![]() |
|
|
#298 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2×3×1,609 Posts |
I put the GPU into it, and let the 25162937 finish. Residue matched. Now let the anonymous guy make the triple check. I know it is not fair for him, and I am quite sorry. But I got angry with P95
. What is the better path to go for DC and LL assignments taken from GPU-2-72? I mean, do I have to put them into P95? (to confirm the key and take the ownership?). Will they be unreserved if I just do nothing, and keep them as anonymous, DC/LL them with CudaLucas, and report the residue without the key? Other better idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
#299 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2·3·1,609 Posts |
Something is wrong with my CudaLucas, the time increases instead of decreasing....
Code:
e:\<snip\>C4 -c100000 -t -D1 29006071 CUDALucas: Could not find a checkpoint file to resume from Iteration 100000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 29:16:10) Iteration 200000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 30:16:07) Iteration 300000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 31:44:39) Iteration 400000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 32:06:54) Iteration 500000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 32:31:03) Iteration 600000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 32:33:38) Iteration 700000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 33:03:41) Iteration 800000 M( 29006071 )C, <snip>, ETA 33:13:00) |
|
|
|
|
|
#300 | ||
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9,767 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Nope. Spidy will detect that you've completed the work, award you your credit, and then unassign the anonymous registration. I realized that this would be a path some would take. Last fiddled with by chalsall on 2011-11-28 at 19:07 Reason: Slight gramatical correction. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#301 |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
262716 Posts |
OK, just so you know, Spidy has been let off it's leash with regards to detecting and awarding GHzDays credit for completed LL and DC work.
Completed work will be detected at approximately 35 minutes after each hour, and the associated reports will automatically be updated (and the candidate unreserved if appropriate). Last fiddled with by chalsall on 2011-11-28 at 19:11 Reason: s/for LL/for completed LL/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#302 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
11100001101012 Posts |
I think that's one of the exponents that Prime95 mysteriously unreserved for no reason. So he did have a DC assignment (not TF) at some point...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#303 | |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
25B616 Posts |
Quote:
And what do you want to say with "Nope." ?? Should I take this path, or not? Should I unreserve the exponent or should I not, after DC-ing it with CudaLucas, if it is still reserved as anonymous? I want to avoid using P95 for expos got from GPU2-72, exactly for the reasons explained in post 270. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#304 | ||
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9,767 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#305 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
2·3·1,609 Posts |
Ok. Now is clear.
And to clarify about my mysterious exponent: that was not a complain against GPU272. It was just my anger leashed out, against P95's mysterious** ways, and the "anonymous" who "stolen" my exponent I know I duplicated (triplicated) the work, but that was my way of "showing off" in his face :Pedit: I said "mysterious", because it was so. It can not be related to "days to unreserve" or other thing like that, as it only happened to worker 2, but not to the other workers. Each worker had 2 (two) DC exponents to crunch, first one from GPU272 and second one from Primenet. I did this specially, I requested work from Primenet to have one exponent in each queue, because I was reading "stories" on the forum about P95 "mysterious unreserving" work when it is "too much to do". So, I said in my mind, I will take 4 expos from GPU272, and INSERT one in each queue, BEFORE the one got from Primenet. My logic was that in such case, if P95 considers that I have "too much work to do", it will unreserve the expos on the "tail" of the queue, which had no work done yet (therefore the one from Primenet) and not the expos in the "front" of the queue, which had some iterations done already. I intended to have the "end of the queue" occupied by Primenet expos, for each worker. But he misteriously decided to unreserve BOTH exponents from worker 2, but keep ALL 6 exponents that were in the queues for workers 1, 3, and 4 (which are still active, P95 is crunching them, first three (number 1 in each queue) are GPU272 expos, last three (number 2 in each queue) are Primenet expos, in the range 29M. Additionally, he got a brand-new expo (29M) from Primenet, which is crunched currently on worker 2. So, why for the other 3 queues the work-to-do was not "too much"?!?!?! Mystery!! I will let them finish in P95, and do not want to touch the worktodo file anymore. Therefore, I want to DC future assignments from GPU272 with CudaLucas, without using P95 to "take ownership", send the results as LaurV, then your spider should unreserve the (still anonymous) assignment. That is all. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2011-11-29 at 07:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
#306 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
25B616 Posts |
Ok, now a small suggestion:
The "overall system progress" report page should include a new column saying "exponents cleared by DC/LL" or equivalent, after the "factors found column", OR this information should be shown in the "factors found" column, with a small red asterisk (because in this case, no factor is found, but in either case, - factor found, or DC/LL completed - the work counts as "the exponent was cleared" - either by the factor which it was found, or by the completion of DC/LL). And in this case, the column "Average blabla per factor" could be modified in "average blabla per factor or expo cleared/completed", or whatever, and instead of N/A, it must show the real figure (it would be an average of whatever credit Primenet gives for each DC/LL). Then the report would be more reliable and accurate. One who is looking there first time and finds "0" and "N/A" wonders "what in the hack that means, and why do these guys work in vain here?". In the case when no column is added, the "factors found" title should be changed in "exponents cleared/completed", because we know that the "clearance" means "factors" for TF things, and it means "test done" for DC. The "completed" part refers to LL, as the "clearance" is not exact when the new row for LL completed will appear, because then, the exponent is not really "cleared". It still have to wait for DC completion... But anyhow, the "0" and the "N/A" look bad there... Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2011-11-29 at 09:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
#307 | |
|
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
9,767 Posts |
Quote:
You didn't duplicate the work, you caused another user to possibly duplicate it. Since it is an anonymous account, it's possible (but not certain) that the work (legitimately) assigned to them may not actually ever be completed, and thus no harm (may have been) done. But what you did is very similar to what is known around here as "poaching", and is considered bad "PrimeNetiquette". I know you felt you owned that assignment. But as soon as Prime95 hands it back to PrimeNet (for whatever reasonable or mysterious reason), it is no longer yours. You hadn't yet done any work on it, had you? You should have simply requested another one and continued on -- there's lots of work to go around....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#308 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
Jun 2011
Thailand
226668 Posts |
Well, this is not quite exact... I am new to the "GPU owners" class, and somehow new to the theoretical domain. Being GIMPSter since the beginnings (about 10 years). There was a time when I had 40 computers involved into the project, and I was in top 100 list for years. The interest went down after the 10M-digit prize was awarded, I got tired to run around the building to maintain them, and I only kept the stuff around me (office, home). They slowly died one by one, with new OS re-installations, upgrades, renew the hardware farm in the company, etc. The interest revived since I joined the forum. But thanks for the advice, anyhow :D
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion" | MooMoo2 | Other Chess Games | 5 | 2016-10-22 01:55 |
| Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!" | wildrabbitt | Miscellaneous Math | 11 | 2015-03-06 08:17 |
| Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project | Dougy | Math | 11 | 2009-10-21 10:04 |
| Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier? | nitai1999 | Software | 7 | 2004-08-26 18:12 |