[QUOTE=Uncwilly;552118][COLOR="Orange"][B]DC's on suspect single LL's should no longer be done.

Any single suspect LL should be redone with v30 as PRP-VDF. The balance between the DC and higher than usual TC rate vs running a fresh a PRP & cert lean toward the PRP path to require fewer cycles long term. The error checking is better on PRP.

TC-LLs still make sense to clean up as LL (the required quad rate is low enough).[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Says who ?
v30 is not yet out of its infancy sicknesses (there are several bugs remaining, the worktype you preconise is not even among the choices yet...) Even the server is not ready yet. This is the first time a beta (alpha ?) version of software few users installed would be mandatory.
IMHO you are going too quickly (especially in bold and colour), a bit of patience would not be misplaced [noparse];-)[/noparse]

Jacob

Some residue types will result in the same residue when there is no factor. But in general, you are correct. But nonetheless, we need a matching DC as long as we do not have a VDF on a run.

[QUOTE=Viliam Furik;552136]Shouldn't different PRP residue types produce different residues?[/QUOTE]
I am not sure. The worktodo lines (and I fixed the missing ",") I made followed ATH's info. Each of the exponents have a base 3, type 1 test.
The exponents were part of ATH's list that was posted in the TC list. I went through the list to remove them from the LL's.

As far as I understand the server is ready to receive the VDFs. I have been running PRP-CF's with VDFs and not seeing evil messages from the server.

[QUOTE=kruoli;552143]Some residue types will result in the same residue when there is no factor. But in general, you are correct. But nonetheless, we need a matching DC as long as we do not have a VDF on a run.[/QUOTE]
Citation from undoc.txt of Prime95:
[CODE]PRP supports 5 types of residues for compatibility with other PRP programs. If
a is the PRP base and N is the number being tested, then the residue types are:
1 = 64-bit residue of a^(N-1), a traditional Fermat PRP test used by most other programs
2 = 64-bit residue of a^((N-1)/2)
3 = 64-bit residue of a^(N+1), only available if b=2
4 = 64-bit residue of a^((N+1)/2), only available if b=2
5 = 64-bit residue of a^(N*known_factors-1), same as type 1 if there are no known factors
To control which residue type is generated, use this setting in prime.txt:
PRPResidueType=n (default is 5)
The residue type can also be set for PRP tests in worktodo.txt entries making
this option somewhat obsolete.[/CODE]
Based on this, only the types 1 and 5 should yield the same results.

When there are no known factors type 5 is the same as type 1:
a^(N*known_factors-1) vs a^(N-1) because known_factors=1

But you do not need to specify type, just let Prime95/mprime use the default type:
PRP=1,2,84946391,-1



Gpuowl only does type1 still I believe, and unless the input format changed in the last few months it should be:
PRP=<AID>,1,2,84946391,-1,75,0

Gpuowl need the ,75,0 at the end for some reason (unless this has changed lately):

[CODE]## worktodo.txt
The lines in worktodo.txt must be of one of these forms:
* 70100200
* PRP=FCECE568118E4626AB85ED36A9CC8D4F,1,2,77936867,-1,75,0
[/CODE]

This one needs a TC: [M]53301539[/M]

But it will be picked up automatically at any time probably.

[QUOTE=GP2;511979]PRP checks. [B][COLOR="Blue"]Note: please use V30 for these.[/COLOR][/B]

[code]PRP=1,2,[M]84946391[/M],-1,76,0,3,1
PRP=1,2,[M]84963899[/M],-1,76,0,3,1
PRP=1,2,[M]86291299[/M],-1,76,0,3,1
PRP=1,2,[M]86793229[/M],-1,76,0,3,1
PRP=1,2,[M]86793251[/M],-1,76,0,3,1
.[/code][/QUOTE]

Why version 30? And how? I tried and got an error message from the server.

Version 30 has the new PRP-VDF where it only needs 1 test and a short proof validation instead of a double check.

But these already has 2 PRP tests, so most likely another one will finish the double check.

Try this:

PRP=1,2,84946391,-1
PRP=1,2,84963899,-1
PRP=1,2,86291299,-1
PRP=1,2,86793229,-1
PRP=1,2,86793251,-1

[QUOTE=ATH;552201]Version 30 has the new PRP-VDF where it only needs 1 test and a short proof validation instead of a double check.

But these already has 2 PRP tests, so most likely another one will finish the double check.

Try this:

PRP=1,2,84946391,-1
PRP=1,2,84963899,-1
PRP=1,2,86291299,-1
PRP=1,2,86793229,-1
PRP=1,2,86793251,-1[/QUOTE]

Still getting error about 'violates assignment rules' from the server. I'll run them with N/A for an AID and see what happens when they're done.

[QUOTE=ATH;552201]Version 30 has the new PRP-VDF where it only needs 1 test and a short proof validation instead of a double check.[/QUOTE]
Do you agree that as any new single LL runs that pop up as suspect, that we should just do a fresh PRP on v30? Roughly the same amount of time to run the test, but savings if a LL-TC were needed.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;552236]Do you agree that as any new single LL runs that pop up as suspect, that we should just do a fresh PRP on v30? Roughly the same amount of time to run the test, but savings if a LL-TC were needed.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Suspect tests should be run with PRP VDF.
If there is 1 Suspect and 1 Unverified LL I guess if the person really wants they can run LL DC because in most cases probably >95% it will match the non-suspect, but PRP-VDF preferred.