![]() |
|
|
#34 |
|
Jun 2003
31·163 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Jan 2005
479 Posts |
posted september 2:
I'd reckon we can release those now? Last fiddled with by michaf on 2006-09-17 at 18:37 |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Apr 2003
11000001002 Posts |
I would like to wait until the end of the month.
This has the reason that the llrnet server has some minor problems when the test are very small and there is some adjustement needed with my internal queue management. So i would like to be able to react when there is a problem but my job forces me to be out of town for the rest of the month (not on the weekends). In oktober i should be available the whole month. (I hope )Cheers, Lars |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Jan 2005
479 Posts |
Would be perfectly fine;
In the meantime, we'll just have to find three or four primes to make your life easier :) |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Jul 2005
2·32 Posts |
why is the min-untested at 20,000 for each of the k's?
jaat |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Jan 2005
7378 Posts |
There are a lot of numbers of which we have no residues (yet)
We are waiting for them to be submitted, if any are left, but the candidates are released for (re)testing at the beginning of next month, since some minor glitches in the server require manual inspection I believe. So in short, they will be dealt with in short time :> (In fact, I can't wait to see those quick results again... at n=20k, the tests take less time then the communication with the server...) |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Jul 2005
2×32 Posts |
What looked particularly weird was that DC min-untested is higher than min-untested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Jan 2005
7378 Posts |
I think that was because masser? had some check-ins for dc, and the first time tests still don't have residues. Ah well.. all will be sorted in a month or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Apr 2003
22·193 Posts |
I have started to insert the low n without proper residue into the queues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Jan 2005
479 Posts |
That makes another nice spike in the stats;
Just in time before the other huge one disappears :> We'll be catching up quickly :) thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Apr 2003
22·193 Posts |
Some information from the database we have 103577 numbers in the DB for which no factor is know and a doublecheck test is performed.
We have no errors at the moment. :surprised So axn1 and i decided to make the next steps for recovering a little bit different. We will run small ranges ( n difference of 5000 (like in n between 60000 and 65000) every one or two weeks. We will at first focus on the ranges where there are no knows dc results as the chance to find a prime there is bigger. That means we will start with ranges>60000 next weekend. The stats show at the moment for first pass only tests as minimum untested when the test is higher then 100000. That gives a cleaner look and there is no question "why are dc tests larger the first pass tests" anymore. Lars |
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Doublecheck always have shifted S0 value? | ATH | PrimeNet | 11 | 2010-06-03 06:38 |
| BIG Doublecheck finished OK this morning! | NBtarheel_33 | Lounge | 0 | 2008-11-16 20:58 |
| Help needed for doublecheck sieving! | mdettweiler | No Prime Left Behind | 188 | 2008-03-25 16:31 |
| DoubleCheck vs LL assignments | Unregistered | PrimeNet | 9 | 2006-03-26 05:48 |
| doublecheck - results | TheJudger | Data | 4 | 2005-04-04 08:54 |