error rates
 

with the available data for first pass and second pass residuals do you have an error rate?

AFAIK SoB has a high error rate of about 5%. The last three primes found in PSP have big gaps between them. Are you suspicious about a prime hiding there?

drakkar67

Error rates are very low so far.
There is only one slot where we have higher error rates and that is a range where we had results from a bad llr Client version. This range is doublechecked by Mytwalker.

For the errors found so far:
This is an information i put on the forum in the end of october:

Here is a breakdown of the different numbers of tests done so far.

We have:
118165 first pass PRP test
22797 second pass test
59 third pass tests due to not fitting results

These 59 tests split into the following groups:

3 tests come from double reservations where one of the tests is run with
PRP and the other with llr version >= 3.5 Therefore there were incompatible residues.

50 tests are from the range of tests where results came back from a buggy llr client

6 tests are real errors.

I personaly think that we have not missed a prime so far but i also think that there is one more before we reach n=2M.

Lars

I'm sure this thread is related to SoB so let me say that error rates are more of a per unit time bases. Therefore as tests take longer to complete your possibility of error increase. With n's less than 3M you don't have too much to worry about unless there are specific instances like the bad clients or users. Cudos on rechecking quickly.

Personally I wouldn't consider any doublechecking of tests until you reach about 3M... You'll probably eliminate a couple more by then, At that time I'd bring secondpass up to a level where you can test 1 first pass test in the time it takes to test 12 secondpass tests. From there on out keep the Time secondpass x 12 = Time firstpass

Some my argue higher or lower but 1 in 12, that should cover the potential 5-8% error rate as tests increase. Also you don't get too far ahead of yourself either.

do you know when we will pass the 192 K FFT length? and what will be the speed of clients then?
drakkar

I had to use 192 KB FFTs when I tested the n=1.725M candidates of the LLRnet server.
Unfortunately, I have no comparable speed data...

The step from FFT 192K to FFT zero padded 224K happens somewhere between 2.12M and 2.14M. I have not tested the speed yet.
(Tests done with k=214519)

Lars

Just for clarification:

drakkar, did you mean "pass the limit to 192 KB FFT" or "pass to limit from 192 KB FFT to the next size"?

[QUOTE]
drakkar, did you mean "pass the limit to 192 KB FFT" or "pass to limit from 192 KB FFT to the next size"?
[/QUOTE]

I meant from 192 K to the next size.
Unfortunately it's not too far away. I hope we'll hunt a prime until 224K.

What are the new error rates with the double check work recently done?

Citrix

Still no change in the error patern.
There are only new errors in the range from the buggy llr client.

Lars

[QUOTE=ltd]
There are only new errors in the range from the buggy llr client.

Lars[/QUOTE]


How many new ones?