20100105, 07:31  #34 
Dec 2005
313 Posts 
2900300050k250k is completed and the results have been emailed to Max.
Last fiddled with by Brucifer on 20100105 at 07:31 
20100105, 09:09  #35 
Mar 2006
Germany
5×569 Posts 
now it's my time to fill in the whole range upto n=250k, i think.
this could take a bit time so the next range n>250k should be started after that work is done, please! 
20100129, 05:39  #36 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
I noticed that this thread hasn't had its status table updated for a while despite the fact all the ranges shown within as "in progress" are now long complete. Gary, I know I've processed all of Bruce's results and sent them to you; did you get the processed results from Karsten (I think he's doing those, right?) from the LLRnet portion of the drive (k<2400)?
I held off on marking Bruce's range as complete since Ian needs to mark down all the primes for it first. Ian, I think I recall you mentioned somewhere that you were waiting for Gary to move out the primes in the table to a linked file before you could add more; if you need to, you could just put them in a text file and attach it to a post here. Then Gary could upload them and put the links in the table. 
20100129, 12:20  #37  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3·19·179 Posts 
Quote:
So it's on my shoulders, not his, to put them in file links at this point. It's a bit of an effort because I have to check whether they are confirmed or new, just like Ian does when he lists them in the 1st post here. But what is a pain to get started on it this time around is that I need to wade through Bruce's primes to see which one's Lennart's already found. I think I'll show them both as finding them. So as you can see, it's no easy task. Tell you what...Monday is my admin day when I'm out of town...good day to catch up on paperwork and stuff. I'll write it on my task list for Monday to spend an hour checking what is new/confirmed, if Bruce/Lennart both found the same prime, etc. and creating file links. In an hour, I'm thinking I can finish the most difficult part, which is doing k=24002600. Even though we already have primes well above that listed, Bruce started manually at k=2400 because of the server problems that we had so I'll likely need to show both of them finding quite a few primes. Another day I'll get to k=26003000, which should take less time for twice the size since it's a clean manual run. I guess that's why I've procrastinated it a little...I know k=24002600 is going to be a pain administratively. Karsten, please hold off on listing in k=24003000 for n=50K250K primes found in this effort on your pages until after next Monday. That way, I can tell if they were confirmed or found new. Regardless, Max, if you have time, I'd like to see LLRnet port 7000 get loaded up with k=20002100 (or 20002200) for n=250K350K any time and then let Bruce know about it. LLRnet works great for this range. We only goofed last time because of the extra headerinthefile problem. You might give him your personal guarantee that we've closely inspected the file for any error that could cause problems and that my LLRnet port 6000 has been running great with ~6070 cores total on it right now. Also mention that since the tests aren't so small, the load on the server will be much smaller. (n=250K takes ~25 times as long to test as n=50K) Gary 

20100129, 14:37  #38  
Mar 2006
Germany
101100011101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
It's indeed very timeconsuming to check for confirmed primes but i found some problems so far: There're some primes not listed yet in the summary although the testrange was higher. Here are the issues so far: 2055: done to n=400k (S.Tjung) but missed n=216369 > maxn=250k 2085: done to n=400k (S.Tjung) but missed n=193924 > maxn=250k 2171: done to n=1.0M (Beyond?) but missed n=101974 > maxn=250k 2175: done to n=400k (S.Tjung) but missed n=183243,224093 > maxn=250k I've therefore set the testrange down to n=250k. More work will be done slowly the next weeks! Don't worry, Gary, you got enough time. Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 20100129 at 14:39 

20100129, 17:34  #39  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Quote:
As for k=24002600: that might be a tad tricky. You see, the results files from the PRPnet portion of that never got copied off due to the database mess that needs to be cleaned up; they're still sitting in G7000's folder on humpford's desktop. I can send the file to you if you'd like. Quote:


