Windows 64-bit 29.8 build 5 is available. Very minor bugs fixed as documented in post #2

Build 5 installed but no change ( see screenshot)


Second link still point to build3
[QUOTE]Download links:
Windows 64-bit: [URL]ftp://mersenne.org/gimps/p95v298b3.win64.zip[/URL][/QUOTE]
Third, found bug mentioned before in this post ( on first page )



Worker 1 and worker 2 do P-1 on workunits. But both workunits have same exponent ( in this case 262144) So when time for writing intermediate file worker 1 write file and worker 2 try to read that file, but it not correct one, since Prime95 write only one file.
I assume error is Prime95 name intermediate file by exponent and that is root of problem. Suggest to add prefix to name of intermediate file that will mark worker name and problem is solved. ( something like worker1_m0262144. bu and worker2_m0262144.bu)


[Mon Jul 01 02:36:21 2019]
115002638^262144+1 completed P-1, B1=5000, B2=80000, Wh4: 06E0462F
Error reading intermediate file: m0262144
Renaming m0262144 to m0262144.bad1
All intermediate files bad. Temporarily abandoning work unit.
Trying backup intermediate file: m0262144.bad1
Error reading intermediate file: m0262144.bad1

[QUOTE=pepi37;520423]...Suggest to add prefix to name of intermediate file that will mark worker name and problem is solved. ( something like worker1_m0262144. bu and worker2_m0262144.bu)...[/QUOTE]

That seems like a good idea, but it's not practical if you sometimes move exponents between workers for some reason. I don't know if it's common, but I used to do it a lot when I had more machines... I sometimes moved an almost done exponent to a different machine entirely so I could focus one of the "big boys" on a larger exponent or whatever.

Anyway, things like that would throw a wrench into naming temp files for the worker #. But otherwise, in rare cases like yours, there should be some way to avoid having the workers clobber each other's intermediate files. I just don't know how common that is since it's not something you'd do with LL or PRP. Only factoring work would make sense to do that, so perhaps something else in the filename that indicates things like TF level, bounds, etc. so they're distinct in that way.

Considering that the work being done was on different numbers, the solution is obvious -- the save filename should be a function of the full number (k*b^n+c), rather than just the exponent.

Gone are the days when P95 was used only for mersenne numbers where such a scheme would have worked.

Since so few people will work on two different numbers using the same exponent, and since it is such a specialised type of work, wouldn't it be easier if the user ran the program from different folders ?

Jacob

(Because using a unique name based on the full number might be cumbersome when the numbers are millions of bits...)

[QUOTE=S485122;520433](Because using a unique name based on the full number might be cumbersome when the numbers are millions of bits...)[/QUOTE]

Numbers might be millions of bits, but k,b,n,c are not. And their unique hash can be smaller still.

Most file systems now support really long file names.

[QUOTE=axn;520443]Numbers might be millions of bits, but k,b,n,c are not. And their unique hash can be smaller still.

Most file systems now support really long file names.[/QUOTE]I think a hash is a needless complication, and a potential clash problem. Just put k_b_n_c directly.

[QUOTE=retina;520446]I think a hash is a needless complication, and a potential clash problem. Just put k_b_n_c directly.[/QUOTE]

Perfect¡

[QUOTE=Prime95;520421]Windows 64-bit 29.8 build 5 is available. Very minor bugs fixed as documented in post #2[/QUOTE]

Was the download link in Post 1 of this thread not updated? Prime95.exe inside the ZIP file has a date of April 22nd.

Also - Did they ever look into the ETA issues? On my new 9900k estimated completion times are all over the map and wildly incorrect.

[QUOTE=rainchill;520462]Was the download link in Post 1 of this thread not updated? Prime95.exe inside the ZIP file has a date of April 22nd.

Also - Did they ever look into the ETA issues? On my new 9900k estimated completion times are all over the map and wildly incorrect.[/QUOTE]

I will update link in first post.

The issue of estimated completion dates has not been investigated.

[QUOTE=Prime95;520421]Windows 64-bit 29.8 build 5 is available[/QUOTE](Just as I'm finishing 29.8b3 rollout... ;)