads

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
[Worker #1]
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

how should I edit the worktodo file?

Grateful for advice.

G

[quote=GARYP166;196661]1) This was two days afterwards. One of my exponents had reached 75%; was this the trigger?[/quote]No.

[quote]2) I guess some lines need to be removed from worktodo, which currently reads

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
[Worker #1]
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

how should I edit the worktodo file?[/quote]Change it to:

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

There should be only one header for each worker, and all assignments for that worker should be listed under that header but before the next header.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;196675]
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1[/QUOTE]

You need to change the text "exponent" with the Mersenne number you are testing.

I presume that's not literally in the file, but the poster simply wishes to conceal the exact exponent.

I'm not certain. Two of the exponents weren't concealed. A newcomer may assume the program can infer the exponent from the assignment ID or by contacting the server.

[quote=cheesehead;196691]the poster simply wishes to conceal the exact exponent.[/quote]Isn't that a more reasonable theory than a newbie's thinking that "exponent" is a legitimate character string for that field? C'mon.

[quote=cheesehead;196691]I presume that's not literally in the file, but the poster simply wishes to conceal the exact exponent.[/quote]
I doubt it, because he said he put the exact lines that were in the example from the Manual Assignments page into his worktodo.txt file. When you get assignments there, after giving your lines, it says the following:[quote]Distribute the lines above to your computer's worktodo.txt files. A typical version 25 prime95 worktodo.txt file on a dual core computer looks like this:

[Worker #1]
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

Older prime95's must run one prime95 instance for each core. The input file is called worktodo.ini. A typical worktodo.ini file looks like this:

Test=exponent,68,1
or
DoubleCheck=exponent,66,1

For Glucas and Mlucas follow the documentation that comes with those programs
[/quote]

[quote=Mini-Geek;196774]I doubt it, because he said he put the exact lines that were in the example from the Manual Assignments page into his worktodo.txt file. When you get assignments there, after giving your lines, it says the following:[/quote]Oh ... now that I see the exact comparison with the message text ... I guess you're right.

In that case, we should advise GARYP166 to also change the example assignment type, assignment key, bit level and P-1 indicator to his actual assignment type, assignment key, bit level and P-1 indicator.

Some folks are more literal than others. Perhaps the page message should use "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" instead of "A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F" and the other key, and make it clearer that those lines are not to be copied literally.

[quote=cheesehead;196776]Some folks are more literal than others. Perhaps the page message should use "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" instead of "A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F" and the other key, and make it clearer that those lines are not to be copied literally.[/quote]
I agree. A line or two in front of the real assignment line(s) saying that THIS is what you should use might also help.

Also, use

"[your assignment line from above]" instead of some fake assignment line.

But there's still the problem of copying the [Worker #1] and [Worker #2] lines from the example. Maybe there should be more than one example of arrangement of those, to emphasize that they're only examples.

Thanks to Cheesehead and Mini Geek for their replies.

I have no desire to conceal the exponents - indeed I mentioned the one I wanted in my post. For the record they are

46,266,683 - my first test, which crashed in February and which I decided to restart
23,110,891 - 35.43% done
45,890,281 - 76.63% done

I managed to work out what I did. I logged on and clicked on manual testing. For preferred work types I clicked on double check tests, not seeing LL tests in the drop down menu, and then entered 46,266,683 in both the Optional Exponent range boxes. Finally I clicked on Get Assignments. To test it I entered 49,979,687 and got the message

[I]Distribute the lines above to your computer's worktodo.txt files. A typical version 25 prime95 worktodo.txt file on a dual core computer looks like this:[/I]

[I][Worker #1][/I]
[I]Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1[/I]
[I][Worker #2][/I]
[I]DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1[/I]

which is the same message as I got for 46,266,683.

I didn't realise that this was an example - my thought on seeing the strings was that they were hex representations of some number that Prime 95 would recognise. I changed the worktodo file so that it read as Cheesehead advised, including the word "exponent", and it's gone past today's communication with the server without generating an error message.

So my new questions are:

1) What should I have in my worktodo file so that 46,266,683 is the next to start?

2) What is the trigger that adds a new exponent to the queue? We've established that having one of my exponents reaching 75% was just a co-incidence, but how far does the test have to progress before another one is allocated?

G

[QUOTE=GARYP166;196800]
2) What is the trigger that adds a new exponent to the queue? We've established that having one of my exponents reaching 75% was just a co-incidence, but how far does the test have to progress before another one is allocated?
[/QUOTE]

When the amount of time left in Test > Status is less than your setting for "Days Of Work to Queue Up" in Options > Preferences.