20100130, 00:43  #40  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10203_{10} Posts 
Quote:
That's why NPLB includes ALL k's in our drives (unless reserved and we would "run over" existing reservations). Way to go all! We found primes missed by others! Even the nontop5000 primes are important. On the 5 or so k's excluded from the 11th drive, we'll (mainly me but also whomever else might want to help) will be double checking those ~5 k's for n=425K600K close to the time that the 11th drive is nearing n=600K. I'm shooting for midyear on it getting there. Late in 2008, such a double check netted a missing top5000 prime! k=24002600 is really messy so I'll work on sorting it out and getting a file link for it on Monday. It's high on my task list now. Max, good idea on just doing file links instead of listing the last 100k or so in the post. That's a bit of a nuisance. Yeah, I/we will just do file links for all of the primes...well, at least for all n=50K250K primes. The file links are small and use little posting space. With all n=50K250K primes in links, we'll likely be able to show all or a large portion of n=250K350K primes as line items in the post. That's kind of a personal preference on my part. :) Max, one more thing. All of Lennart's k=24002600 primes are already shown in the 1st post here. I'll just take the primes file that you already sent me from Bruce (or that he sent me?) and add those to it. For primes that they both found, I'll just show both their names as having found them, with whomever found them first listed first. In other words, you don't need to do anything for me to be able to do that. That's my Monday task. :) Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20100130 at 00:49 

20100202, 04:33  #41 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×19×179 Posts 
Unfortunately I won't be able to get all of the primes brought together today for k=24002600. What I'm running into is that Bruce's list of primes from his manual LLRnet run is missing at least a couple of primes from the original run that we did on a public PRPnet/LLRnet server. I don't know if that's because he missed them or we have extras in the original run. Also, of course the original run here is missing many primes vs. Bruce's list, even in the middle of the run due to problems with the public server. That's not a concern but Bruce not having primes found by the public server in his list is a problem.
Fortunately Bruce was kind enough to send me/Max the immense amount of results from the range so I should be able to isolate the problems more easily. This will take several hours to get it all together, matched up, proper credit given, and check the new/confirmed status. I'm about 1/3rd of the way into it and realized that it will take much longer than I originally expected. I'll post more details about the above problem late Tuesday. I'll work on it more on Tuesday but can't guarantee completion depending on issues that I run into. It is my hope to at least have all of the k=24002600 primes listed by the end of this week. After that, k=26003000 should go much more quickly. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20100202 at 04:41 
20100202, 05:05  #42 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
27DB_{16} Posts 
There were 4 primes found by Lennart on the public server that were not found by Bruce in his manual LLRnet run that effectively was a doublecheck of a large part of the range. Triplechecking by me confirmed that Bruce's list is correct. Here are the culprits:
2457*2^2397941 is not prime. LLR Res64: 55D32DAFD42FB9B4 Time : 198.913 sec. 2463*2^1708381 is not prime. LLR Res64: EC031A0DB6C2DCF2 Time : 127.062 sec. 2481*2^1851871 is not prime. LLR Res64: A64A60A7D5942FD4 Time : 119.079 sec. 2505*2^1544701 is not prime. LLR Res64: 07BE4011A7E08FF5 Time : 89.002 sec. In all 4 cases, these were close to actual primes that were found by both Bruce and Lennart. They are: 2457*2^2398141 (n=20 difference from above "composite prime") 2463*2^1708421 (n=4 difference) 2481*2^1852181 (n=31 difference) 2505*2^1544751 (n=5 difference) That is exactly what happened to me on 2 occassions when I had a laptop with bad memory. It would find a "composite prime" very close to an actual prime. I'll send Lennart a PM referencing this post. I have now deleted the erroneous primes from the 1st post here. That's a start on the cleanup of k=24002600 here...still much work to do on it later Tuesday. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20100202 at 05:49 
20100202, 05:33  #43  
"Lennart"
Jun 2007
2^{5}·5·7 Posts 
Quote:
I can't answer the question. I need to know the computer (ClirntID) from log to see that. If there is a problem it should show up in Boinc becuse all is DC there so that computer should have many invalid wu, But can you give me the log entrys frp server there clientid is i can mayby narrow it down. Lennart 

20100202, 05:39  #44  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×19×179 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team drive #10 k=14002000 n=500K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  61  20130130 16:08 
Team drive #11 k=20003000 n=425K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  42  20101119 10:42 
Team drive #9 k=10052000 n=50K350K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  236  20090625 10:04 
Sieving drive for k=20003400 n=50K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  145  20090623 18:28 
Team drive #8 k=14002000 n=350K500K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  101  20090408 02:11 