double check server online - Page 8

ltd · 2009-12-08, 07:38

To decide if we can be confident about our results how about the following compromise. Lets have Primegrid run 2M-3M (1.7M-2M is manual reserved) as doublecheck and see if the results are really as good as we think. After that we can reevaluate if we should continue to 5M or not.

VJS · 2009-12-09, 01:43

That's not a bad idea if PG agree's... I didn't think there results were compatible for some reason.

BTW the <2M should be completed shortly.

Joe O · 2009-12-22, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

To decide if we can be confident about our results how about the following compromise. Lets have Primegrid run 2M-3M (1.7M-2M is manual reserved) as doublecheck and see if the results are really as good as we think. After that we can reevaluate if we should continue to 5M or not.

The problem is that even if 2M-3M shows no or low errors, that does not tell us anything about 3M-5M. We really need to go to 5M, or even higher. And yes, there is probably a prime hiding below 8M. Maybe even two.

The attached graph is a subtle variation on the one I posted in the milestone thread. The lighter green is recent 2nd pass activity and the lighter blue is recent 1st pass activity. The light gray is tests eliminated by sieving. The dark gray is test that have not yet been done.

japelprime · 2009-12-23, 01:15

What about taking 3 candidate through 4M-6M (or around 5M and going in both direction) and see if the error rate are increasing around 5M ? Maybe to little gab to test if we like to see increasing error rate after 5M ?
Anyway I am not going to try to be the wise guy here.... so as usual I will just keep crunching whatever decision will be made

Joe O · 2009-12-25, 15:06

What about taking all the candidates from 5800000 to 6100000?
That would also help find "error prone machines" that are still contributing.

Lennart · 2009-12-25, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

To decide if we can be confident about our results how about the following compromise. Lets have Primegrid run 2M-3M (1.7M-2M is manual reserved) as doublecheck and see if the results are really as good as we think. After that we can reevaluate if we should continue to 5M or not.

2M-3M is inserted and will be sent out from now on PrimeGrid.

There is still some higher n left in buffer , but it is running now.

Lennart

Joe O · 2009-12-25, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

2M-3M is inserted and will be sent out from now on PrimeGrid.

There is still some higher n left in buffer , but it is running now.

Lennart

Code:

n Range Total Tasks Done Tasks Unprepared Tasks Primes Found 
2M - 3M 14215 		0 (0%) 14208 		0

They may be "inserted" but they don't look ready to run.

Lennart · 2009-12-25, 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe O

Code:

n Range Total Tasks Done Tasks Unprepared Tasks Primes Found 
2M - 3M 14215         0 (0%) 14208         0

They may be "inserted" but they don't look ready to run.

That means only 7 is sent out to buffer and buffer is set to 100 wu.

There is still 9M wu left in buffer.

You will see many going out tomorrow.

Lennart

Joe O · 2009-12-27, 16:46

This plot only shows the outstanding double check work. PrimeGrid's current work is not shown but will be soon.

ltd · 2009-12-28, 03:04

As I made a small mistake sometime the next tasks for the DC server are quite low. For some reason I did not send several tests below 2M to VJS when he reserved the range below 2M for manual DC testing. But when it came to create the data for primegrid I was thinking that I had send those tests. So we now have a set of tests that need to be done to close that gap.

Have fun with a burst of short tests.

Sloth · 2009-12-28, 16:00

Primegrid is out handing out the work with the lower N. That means all the double checks will get done before they finish the 9M range they were working on. There are a lot of tests but they are a lot quicker then the current tests.

It would be interesting to see if sending PG a double check range at the same time they do one of their challenges. Lots of tests done in a short time and short run times per test.

S.

2009-12-27, 16:46	#86
Joe O Aug 2002 3×5²×7 Posts	This plot only shows the outstanding double check work. PrimeGrid's current work is not shown but will be soon. Attached Thumbnails

2009-12-28, 16:00	#88
Sloth Mar 2006 2×47 Posts	Primegrid is out handing out the work with the lower N. That means all the double checks will get done before they finish the 9M range they were working on. There are a lot of tests but they are a lot quicker then the current tests. It would be interesting to see if sending PG a double check range at the same time they do one of their challenges. Lots of tests done in a short time and short run times per test. S. Last fiddled with by Sloth on 2009-12-28 at 16:00

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New SR5 PRPnet server online	ltd	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	15	2013-03-19 18:03
First PSP PRPnet 4.0.6 server online	ltd	Prime Sierpinski Project	9	2011-03-15 04:58
First check and double check llrnet servers.	opyrt	Prime Sierpinski Project	3	2009-01-02 01:50
Double-check check?	M0CZY	Software	15	2008-10-30 14:20
Double Check Server	Citrix	Prime Sierpinski Project	12	2005-10-23 20:03

2009-12-08, 07:38	#78
ltd Apr 2003 2²×193 Posts	To decide if we can be confident about our results how about the following compromise. Lets have Primegrid run 2M-3M (1.7M-2M is manual reserved) as doublecheck and see if the results are really as good as we think. After that we can reevaluate if we should continue to 5M or not.

2009-12-09, 01:43	#79
VJS Dec 2004 100101011₂ Posts	That's not a bad idea if PG agree's... I didn't think there results were compatible for some reason. BTW the <2M should be completed shortly.

2009-12-23, 01:15	#81
japelprime "Erling B." Dec 2005 2³×11 Posts	What about taking 3 candidate through 4M-6M (or around 5M and going in both direction) and see if the error rate are increasing around 5M ? Maybe to little gab to test if we like to see increasing error rate after 5M ? Anyway I am not going to try to be the wise guy here.... so as usual I will just keep crunching whatever decision will be made

2009-12-25, 15:06	#82
Joe O Aug 2002 3×5²×7 Posts	What about taking all the candidates from 5800000 to 6100000? That would also help find "error prone machines" that are still contributing.

2009-12-28, 03:04	#87
ltd Apr 2003 1404₈ Posts	As I made a small mistake sometime the next tasks for the DC server are quite low. For some reason I did not send several tests below 2M to VJS when he reserved the range below 2M for manual DC testing. But when it came to create the data for primegrid I was thinking that I had send those tests. So we now have a set of tests that need to be done to close that gap. Have fun with a burst of short tests.