Double-checking with PFGW - Page 3

rogue · 2010-09-10, 21:03

I have completed a double-check of R1029. After sieving I discovered that 18% of the candidates for n < 25,000 had to be retested. That is twice as high as I have seen for any other base. It took me about 5 hours (split across 4 CPUs) to complete, about 2.5 hours per k. Lower bases should take far less time per k.

vmod · 2010-09-10, 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

Could you please list the bases referenced above (where you say you have 16 bases)? Someone still needs to look at n < 25000 for those k. It should less than a day to verify S35 for n<10000 for the remaining k.

Not all were at n=25K some started higher (also three were subsequently proven, I just included those to sample as many tests possible in order to estimate the magnitude of the problem at high n ranges). I compared FFT sizes for:
S55, S100, S102, S189, R272, R275, S869, S914, S917, S919, S930 (25K-)
S133 (40K-)
R42, R133 (50K-)
R110 (70K-)

I can take care of checking remaining k's for n lower than the ranges above (I'm sure you have enough of your own work to double-check). Most of mine are single/few-k bases anyway, so it should be done fast. I'll do S35 (n<10K) too.

I'll post some stats on the lower n's when done. I guess more important than the number of FFT size differences will be the number of actual erroneous results (possible residue mismatches or false-composites

-if any).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

And of course if you haven't done so (and it sounds like you have), make sure all of your clients are running PFGW 3.3.6.

They are

.

CRGreathouse · 2010-09-10, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by vmod

Was the 3% an estimate based on differences at much lower n levels?

Yes.

vmod · 2010-09-11, 00:25

I run one of my bases for n<25K. No errors as well.

Suspicious that something is not right I checked a couple of the examples given in post #6 on this thread. I have reason to believe that something is amiss with version 3.3.5.
All win versions downloaded from here: http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openpfgw/

Code:

PFGW Version 3.3.4.20100405.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 512 on 22*283^602+1
22*283^602+1 is composite: RES64: [8F162415CC796787] (0.0317s+0.0001s)
Done.

PFGW Version 3.3.5.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 768 on 22*283^602+1
22*283^602+1 is composite: RES64: [8F162415CC796787] (0.0461s+0.0001s)
Done.

PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 768 on 22*283^602+1
22*283^602+1 is composite: RES64: [8F162415CC796787] (0.0467s+0.0002s)
Done.

3.3.5 > Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 768 on 22*283^602+1
3.3.6 > Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 768 on 22*283^602+1

Also:

Code:

PFGW Version 3.3.4.20100405.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using all-complex FFT length 6K on 662*43^9802+1
662*43^9802+1 is composite: RES64: [E060CD9C886E2362] (4.6589s+0.0005s)
Done.

PFGW Version 3.3.5.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 6K on 662*43^9802+1
662*43^9802+1 is composite: RES64: [E060CD9C886E2362] (4.2856s+0.0005s)
Done.

PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]

Output logging to file pfgw.out
Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 6K on 662*43^9802+1
662*43^9802+1 is composite: RES64: [E060CD9C886E2362] (4.3264s+0.0006s)
Done.

3.3.5 > Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 6K on 662*43^9802+1
3.3.6 > Special modular reduction using zero-padded FFT length 6K on 662*43^9802+1

So Rogue can you please verify that the win 3.3.5 uploaded is indeed what it should be (looks like a copy of 3.3.6 build rather than a modified 3.3.4).

I'm stopping any double-checking until this is cleared up. If anyone else is double-checking test the pfgw versions you use against the examples on post #6 before continuing.

rogue · 2010-09-11, 00:34

At one point they were correct, but I had the wrong build date, so I rebuilt them.

Update: I have reposted a Windows 3.3.5 build here, http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openpfgw/. I'm sorry for those of you who need to run it again with the -F switch. I have been using the correct build, but when I had to re-release due to the wrong date, I linked with the wrong version of gwnum.

gd_barnes · 2010-09-13, 04:47

I have 2 Windows machines and 11 Linux machines and the 2 Windows machines are not running CRUS right now. I need a PFGW 3.3.6 Linux version upgrade ASAP please.

