mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data > Marin's Mersenne-aries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-11-14, 16:32   #23
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2·53·67 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
If I did the query correctly:
So, no 100Mdigit exponents or thereabouts found with all LL tests by CUDALucas, for which 20000K would be a reasonable FFT size selection, and so make them suspect.

https://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?...r_id=laurv&B1= shows lots of self-checking, probably gpuowl/CUDALucas pairs since they're nonzero and zero shift pairs, and an occasional different-user check in the verified exponents.

A gpuowl v6.11-380 result for M34643591 matched the previous two runs (the first is the outlier) https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...4643591&full=1

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-11-14 at 17:03
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-14, 23:53   #24
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

710210 Posts
Default recheck thread

I've created a thread in my blog to track rechecks for the 74 flagged by George's query as CUDALucas-only verification, at https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=28237. Feel free to post claims & completions there, and I'll update post one of that thread as work progresses.
(I think a recheck of LaurV's monster will be a long time coming, but the rest look tractable.)
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-15, 01:00   #25
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

25·79 Posts
Default

Just as a comment, those than I (Greg) did were run on nVidia Tesla hardware with ECC enabled both on the system and GPU memory. Doesn't make them error-proof but I would be very surprised if there's an error with matching residues with different shifts.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-15, 03:34   #26
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

280516 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
I've created a thread in my blog to track rechecks for the 74 flagged by George's query as CUDALucas-only verification, at https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=28237. Feel free to post claims & completions there, and I'll update post one of that thread as work progresses.
(I think a recheck of LaurV's monster will be a long time coming, but the rest look tractable.)
Ok, I will "owl" everything under 70M in two Rvii cards, for a start. As Mihai did his own FFT, the combination of cudaLucas+gpuOwl should be tought-proof in any case. Colab is no-go, as it became too expensive. Later, if no taker for the larger ones, I may adventure into 7xM too, depending on how long it takes for the smaller ones, but for now, please reserve for me only what's under 70M, all of them.
Please ignore, I went to the thread, I see people already jumping into it, so I will reserve there, to avoid stepping on toes.

On the other hand, here is the link for the files with the residues as discussed in the former post. You should NOT waste time on it, unless your name is George, hihi, but if you have itching on the fingers, you can download and see if you can reconstruct the bug in your card (need nVidia card and cudaLucas). I don't think is card-dependent, but I would be curious if older cufft/cudart libraries or versions of cudaLucas show this behavior. Anyhow, this is minor importance, I don't think it will help, except satisfying my personal curiosity.

About the zip: there are 4 files. The last two (with the larger iteration number) are not useful, except to confirm that you get the same residue after 10 iterations. The first two are the same file, except the FFT size inside is set to 19600k and 20M respectively (you can binary compare them to see what is changed), because the test is so fast that you don't have time to press the "f/F" to change the FFT. But you can change the FFT if you want. You have to rename the starting file (lower-iteration count) to c332329111 into your cudaLucas folder and run a test for this expo. The test takes less than a minute. You have to do this only for the 20M FFT, the other is provided as witness only. To see anything on screen you may change the output every 1 iteration, and checkpoint every 10.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2022-11-18 at 04:24
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-15, 17:34   #27
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2·53·67 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Hmm I'm involved in 23 of the 74 exponents. I'm triple checking my lowest one now with Prime95 30.8 b17: 36532159
Are you running any more of your 23, or others? See https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...75&postcount=1 for coordination.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2022-11-15 at 17:35
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-20, 22:26   #28
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

14048 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ric View Post
Requesting another TC (again, LL only, please) for this one:

Code:
DoubleCheck=63245909,74,1
TIA
Got it. ETA 26 hours.
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-26, 05:16   #29
sdbardwick
 
sdbardwick's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
North San Diego County

22·193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ric View Post
Requesting another TC (again, LL only, please) for this one:

Code:
DoubleCheck=63544783,74,1
TIA
Registered and queued up. ETA 27 hours.
sdbardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-27, 18:31   #30
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

24×33×52 Posts
Default

Lists updated. Please note that for the TC's, especial for those with a "Suspect" result, please do LL to confirm that the machine/result is bad or good.

Last fiddled with by Uncwilly on 2022-11-27 at 19:04
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-27, 19:41   #31
Runtime Error
 
Sep 2017
USA

B716 Posts
Default

I'm not DCing these, but I am redoing the P1 with big B2. Will be done today. (I hope that's ok )

Quote:
DoubleCheck=64781627,75,1
DoubleCheck=64984289,75,1
DoubleCheck=65042753,75,1
DoubleCheck=65047649,75,1
Runtime Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-11-28, 02:20   #32
Runtime Error
 
Sep 2017
USA

3·61 Posts
Default

Done with those above. Got one!

M65047649 has a 77.733-bit (24-digit) factor: 251097292566615314617607 (P-1,B1=1090000,B2=1057582890)

Not too big, but the factorization of K is:

2 × 653 × 3 463 × 65 047 649 × 853 522 073

which makes it the biggest B2 I've found from P-1 thus far!
Runtime Error is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Strategic Double Clicking Madpoo Marin's Mersenne-aries 1841 2019-07-16 03:30
A couple of 15e candidates fivemack NFS@Home 1 2014-11-30 07:52
new here with a couple questions theshark Information & Answers 21 2014-08-30 17:36
A couple questions from a new guy Optics Information & Answers 8 2009-04-25 18:23
A couple things PHinker Software 3 2004-12-18 17:08

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:50.


Wed Nov 30 16:50:05 UTC 2022 up 104 days, 14:18, 0 users, load averages: 1.63, 1.14, 1.06

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