Example: Test > Status shows your test to finish in about 12 days. If you setting is to queue up 10 days of work, it will get another test from PrimeNet in about 2 days.

Yes that sounds reasonable.

I missed Prime95 off the list in my previous message - sorry.

G

[quote=GARYP166;196800]1) What should I have in my worktodo file so that 46,266,683 is the next to start?[/quote]Can you post what's in the worktodo now?

This is it.

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1

G

[quote=GARYP166;196863]
[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
Test=A5996856A4F73D28634EFA6CB510066F,exponent,68,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
DoubleCheck=B94D34BF558295F697581568AD2E14AF,exponent,66,1
[/quote]

[quote=GARYP166]
What should I have in my worktodo file so that 46,266,683 is the next to start?
[/quote]

A) Stop and exit Prime95.

B) Get rid of the two lines with "exponent", so the worktodo is back to:

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1

C) Do you still have a copy of your 46266683 test assignment line somewhere?

If so, then copy your 46266683 test assignment line into the worktodo file. Put it either just after the " DoubleCheck=44C4 ..." line or just after the " Test=BDA2 ..." line, so that the worktodo looks like either:

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
( >>> Here place your original assignment line for 46266683 <<<)
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1

if you want the 46266683 test to resume when the DC on 23110891 completes,

or

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1
( >>> Here place your original assignment line for 46266683 <<<)

if you want the 46266683 test to resume when the test on 45890281 completes.

D) Restart Prime95.

- -

If you don't still have a copy of your original 46266683 test assignment line, we'll explain further.

Thanks Cheesehead, but I'm afraid I don't have the original files - they disappeared into the ether. See

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11476[/URL]

I don't mind restarting the exponent as only about three days' work was done.

G

[quote=GARYP166;196879]See

[URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11476[/URL]
[/quote]Oh ... that's why this looked a bit familiar.

I just looked at 46266683's status. PrimeNet now has it assigned to you for double-checking:

[quote]AssignedDouble-checking to "GARY P" on 2009-11-20[/quote]What happened, apparently, is that back in the summer PrimeNet reassigned it for first-time testing to someone else, "linded", after you hadn't reported any progress for six months. Then "linded" reported a first-time test result in September.

Recently (2009-11-20), apparently you communicated with PrimeNet while either your worktodo file had a line for 46266683, or your prime.spl file still had a progress report for 46266683 left over from February. Whichever way it happened doesn't matter!

The important point is that [I]PrimeNet has now re-reserved 46266683 for you[/I], as a doublecheck this time.

So, add the following line to your worktodo file:

DoubleCheck=,46266683,68,1

[Note that there must be a comma following the = sign.]

Put it immediately after the

DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1

line

or immediately after the

Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1

line, depending on whether you want your test of 46266683 to resume after your 23110891 doublecheck completes or after your 45890281 LL test completes.

Then, the next time your Prime95 sends a progress report to PrimeNet, PrimeNet will (I think) fill in your 32-hex-digit assignment ID key (between the = sign and the first comma) on the 46266683 line in your worktodo file. From then on, it will look just like (and, indeed, be) a normal assignment line.

[quote=cheesehead;196893]The important point is that [I]PrimeNet has now re-reserved 46266683 for you[/I], as a doublecheck this time.[/quote]

Somehow I fail to see the point in running a 43.6m doublecheck right now unless one has a savefile with considerable progress. In the same time that test takes to complete one can run about four 23m doublechecks...

It depends on how Gary feels about finally finishing 46266683 himself versus getting some other, first-time, assignment and leaving 46266683 to someone else to doublecheck a few years from now.

[quote=ckdo;196900]In the same time that test takes to complete one can run about four 23m doublechecks...[/quote]The iterations in each case (92M fast ones or 46M slower ones) will have to be done sometime by somebody either way. Either choice benefits GIMPS in the long run.

Personally, I think the most important factor is satisfaction of the participant, who should do whatever he'll enjoy most.

Yes, there are some folks (I'm one of them) urging users to take on more DC assignments, in order to close up the gap between DC and first-time results, but only if they find it interesting. To me, each particular user's satisfaction is more important than some race between DCs and F-Ts. GIMPS has a variety of tasks available for different tastes, and all those contributions are valuable.

Suppose the first result for 46266683 turns out to be in error, and the DC finds it to be a Mersenne prime? That is a very, very long shot (one chance in multimillions), but Gary may wish that he'd been the one who performed that DC.