KEP and co. Please don't sweat this and change or cancel your reservations. Your work is effectively guaranteed to be 97% OK. If we missed some primes here and there, so be it. And of that 3% that is bad, only a small percentage of those will be primes. Just because a residual is bad does not mean that a prime was missed; only that it is possible that one was missed. This is not NPLB where we try to find ALL primes in large swaths of k and n ranges. Although CRUS largely prefers that the lowest prime be found for each k, it is not a requirement. We will take this in baby steps and slowly doublecheck only k's that are remaining. We don't need to make a beeline to doublecheck all k's remaining to their current search depth. That would be horrible espcially for the numerous k's that have been tested to n=100K or more.

Let's everyone think of this as a situation where 2-3% of us had bad machines and so there are random bad residuals out there for random bases but we don't know which. We wouldn't freak out and have to immediately doublecheck everything. I do random doublechecks on many bases up to n=2500 or n=5000 and for some up to n=25K and I have many sieve files that I have kept. I can from time to time do that some more.

My opinion: Let's not even make a formal effort out of this. Feel free to doublecheck a base here and there as you see fit; especially ones that you happened to have worked on in the past. No pressure. When done with the doublecheck, please report that effort here and we will keep a formal posting of all bases and k's that have been doublechecked. Eventually we'll probably get down to some difficult ones that need to be doublechecked such as S63 or R51, the latter of which I haven't even listed the k's remaining yet.

At some point, I may even come up with a notation on the pages that bases have been doublechecked but would prefer to keep such a listing in an updatable posting for the time being.

Gary

gd_barnes · 2010-09-13, 05:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

At one point they were correct, but I had the wrong build date, so I rebuilt them.

Update: I have reposted a Windows 3.3.5 build here, http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openpfgw/. I'm sorry for those of you who need to run it again with the -F switch. I have been using the correct build, but when I had to re-release due to the wrong date, I linked with the wrong version of gwnum.

Why are we messing with versions 3.3.5 and 3.3.6? Which one actually works? If both, why are we still updating a version that is not the newest?

No offense but I hate sourceforge. Please provide a direct link. Thanks. When I clicked on version 3.3.6, it took me to http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/...7.zip?view=log. OK, that looks good. Now I click on the "SCM Repositories - openpfgw" link at the top of the page and I get http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/. On this page, it shows a "Download now!" link that is version 3.3.4! ?????????????

I'm all ears as to what I did wrong here.

Now do you understand why I dislike sourceforge? This kind of run-around is time consuming and irritating.

mdettweiler · 2010-09-13, 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Why are we messing with versions 3.3.5 and 3.3.6? Which one actually works? If both, why are we still updating a version that is not the newest?

No offense but I hate sourceforge. Please provide a direct link. Thanks. When I clicked on version 3.3.6, it took me to http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/...7.zip?view=log. OK, that looks good. Now I click on the "SCM Repositories - openpfgw" link at the top of the page and I get http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/. On this page, it shows a "Download now!" link that is version 3.3.4! ?????????????

I'm all ears as to what I did wrong here.

Now do you understand why I dislike sourceforge? This kind of run-around is time consuming and irritating.

Here's a direct link (to the Windows 3.3.6 version):
http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/...p?revision=300

For future reference, I've attached a screenshot with arrows drawn on pointing to where you need to click to get the same result as a direct link. (I say arrows plural because there are two links in two different places on the page that do the exact same thing. Yes, it's weird.

)

rogue · 2010-09-13, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Why are we messing with versions 3.3.5 and 3.3.6? Which one actually works? If both, why are we still updating a version that is not the newest?

No offense but I hate sourceforge. Please provide a direct link. Thanks. When I clicked on version 3.3.6, it took me to http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/...7.zip?view=log. OK, that looks good. Now I click on the "SCM Repositories - openpfgw" link at the top of the page and I get http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/. On this page, it shows a "Download now!" link that is version 3.3.4! ?????????????

