double check server online - Page 11

Joe O · 2010-06-02, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJS

sent several tests yesterday

Must not have been processed yet.

ltd · 2010-06-03, 04:05

All of VJS results were imported directly when I received them. I have re-imported them and got the expected result. All are reported as already known.

Joe O · 2010-06-03, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

All of VJS results were imported directly when I received them. I have re-imported them and got the expected result. All are reported as already known.

79309 and 79817 double check still lag significantly behind the other 7 k. I keep expecting them to catch up.

opyrt · 2010-06-03, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe O

79309 and 79817 double check still lag significantly behind the other 7 k. I keep expecting them to catch up.

That's because these graphs show the lowest untested candidate, and they are still the ones from drakkars old ranges. As soon as they are double checked, we will make leaps forwards as a lot of higher candidates are already double checked.

Joe O · 2010-06-03, 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by opyrt

That's because these graphs show the lowest untested candidate, and they are still the ones from drakkars old ranges. As soon as they are double checked, we will make leaps forwards as a lot of higher candidates are already double checked.

I KNOW that these are still the ones from Drakkars old ranges. I thought that these were the ones that were given to VJS to double check, since the first pass was not complete in time to give them to PrimeGrid to double check.
What I don't know is why these have not yet been double checked!

ltd · 2010-06-03, 12:58

There is a chance that some of the test were not even first pass tested at the time I gave the tests to VJS. As soon as VJS has his range finished the leftover tests will be run.

VJS · 2010-06-06, 21:55

Joe,

I've only got a quad core and a dual core laptop working on the tests.
I have a few lars just sent me in the low 6's and some 5's remaining...

Don't know where that 4 is coming from.

79817 4669079 don't seem to have it.

Lars, are you sure that test wasn't removed by a factor etc... I'm sure your db takes care of those sorts of things.

Most of the other test's I've been given look like tripples

ltd · 2010-06-06, 22:45

4669079 is one of the "Drakkar" tests. Must have been without first pass when I originally send the DC tests to you. No known factor available.

I have 52 tests below 5M which fit into this pattern. I will put them on my PC for DC testing.

The latest set of tests I have send to you are DC tests for two users with suspicious results no triple checks included.

Joe O · 2010-07-03, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe O

79309 and 79817 double check still lag significantly behind the other 7 k. I keep expecting them to catch up.

79817 has been brought up to 6M, but 79309 is still at 5.5M

VJS · 2010-07-03, 12:19

I'll be sending in a few this morning and removing the prime k from my batch.
I'm not sure this one is mine however... I'm pretty sure I'm doing tripples.

Any idea how it's affecting the sieve yet speed wise, and what % this K represented.

The best way to remove these double checks is through primes :-)

Jason

ltd · 2010-07-04, 06:08

After import of the results we are down to 44 test without DC below 6M. These are all tests that were not even first pass checked when I handed out the dc dataset to VJS. I will do them.

2010-06-06, 21:55	#117
VJS Dec 2004 299₁₀ Posts	Joe, I've only got a quad core and a dual core laptop working on the tests. I have a few lars just sent me in the low 6's and some 5's remaining... Don't know where that 4 is coming from. 79817 4669079 don't seem to have it. Lars, are you sure that test wasn't removed by a factor etc... I'm sure your db takes care of those sorts of things. Most of the other test's I've been given look like tripples Last fiddled with by VJS on 2010-06-06 at 21:56

2010-07-04, 06:08	#121
ltd Apr 2003 772₁₀ Posts	After import of the results we are down to 44 test without DC below 6M. These are all tests that were not even first pass checked when I handed out the dc dataset to VJS. I will do them. Last fiddled with by ltd on 2010-07-04 at 06:15

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

2010-06-03, 04:05	#112
ltd Apr 2003 2²·193 Posts	All of VJS results were imported directly when I received them. I have re-imported them and got the expected result. All are reported as already known.

2010-06-03, 12:58	#116
ltd Apr 2003 2²×193 Posts	There is a chance that some of the test were not even first pass tested at the time I gave the tests to VJS. As soon as VJS has his range finished the leftover tests will be run.

2010-06-06, 22:45	#118
ltd Apr 2003 2²×193 Posts	4669079 is one of the "Drakkar" tests. Must have been without first pass when I originally send the DC tests to you. No known factor available. I have 52 tests below 5M which fit into this pattern. I will put them on my PC for DC testing. The latest set of tests I have send to you are DC tests for two users with suspicious results no triple checks included.

2010-07-03, 12:19	#120
VJS Dec 2004 13·23 Posts	I'll be sending in a few this morning and removing the prime k from my batch. I'm not sure this one is mine however... I'm pretty sure I'm doing tripples. Any idea how it's affecting the sieve yet speed wise, and what % this K represented. The best way to remove these double checks is through primes :-) Jason