OTOH, suppose Gary takes some other first-time assignment instead of DCing 46266683 and [I]that other one[/I] turns out to be a Mersenne prime. Then he'll be really glad he dropped 46266683. His chances [I]are[/I] better in this second case than in the first case.

I didn't join for the investment opportunity, though of course if I discover anything I shan't be ungrateful. I think the answer is the good old British compromise - my PC can check two numbers at once, so maybe one should be 46,266,683 and the other should be something new. I mentioned 49,979,687 which is the 3,000,000th prime according to the list on Chris Caldwell's site and which has no factor below 2^68.

Question: what option do I choose from the drop down menu when I want to test it? I guess that an LL test would be the next that is needed.

Incidentally, what is an spl file (Cheesehead's posting of 24th November, 4:48 p.m.)? There are none with that extension in my Prime95 folder, or indeed anywhere on the PC apart from three that have the names of languages as part of the name.

G

[quote=GARYP166;197099]I mentioned 49,979,687 which is the 3,000,000th prime according to the list on Chris Caldwell's site and which has no factor below 2^68.

Question: what option do I choose from the drop down menu when I want to test it? I guess that an LL test would be the next that is needed.[/quote]
It'd be best to just tell Prime95 what's done and let it handle what needs to be done. This line tells it everything:
[code]Test=49979687,69,0[/code]Put that in worktodo.txt somewhere and restart Prime95, and it'll get to it when it gets there in the file. :smile: In this case, it's [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49979687"]already at[/URL] the [URL="http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/factorbits.php?exponent=49979687&submitbutton=Calculate"]optimal TF depth[/URL], but doesn't have P-1 done yet, so it'll run P-1 at optimal bounds for the memory you allow (the more, the better), then run the LL.

Here a breakdown of the line:
Test tells it the sort of work it'll be doing, i.e. any prefactoring necessary and then an LL test
49979687 is, of course, the exponent (commas mean a very different thing here, so you need to make sure you don't make it 49,979,687)
69 tells it that it's known there are no factors below 2^69 (which is accurate, [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49979687"]as far as PrimeNet knows anyway[/URL])
0 tells it that no P-1 factoring has been done (which is accurate, [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49979687"]as far as PrimeNet knows anyway[/URL]; 1 would mean that it has been done)

If your Prime95 is set to communicate with PrimeNet, it'll tell PrimeNet about what it's doing, fill in an assignment key, and report the work when it's done, just like any test that PrimeNet gave you. If not, you should use [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/[/URL] to report any results (such as complete TF, P-1, and LL results) when they complete.

I'm pretty sure the prime.spl file is basically a file Prime95 makes to prepare to communicate with PrimeNet, listing what it'll say when it does communicate. Not 100% sure on that, or on the details of it.

[quote=GARYP166;197099]Question: what option do I choose from the drop down menu when I want to test it?[/quote]Prime95 isn't set up to allow testers to request PrimeNet assignment of any specific exponent.

Administrators can manually reserve a particular exponent for a particular user. Perhaps George will do so if you send him an e-mail (To get his e-addr, do a Google search on "George Woltman e-mail") or he reads this forum thread.

[quote]I guess that an LL test would be the next that is needed.[/quote]... but it's not -- the next step would be a P-1 test, before the LL.

[quote]Incidentally, what is an spl file (Cheesehead's posting of 24th November, 4:48 p.m.)?[/quote]It's a file Prime95 generates to communicate with PrimeNet. Mostly, it's just a compressed version of the results.txt file, but it sometimes has other status messages stored in it until the user's next communication with PrimeNet.

[quote]There are none with that extension in my Prime95 folder,[/quote]Prime95 creates the .spl file (name: prime.spl) when it has something to send to PrimeNet. After its content is successfully communicated to PrimeNet when the user next connects to PrimeNet, Prime95 deletes the file.

(.spl stands for "spool", which has long been used in mainframe computer systems to refer to a temporary storage file for data intended to be sent to a destination that's not immediately available.

For instance, on a multiprogramming system, when a program generates print output, the printer may be in the midst of printing some other program's output. So any program's print output is first sent to a spool file on disk. Later, when the printer is available, the OS prints the content of that spool file.)

[quote=Mini-Geek;197103]It'd be best to just tell Prime95 what's done and let it handle what needs to be done. This line tells it everything:
[code]Test=49979687,69,0[/code]Put that in worktodo.txt somewhere and restart Prime95, and it'll get to it when it gets there in the file.[/quote]Mini-Geek, please [U]don't ever tell users to do that when PrimeNet (or George, with administrator intervention) has not already assigned that exponent to that user[/U].