I'm all ears as to what I did wrong here.

Now do you understand why I dislike sourceforge? This kind of run-around is time consuming and irritating.

If you haven't been following the thread, the change made to 3.3.5 was to add support for the -F switch. It was not supposed to have the latest gwnum library linked with it. I accidentally linked it with the patched gwnum, so what I posted originally for 3.3.5 was the same as 3.3.6. I provided a 3.3.5 because users want to know what PRP work they have done needs to be redone and that was the best way in which to do it.

I tried to fix the files at this link, http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/, but have been unable to log into sourceforge to update it due to some issue on their end. I'll try again today.

Whether or not you like sourceforge is none of my concern. I needed to put the PFGW source into a safe place where multiple people could work on it simultaneously (if desired). The 1.x version was put into a CVS repository somewhere, but there is no reference to where that repository is and the previous owner of PFGW development, Jim Fougeron, is MIA.

Quote:

My opinion: Let's not even make a formal effort out of this. Feel free to doublecheck a base here and there as you see fit; especially ones that you happened to have worked on in the past. No pressure. When done with the doublecheck, please report that effort here and we will keep a formal posting of all bases and k's that have been doublechecked. Eventually we'll probably get down to some difficult ones that need to be doublechecked such as S63 or R51, the latter of which I haven't even listed the k's remaining yet.

I am quite OK with this. It will save me a lot of time as I would probably be doing most of the double-checking work. If you decide in the future that double-checking is important, then IMO the higher bases need to be attacked first because a higher percentage of those tests will be using a different FFT size.

Quote:

I have 2 Windows machines and 11 Linux machines and the 2 Windows machines are not running CRUS right now. I need a PFGW 3.3.6 Linux version upgrade ASAP please.

I am working with Steven Harvey to get a Linux build. He responded to my inquiry yesterday, so hopefully the Linux build will be available later today.

rogue · 2010-09-13, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by KEP

I can see that all my reservations after the crash of my Quad, is affected. However, thanks for your offer on DC Rogue. I have written a lot to you in a PM, and as mentioned in the PM, I'm going to continue as if nothing has happened, after an upgrade to version 3.3.6! However, I'll do some brief DC of S383 as I come home in a short while, simply to see if a k has actually been missed for n<=1K. After that I might do a DC to n=25K, even though the Primepattern seems credibel, it is better to be safe than sorry.

I completed the double-check for n > 25,000 for S58 and S70. Of the over 128,000 tests done with 3.3.4, I only had about 400 to redo, which is only about .3%.

gd_barnes · 2010-09-13, 19:28

Mark,

Thanks for the info. and sorry I hadn't read all of the posts in the thread. I concluded what Max had showed about Sourceforge before he posted it but it took me 5-10 mins. to do so, which was frustrating. I'm not the only one who has been confused by Sourceforge. It came up with 2 others in the PFGW thread, who also asked for direct links because they couldn't find the program that they were looking for. The pages are designed for developers not users so some of the terminology means nothing to us.

Instead of having that huge link at the top of the subsequent page which automatically diverts your attention from the very teeny links in the middle of the page that need to be chosen, the links that need to be chosen should be either highlighted, increased greatly in size, or placed at the top of the page. I realize that there is nothing you can do about it so I'd simply like to ask for direct links in the future.

It wasn't your fault the GWNUM libraries turned out to be bad. You shouldn't have to doublecheck everything. But we'd certainly welcome your help. I'll do some here and there and hopefully others will chip in at times.

I am now reading back through the 10s of posts in this thread to get more up to speed on this issue.

