GPU to 72 status... - Page 416

chalsall · 2020-01-07, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

I think this is done.

OK, thanks George.

I'll take a look at start bringing in some appopriate 10xM ranges for us to work.

chalsall · 2020-01-07, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

I periodically check my assignments on the GPU72 web site. Today, I found five which were close to expiration. When I click on each number, another page appears from mersenne.org which shows I have completed the assignment. See the attached image below.

Hmmmm... I'll drill down on this later today.

chalsall · 2020-01-07, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Let me know if I screwed up.

Sorry to say, it looks like something "bad" has gone down...

My spiders are seeing unusual time-outs. And according to the Primenet assignment reports very, very few new assignments are being given.

chalsall · 2020-01-07, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

Today, I found five which were close to expiration. When I click on each number, another page appears from mersenne.org which shows I have completed the assignment.

OK... You were assigned these to take to 77, but you only took them up to 74.

I just reset those assignments to be to 74; they're now credited to your account.

chalsall · 2020-01-07, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Note on my graphs, the red curved line is the old PrimeNet TF limits as per the Math page, the purple line is PrimeNet+3 bits (old GPU72 target), the greenish line is PrimeNet+5 bits (new GPU72 target).

James... I was drilling down on your various graphs linked here, and I noticed that a couple of them don't appear to have the red/green/blue curved lines correctly rendered.

This graph (zoomed into the first 192M ranges) is the one I'm most interested in.

Thanks.

storm5510 · 2020-01-07, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

OK... You were assigned these to take to 77, but you only took them up to 74....

I noticed this after I made the post. The thing is, I never requested 77 bits. Before this, I was getting 75 when you rolled everything over after the 74's were all done.

James Heinrich · 2020-01-08, 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

James... I was drilling down on your various graphs linked here, and I noticed that a couple of them don't appear to have the red/green/blue curved lines correctly rendered.

The (factor_bits, 1000M, 10G) variants are correct I believe, the (384M, 100M) variants are incorrect. I thought it was a simple graphing error since the latter two pull data from a finer-grained table, but it seems I'm actually getting different data. For example, at 100M I have average NF bitlevels of 69.27 and 72.62 in the two data tables. Obviously at most only one of these is correct but I'll need to do some further digging into the code that compiles said data to find where the problem is. I'll post back (tomorrow, if things go well) when I've found and fixed the problem. Thanks for pointing this out.

James Heinrich · 2020-01-08, 20:36

After much self-confusion (6 hours of staring at numbers and wondering why a != b, and what kind of dummy set the data up that way), the tldr is that everything on the graphs were in the right place except the default-TF-level (+0, +3, +5) lines on the 100M and 384M variants: on those the default TF level lines were plotted for exponents an order of magnitude larger (the TF level at 10M was calculated as 100M, etc).

So I'm right now regenerating ~5000 graphs from the last 8 years. Just like I did about this time last year when I found a different problem.

At ~3.5s per graph this should take about 5 hours...

chalsall · 2020-01-08, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

After much self-confusion...

Dude. Been there. Done that. Repeatedly...

Thanks, much!

kladner · 2020-01-09, 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

I noticed this after I made the post. The thing is, I never requested 77 bits. Before this, I was getting 75 when you rolled everything over after the 74's were all done.

I have on occasion forgotten to reset from the default bit level, which I think is 77.

James Heinrich · 2020-01-10, 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

So I'm right now regenerating ~5000 graphs from the last 8 years. Just like I did about this time last year when I found a different problem.

At ~3.5s per graph this should take about 5 hours...

So 5 is really 32... I found some minor database inconsistencies that interrupted the regeneration run several times until I fixed the data, but finally all the graphs have been rebuilt:
https://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_100M/

Of course, now I find that today's graph is drawing weird.... what did I mess up now?

edit: Stupid Programmer Error has been fixed (the error, not the programmer, he's still broken

)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Status	Primeinator	Operation Billion Digits	5	2011-12-06 02:35
62 bit status	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	27	2008-09-29 13:52
OBD Status	Uncwilly	Operation Billion Digits	22	2005-10-25 14:05
1-2M LLR status	paulunderwood	3*2^n-1 Search	2	2005-03-13 17:03
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	25	2004-06-18 16:46

2020-01-08, 20:36	#4573
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 110101011101₂ Posts	After much self-confusion (6 hours of staring at numbers and wondering why a != b, and what kind of dummy set the data up that way), the tldr is that everything on the graphs were in the right place except the default-TF-level (+0, +3, +5) lines on the 100M and 384M variants: on those the default TF level lines were plotted for exponents an order of magnitude larger (the TF level at 10M was calculated as 100M, etc). So I'm right now regenerating ~5000 graphs from the last 8 years. Just like I did about this time last year when I found a different problem. At ~3.5s per graph this should take about 5 hours...