What if PrimeNet has assigned that exponent to someone else? Then Gary will have poached someone else's assignment. I've gone to a lot of trouble over the years to explain why poaching is undesirable.

Even if you've just checked an exponent's status online, PrimeNet might assign it between the time you look at its status and the time Gary starts working on it.

With the proper precautions, the chances of an accidental poach because you reserved an exponent like that are near zero. In the end, all you have to do is have Prime95 communicate with PrimeNet, and check that PrimeNet accepts your reservation. I agree that there is some chance that if you don't do any reserving, it'll be assigned to someone else, so that should be avoided, especially if the number in question is close to a leading edge for new reservations (this one is probably far enough to not cause any problems, but not certainly so). Here are more details, including a verification of this I just did:

To test that this works as intended, I just got a first-time LL test through the manual reservations. By the first time I checked it, which was very soon, the status at [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=43195433[/URL] updated to show that it was reserved, so there is little to no delay from reservation to status updating. (note that the leading edge for LL reservations is far from the exponent in question - 431... vs 499...) and saw that it listed it as assigned. If there is any delay between assignment and update there, it's very short.
Then I added it into Prime95 as described (I didn't use the assignment key I just got, since I am acting like this is a different user) and got it to communicate it to PrimeNet. It said:[code][Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] Registering assignment: LL M43195433
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] PrimeNet error 40: No assignment
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] ra: already assigned, exponent: 43195433, A: 1, b: 2, c: -1
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] Done communicating with server.
[/code]It changed the Test=43195433,68,0 line to Test=N/A,43195433,68,0. All exactly as expected. By simply reading the Prime95 status window to see if PrimeNet accepted your reservation or not, or by checking worktodo.txt to see if it put N/A or a real key, you can see if you ought to continue running or not. Even if somebody reserved it between you checking the status and you adding it to Prime95 and communicating that to PrimeNet, it'll then tell you that it's been reserved and you can know what's going on and stop it.

This was within a very short time from the reservation, about 2 minutes, so there is no practical delay (if any at all) in which time you might accidentally poach.

As long as the person doing this double checks that PrimeNet accepted the reservation, there is no chance of them accidentally poaching the number.

(note that I have since unreserved the number, so if you notice that the status says it's unreserved, that's perfectly right :smile: Edit: It has since been assigned to another user.)

[quote=Mini-Geek;197110]With the proper precautions, the chances of an accidental poach because you reserved an exponent like that are near zero.[/quote]Please don't use that argument to justify something you shouldn't be doing.

I have described an acceptable method (e-mail to George) that has none of the liabilities of your recommendation. There is no good reason to advise users to bypass PrimeNet.

[quote]I agree that there is some chance that if you don't do any reserving, it'll be assigned to someone else, so that should be avoided,[/quote]Do you acknowledge that there is a time gap, in your method, between when the user sets up the worktodo and when PrimeNet finds out about it, such as when there happens to be no communication for a while?

[quote]especially if the number in question is close to a leading edge for new reservations (this one is probably far enough to not cause any problems, but not certainly so).[/quote]Mini-Geek, there's a difference between advising someone who has extensive experience with GIMPS and PrimeNet and advising a newcomer.

Do not advise newcomers to do something that requires knowledge of PrimeNet beyond the standard instructions on the website.

You seem not to be aware of the numerous steps at which a newcomer might make a mistake without knowing it. Please do not advise newcomers to bypass the established procedures of PrimeNet.

[quote]To test that this works as intended, I just got a first-time LL test through the manual reservations. By the first time I checked it, which was very soon, the status at [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=43195433[/URL] updated to show that it was reserved, so there is little to no delay from reservation to status updating.[/quote]Do you understand that this has nothing to do with my objections?

I'm not concerned with the time delay between PrimeNet reservation and status update!

Please re-read my previous posting to see which time intervals I was actually concerned about. They're much longer than the minuscule time between reservation and status update.

[quote](note that the leading edge for LL reservations is far from the exponent in question - 431... vs 499...) and saw that it listed it as assigned. If there is any delay between assignment and update there, it's very short.[/quote]Why are you concerned with a time delay I never complained about? Obviously you don't understand the basis of my objections. Please re-read my previous postings until you understand where/when the [I]real[/I] trouble could be.