Gary

2010-09-11, 00:34	#27
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 2⁴×397 Posts	At one point they were correct, but I had the wrong build date, so I rebuilt them. Update: I have reposted a Windows 3.3.5 build here, http://openpfgw.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/openpfgw/. I'm sorry for those of you who need to run it again with the -F switch. I have been using the correct build, but when I had to re-release due to the wrong date, I linked with the wrong version of gwnum. Last fiddled with by rogue on 2010-09-11 at 01:13

2010-09-13, 04:47	#28
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 10100010100011₂ Posts	I have 2 Windows machines and 11 Linux machines and the 2 Windows machines are not running CRUS right now. I need a PFGW 3.3.6 Linux version upgrade ASAP please. KEP and co. Please don't sweat this and change or cancel your reservations. Your work is effectively guaranteed to be 97% OK. If we missed some primes here and there, so be it. And of that 3% that is bad, only a small percentage of those will be primes. Just because a residual is bad does not mean that a prime was missed; only that it is possible that one was missed. This is not NPLB where we try to find ALL primes in large swaths of k and n ranges. Although CRUS largely prefers that the lowest prime be found for each k, it is not a requirement. We will take this in baby steps and slowly doublecheck only k's that are remaining. We don't need to make a beeline to doublecheck all k's remaining to their current search depth. That would be horrible espcially for the numerous k's that have been tested to n=100K or more. Let's everyone think of this as a situation where 2-3% of us had bad machines and so there are random bad residuals out there for random bases but we don't know which. We wouldn't freak out and have to immediately doublecheck everything. I do random doublechecks on many bases up to n=2500 or n=5000 and for some up to n=25K and I have many sieve files that I have kept. I can from time to time do that some more. My opinion: Let's not even make a formal effort out of this. Feel free to doublecheck a base here and there as you see fit; especially ones that you happened to have worked on in the past. No pressure. When done with the doublecheck, please report that effort here and we will keep a formal posting of all bases and k's that have been doublechecked. Eventually we'll probably get down to some difficult ones that need to be doublechecked such as S63 or R51, the latter of which I haven't even listed the k's remaining yet. At some point, I may even come up with a notation on the pages that bases have been doublechecked but would prefer to keep such a listing in an updatable posting for the time being. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-09-13 at 04:59

2010-09-13, 19:28	#33
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 101×103 Posts	Mark, Thanks for the info. and sorry I hadn't read all of the posts in the thread. I concluded what Max had showed about Sourceforge before he posted it but it took me 5-10 mins. to do so, which was frustrating. I'm not the only one who has been confused by Sourceforge. It came up with 2 others in the PFGW thread, who also asked for direct links because they couldn't find the program that they were looking for. The pages are designed for developers not users so some of the terminology means nothing to us. Instead of having that huge link at the top of the subsequent page which automatically diverts your attention from the very teeny links in the middle of the page that need to be chosen, the links that need to be chosen should be either highlighted, increased greatly in size, or placed at the top of the page. I realize that there is nothing you can do about it so I'd simply like to ask for direct links in the future. It wasn't your fault the GWNUM libraries turned out to be bad. You shouldn't have to doublecheck everything. But we'd certainly welcome your help. I'll do some here and there and hopefully others will chip in at times. I am now reading back through the 10s of posts in this thread to get more up to speed on this issue. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-09-13 at 20:18 Reason: remove questions answered by self & David

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Double checking	gd_barnes	Riesel Prime Search	69	2021-03-21 00:54
Double Checking on GPU72	bayanne	GPU to 72	17	2013-12-25 18:16
What about double-checking TF/P-1?	137ben	PrimeNet	6	2012-03-13 04:01
Double checking	Unregistered	Information & Answers	19	2011-07-29 09:57
Double-checking milestone?	jobhoti	Math	17	2004-05-21 05:02

2010-09-10, 21:03	#23
rogue "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 2⁴×397 Posts	I have completed a double-check of R1029. After sieving I discovered that 18% of the candidates for n < 25,000 had to be retested. That is twice as high as I have seen for any other base. It took me about 5 hours (split across 4 CPUs) to complete, about 2.5 hours per k. Lower bases should take far less time per k.