New Prime? (...NO)

travisjank · 2019-02-22, 05:09

Possible Prime?

M90,xxx,xxx might be a new prime! The admins have been notified and will investigate this result before it can be checked in.

Lucas-Lehmer test: !!!PRIME!!!

axn · 2019-02-22, 05:39

I have hidden the exponent. What makes you think you have found a prime? A "No factor" TF result doesn't mean the number is prime.

If you have completed a successful LL test or PRP test and got back a positive result, you can just check that result in to the server.

moebius · 2019-02-22, 08:17

He checked in a 83M ,a 89M and some double check LL-results in to the server today, maybe he is right.........

preda · 2019-02-22, 08:43

I can run a PRP with GpuOwl, expected time about 2days. Please PM me the exponent if desired.

penlu · 2019-02-22, 09:57

I can also offer verification via CUDALucas in 90 hours.

GP2 · 2019-02-22, 11:56

Some recent results from TravisJank have mismatches: 49769581, 49867891, 51237019, 55863571, and others have error codes marked Suspect: 88648837, 88735033, 88828589, 88903769.

The machine NG-TJ-P1 has two mismatches, two Suspect unverified results, and two verified good.

The machine NG-BTJ has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and three verified good.

The machine DV-ROG has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and one verified good.

Several other machines have clean track records.

Which machine found the possible prime?

kriesel · 2019-02-22, 15:31

If I recall correctly, confirmation run durations were of order 2 days to a bit under a day depending on hardware and software combination last time, for 82589933. Scaling to 90M, on same hardware and software, by p^2.12, aspiring confirmation testers would need to have validly estimated run times of under about 2.4 days (~58 hours) to be competitive.
The fft file generated by CUDALucas 2.06 May 5 2017 build for an NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti contains
(fftl(K) max exponent ms/iter)
5184 95507747 3.5816
so running a 90M LL (without Jacobi check; none implemented yet in CUDALucas) would take about 89.5 hours.

Best timing I have for gpuowl is V6.2, 4.206ms on an AMD RX480 at 5 M fft length, corresponding to a bit over 105. hours. (This would have a Gerbicz check so would be quite reliable.)

Dual-Xeon-e5-2670: 4.43 msec/iter in prime95 V29.4b8, so 110.75 hours.

I'd be willing to run verifications on any of these, but based on timings, it looks like I'm not in the running for confirmation of suspected primes.
I'd be happy to run a DC on a suspected false positive, on any of the above.
https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=29

Uncwilly · 2019-02-22, 15:51

George thinks the chances are this is a bad compile of a GPU program. He has gotten the save file from the OP and other info. Enjoy your weekend, nothing to see here.

Prime95 · 2019-02-22, 16:06

Sorry, Travis. I just looked at the save file in a text editor and it appears to be all zeroes.

Please use the latest CudaLucas (which may be marked Beta) (2.06??), it is supposed to detect this problem. I have no idea why this important fix never made it into the production version.

ATH · 2019-02-22, 16:41

Yeah, you need to use CUDALucas "Beta" 2.06:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/cud...iles/2.06Beta/

ET_ · 2019-02-22, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

Yeah, you need to use CUDALucas "Beta" 2.06:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/cud...iles/2.06Beta/

Is there a 2.06 beta for Linux (or at least source code to compile)?

2019-02-22, 05:09	#1
travisjank Feb 2019 3₁₆ Posts	New Prime? (...NO) Possible Prime? M90,xxx,xxx might be a new prime! The admins have been notified and will investigate this result before it can be checked in. Lucas-Lehmer test: !!!PRIME!!! Last fiddled with by axn on 2019-02-22 at 05:37 Reason: Hidden the expo.

2019-02-22, 08:17	#3
moebius Jul 2009 Germany 2·353 Posts	He checked in a 83M ,a 89M and some double check LL-results in to the server today, maybe he is right......... Last fiddled with by moebius on 2019-02-22 at 08:18

2019-02-22, 11:56	#6
GP2 Sep 2003 2×5×7×37 Posts	Some recent results from TravisJank have mismatches: 49769581, 49867891, 51237019, 55863571, and others have error codes marked Suspect: 88648837, 88735033, 88828589, 88903769. The machine NG-TJ-P1 has two mismatches, two Suspect unverified results, and two verified good. The machine NG-BTJ has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and three verified good. The machine DV-ROG has one mismatch, one Suspect unverified result, and one verified good. Several other machines have clean track records. Which machine found the possible prime? Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2019-02-22 at 12:04

2019-02-22, 15:31	#7
kriesel "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 1111010001111₂ Posts	confirmation time If I recall correctly, confirmation run durations were of order 2 days to a bit under a day depending on hardware and software combination last time, for 82589933. Scaling to 90M, on same hardware and software, by p^2.12, aspiring confirmation testers would need to have validly estimated run times of under about 2.4 days (~58 hours) to be competitive. The fft file generated by CUDALucas 2.06 May 5 2017 build for an NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti contains (fftl(K) max exponent ms/iter) 5184 95507747 3.5816 so running a 90M LL (without Jacobi check; none implemented yet in CUDALucas) would take about 89.5 hours. Best timing I have for gpuowl is V6.2, 4.206ms on an AMD RX480 at 5 M fft length, corresponding to a bit over 105. hours. (This would have a Gerbicz check so would be quite reliable.) Dual-Xeon-e5-2670: 4.43 msec/iter in prime95 V29.4b8, so 110.75 hours. I'd be willing to run verifications on any of these, but based on timings, it looks like I'm not in the running for confirmation of suspected primes. I'd be happy to run a DC on a suspected false positive, on any of the above. https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...3&postcount=29 Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-02-22 at 16:07

2019-02-22, 16:41	#10
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 2²·863 Posts	Yeah, you need to use CUDALucas "Beta" 2.06: https://sourceforge.net/projects/cud...iles/2.06Beta/ Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-02-22 at 16:41

2019-02-22, 05:39	#2
axn Jun 2003 1010101011000₂ Posts	I have hidden the exponent. What makes you think you have found a prime? A "No factor" TF result doesn't mean the number is prime. If you have completed a successful LL test or PRP test and got back a positive result, you can just check that result in to the server.

2019-02-22, 08:43	#4
preda "Mihai Preda" Apr 2015 2²·3·11² Posts	I can run a PRP with GpuOwl, expected time about 2days. Please PM me the exponent if desired.

2019-02-22, 09:57	#5
penlu Jul 2018 31 Posts	I can also offer verification via CUDALucas in 90 hours.

2019-02-22, 15:51	#8
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 2²·2,767 Posts	George thinks the chances are this is a bad compile of a GPU program. He has gotten the save file from the OP and other info. Enjoy your weekend, nothing to see here.

2019-02-22, 16:06	#9
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 2057₁₆ Posts	Sorry, Travis. I just looked at the save file in a text editor and it appears to be all zeroes. Please use the latest CudaLucas (which may be marked Beta) (2.06??), it is supposed to detect this problem. I have no idea why this important fix never made it into the production version.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
(M48) NEW MERSENNE PRIME! LARGEST PRIME NUMBER DISCOVERED!	dabaichi	News	571	2020-10-26 11:02
How does one prove that a mersenne prime found with CUDALucas is really prime?	ICWiener	Software	38	2018-06-09 13:59
Twin Prime Days, Prime Day Clusters	cuBerBruce	Puzzles	3	2014-12-01 18:15
disk died, prime work lost forever? where to put prime? on SSD or HDD?	emily	PrimeNet	3	2013-03-01 05:49
How do I determine the xth-highest prime on prime pages?	jasong	Data	7	2005-09-13 20:41