30.3 build 5?
 

[QUOTE=Prime95;556162]In 30.3 build 5, set HighMemThreshold=n in local.txt.[/QUOTE]


I checked the FTP site. You mentioned build 5 as it if existed, but I guess you're working on that still given there's some late fixes? Thank you.

[QUOTE=ssybesma;556170]I checked the FTP site. You mentioned build 5 as it if existed[/QUOTE]I interpreted it as George has changed it just now for build 5 (that he is currently working on), so when it (or a newer) build is available for download, then I can test the new feature.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;556172]I interpreted it as George has changed it just now for build 5 (that he is currently working on), so when it (or a newer) build is available for download, then I can test the new feature.[/QUOTE]


OK, gotcha. Thank you James. Currently using build 4. Looks like I got a CERT assigned to my most able machine. I recently brought online a Core i7 8700 3.2GHz (Dell Precision 3630 Tower) as my 18th machine.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;556024]PauseWhileRunning also dumps the RAM before pausing. LowMemWhileRunning is an extension of PauseWhileRunning; they both stop the current high-memory task (if any) and release the memory; then LowMemWhileRunning goes to look for something else to do instead of just pausing.[/QUOTE]Perhaps this could be revised thus:[LIST][*]If a program is in [c]PauseWhileRunning[/c] then Prime95 pauses (the selected number of cores) but does not automatically free any stage2 RAM.[*]If the same program is also in [c]LowMemWhileRunning[/c] then RAM will be freed.[*]If [c]LowMemWhileRunningTempDir[/c] is set (and valid, and contains sufficient space) then the RAM contents will be written to a temp file prior to freeing memory so that it can be read back quickly on resume. Temp files should be written sequentially by worker, not simultaneously, to avoid disk thrashing (especially if temp disk is HDD).[*]When stage2 is allowed to resume, worker checks [c]LowMemWhileRunningTempDir[/c] for a matching RAMdump file and reads it into memory, if not then falls back to current system of rebuilding RAM contents. RAMdump file should probably contain a simple checksum (CRC32, MD5, etc) as the last few bytes of the file to ensure that the temp file was written and read completely and correctly[/LIST]

I came across something in my PRP results. Take a look at the page for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10496897&full=1"]M10496897[/URL]. It has a bit of a long history. In there are three LL tests from long ago. [B]ATH[/B] and myself ran it on the same day, August 26. I ran it as a PRP, and [B]ATH[/B] ran it as a PRP-CF. Same residue for both. Is this not a duplication of effort? It seem to me like it would be...

[QUOTE=storm5510;556345][URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10496897&full=1"]M10496897[/URL]... I ran it as a PRP, and [B]ATH[/B] ran it as a PRP-CF. Is this not a duplication of effort?[/QUOTE]Your run showed that the entire Mersenne number was composite, but we knew that already because a factor was found 12 days earlier (presumably prior to you starting the assignment). ATH shows that there is more than one factor; that the remaining cofactor is composite.

I have checked the page of the exponent, and apart from noticing I was the one to find the factor :banana:, I have noticed that Ben Delo's certification looks stuck on 100%, with supposedly one day left to completion.

The server must be confused on that exponent. With two proofs for the same exponent, both with and without known factors, I was not thinking of that case! I'll investigate.

[QUOTE=storm5510;556345]I came across something in my PRP results. Take a look at the page for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=10496897&full=1"]M10496897[/URL]. It has a bit of a long history. In there are three LL tests from long ago. [B]ATH[/B] and myself ran it on the same day, August 26. I ran it as a PRP, and [B]ATH[/B] ran it as a PRP-CF. Same residue for both. Is this not a duplication of effort? It seem to me like it would be...[/QUOTE]

Storm your gpuowl proof was no good. You might want to contact Mihai with the details.

[QUOTE=Prime95;556374]Storm your gpuowl proof was no good. You might want to contact Mihai with the details.[/QUOTE]

As of late, I went back to using [I]Prime95 30.3 B4 [/I]for this work type. I have had a few miscellaneous problems with [I]gpuOwl[/I]. Those were with P-1 tests. I keep all my results, so I have the line from this test. I will pass this on.

[U]Edit[/U]: Mihai. I am not familiar with this name. What is the user name?

[QUOTE=storm5510;556376]Mihai. I am not familiar with this name. What is the user name?[/QUOTE]Mihai Preda, developer of gpuowl. Forum username [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/member.php?u=14481]preda[/url].