[quote]Then I added it into Prime95 as described (I didn't use the assignment key I just got, since I am acting like this is a different user) and got it to communicate it to PrimeNet. It said:[code][Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] Registering assignment: LL M43195433
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] PrimeNet error 40: No assignment
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] ra: already assigned, exponent: 43195433, A: 1, b: 2, c: -1
[Comm thread Nov 26 20:50] Done communicating with server.
[/code]It changed the Test=43195433,68,0 line to Test=N/A,43195433,68,0. All exactly as expected. By simply reading the Prime95 status window to see if PrimeNet accepted your reservation or not, or by checking worktodo.txt to see if it put N/A or a real key, you can see if you ought to continue running or not. Even if somebody reserved it between you checking the status and you adding it to Prime95 and communicating that to PrimeNet, it'll then tell you that it's been reserved and you can know what's going on and stop it.[/quote][B]YOU[/B] can know what's going on and stop it, but you are not a newcomer!!! Your own experience with this procedure means nothing about what trouble some newcomer might cause.

[quote]This was within a very short time from the reservation, about 2 minutes, so there is no practical delay (if any at all) in which time you might accidentally poach.[/quote]WRONG!!!

That's not the time interval wih which I am concerned. Thereis a much longer time interval in which the "accidental poaching" can happen. That you don't understand that is another indication that you should not yet be advising newcomers to bypass PrimeNet.

[quote]As long as the person doing this double checks that PrimeNet accepted the reservation[/quote]But the procedure you described to Gary skips the PrimeNet reservation. Your experiment did not use the procedure you recommended to Gary. If you can't see that difference, you have no business advising newcomers to bypass established procedures.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;197110]With the proper precautions, the chances of an accidental poach because you reserved an exponent like that are near zero. [/QUOTE]

Although it isn't documented anywhere, this is an acceptable way of reserving a specific exponent (the manual web forms also work).

To avoid an accidental poach, just make sure you read the on screen message or prime.log message and if the exponent is reserved by someone else, remove the "N/A" line from worktodo.txt.

Prime95 will contact the server within 24 hours to get this reservation (it might do it immediately upon restart - I'd have to check the code).

This is much better than using the Advanced/Test dialog box.

[quote=Prime95;197117]Although it isn't documented anywhere, this is an acceptable way of reserving a specific exponent (the manual web forms also work).[/quote]I don't think you are paying attention to the procedure to which Mini-Geek referred when he wrote, "With the proper precautions".

His method is not acceptable until corrected.

If you want to prescribe a correction to Mini-Geek's procedure to avoid this problem, then please do so.

I admit that I could have responded to Mini-Geek in a more explanatory manner, but I'm too irritated to do so now. Figure it out yourselves.

I meant to be more clear about this in my last post, but I didn't mean to suggest one thing and test/demonstrate another, I meant to modify my suggestion to also communicate ASAP and check that PrimeNet accepted it. I think this is what George was referring to as acceptable (though undocumented).
Alternately, as George mentioned and I just noticed you could do, you can specify the desired exponent as the both min and max at [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/manual_assignment/[/URL] and, assuming it's not already assigned, it'll give you a line. Here there is no possibility of a delay from starting work to communicating, or of a newbie misreading what's happening and accidentally poaching. If it's already reserved it doesn't give you the line to run it.
In the future I'll recommend this instead (i.e. using the manual assignment page and specifying your exponent). I think this should be acceptable to everyone and is easy and clear for everyone involved. :smile:

So, to close: Gary P, I suggest (instead of my earlier suggesiton) you go to [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/manual_assignment/[/URL], log in if you haven't already, leave the top two boxes set at 1, leave the preferred work type box set to World record tests, (for other candidates you might need to change this to a different work type, but for this that's right) enter 49979687 in both of the boxes for exponent range, and click Get Assignments. Then, if it gives you the assignment line, copy that into your worktodo.txt and restart Prime95. :smile:

[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial Unicode MS][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Oh dear, I seem to have started something. I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to cause any unpleasantness.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Firstly, a little background. I’m an accountant by trade but I gave up maths after I did my O-level. My A levels were in arts subjects – History, English and French. In terms of using the Gimps system I’m a newbie and probably not to be trusted – my words, not anyone else’s.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Next, I’m afraid the error messages have come back. I edited the worktodo file according to Cheesehead’s instruction on 24th November, 4:48 p.m. It now reads[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][Worker #1][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]DoubleCheck=,46266683,68,1[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][Worker #2][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]Earlier this evening (UK time) I got an error message[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Too many sections in worktodo.txt, Line #7[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]Error: Worktodo.txt file contained bad LL exponent: 0[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]Illegal line in worktodo file: DoubleCheck =,46266683,68,1[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]It seems not to like the instruction about 46,266,683, but I’m a little uncertain about the reference to Line #7 as there are only five lines in the file. [/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial][COLOR=black]Thirdly, I don’t want to steal anyone else’s work, but I would hope that the system would not allow me to take over an exponent from someone else. I reserved 46,266,683 for myself, and I assumed that I was allowed to because it was not owned. That answers Cheesehead’s point in the same post about how I came to get it. I then received an instruction from the server about adding lines to worktodo. I interpreted it wrongly, but I don’t think that’s the point here. The point is that I got the exponent because of an action that I took, so presumably I could do it again. The question that I don’t think has been answered is whether I should be doing this.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]To sum up, if the system and the board’s etiquette allow it I should like 46,266,683 and 49,979,687 to be my next two numbers. If I should not be proceeding this way I will not take offence at being told so and will wait for other numbers to be assigned to me.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]G[/SIZE]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

It doesn't like that you put an empty assignment key. It's expecting one of:
None at all, including no leading comma (e.g. "DoubleCheck=46266683,68,1"); if you make it this and are set to communicate with PrimeNet, when it communicates it will attempt to reserve it and then change it to either:
An N/A, showing that PrimeNet won't give it one (e.g. "DoubleCheck=N/A,46266683,68,1")
A real assignment key assigned by PrimeNet (e.g. "DoubleCheck=ABCD123...,46266683,68,1")

PrimeNet is showing that you have reserved this number for double check. I'm guessing you have somehow lost the assignment key, since you don't have it in your worktodo.txt file. Here's how to find it and fill it in: Log in to mersenne.org, then go to [URL]http://www.mersenne.org/workload/[/URL] (in the menus, My Account > Assignments), then view the source of the page, look for the entry for 46266683's DC, and find the part that looks like '<input name="4CD0C3FA6D49387E9587EB9BF9B10BDA" value="R" '. (it can be easier to locate if you use Firefox, select the text around the checkbox in 46266683's line, (include the checkbox in your selection) and use right click > View Selection Source) Now copy that assignment key to your worktodo.txt file where it goes, and restart Prime95.

Worktodo edited again, and now reads

[Worker #1]
DoubleCheck=44C4F6F2CB1AA38A4941A98466710304,23110891,67,1
DoubleCheck=E1481329C1F276F4CD114D356D74BBC9,46266683,68,1
[Worker #2]
Test=BDA22BB964CF82416AE126334DFA234B,45890281,68,1

I logged on and went to manual assignments for 49,979,687 (without the commas), asking for P1 testing. I got the message

Error code: 40
Error text: No assignment available meeting CPU, program code and work preference requirements, cpu_id: 193968, cpu # = 0, user_id = 8908

I repeated the request for 49,979,681, which is no. 2,999,999, and got the same response. Does this mean someone else has them or am I being told that there is some reason why my PC cannot do the tests?

G

Hmm...that's strange, but I don't think it's anything wrong on your end, and neither of those numbers are reserved yet ([URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=49979681"]M49979681[/URL], from the 2,999,999th prime, actually had a small factor, so there's no need to do any more work on that for now). I think that PrimeNet v5 started allowing P-1 assignments at 50M, so it won't accept a P-1 reservation below that. Just reserve it as a first-time test. If you don't want to do the LL as well as the P-1, you can just report the P-1 part and unreserve the candidate.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]At last we’re making progress.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]This evening’s communication with the server gives an expected finish date for 46,266,683 of 9th March, starting on 7th December when 23,110,891 is due to finish.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I’ve reserved [COLOR=black]49,979,687. I can see now what I did wrong before. I was given the line to copy, with the long hex code, but instead I copied the two example lines.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Thanks to all for help received. Hopefully things will be quiet for a time now, as both will take about three months to work through.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]G[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote=GARYP166;197209][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial Unicode MS][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial]Oh dear, I seem to have started something. I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to cause any unpleasantness.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/quote][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial Unicode MS][SIZE=3][COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][I]I[/I] was the problem-causer, not you. I apologize to you and to Mini-Geek and George for being so irritable here.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[quote][SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]DoubleCheck=,46266683,68,1[/FONT][/SIZE][/quote]Insisting on "=," was my mistake. I should've looked at the source code again before recommending it.
[/FONT][/COLOR]