20090920, 22:37  #56 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
183_{10} Posts 
Alrighty, I have a full doublecheck of 1.001.10M is running now. Should be done in less than a week.

20090924, 23:26  #57 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
3·61 Posts 
Doublecheck on 1.001.10M is complete, results and residues have been forwarded to Phil. Hopefully he has a nice little script that strips out the important data from the firstrun and doublecheck files and compares the res64 and Wd1 details.
Doublecheck on 1.101.25M is now running. Estimated time to completion approximately 6 days, making it 1st October barring any significant issues. ~ps~ 
20090925, 22:44  #58 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
2×13×43 Posts 
I have completed a double check of the range 0500,000 also, and I am pleased to report that we now have complete residue matches of each double check in this range, as well as Ben's range 1M1.1M, with earlier residues from pfgw, either 64bit residues from version 20050213 or 62bit residues from version 20041129. I am continuing with 500,0001M, and Ben is continuing from 1.1M1.24M, but the only range where 20050213 had the hiccups was between 500,000 and 600,000, and I should have that done fairly soon. If it checks out, I do not anticipate any further problems, but I still intend to complete the double checking up to 1M, because the only residues we have currently in this range are from the 20050213 version of pfgw which had known bugs. After 1.24M, all residues are from version 25 of Prime95 (or mprime) which I presume was probably working correctly.
I also did a scan of all our results files returned so far, and found three tests that were returned with nonzero error codes, two with ROUNDOFF errors and one with a SUMOUTerror. Not bad, out of 38,000 or so tests completed so far! I have contacted the people who sent me the errors by email so that they can investigate whether they have any stability issues with those particular machines. I will pick some random double checks to rerun and send a file out to each volunteer before too long, and hopefully we can get some sort of estimate of our current error rate. 
20090925, 23:46  #59  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Quote:
As for the sumout errors, I'm not sure if those are due to a bug or what. BTW, why did you use the 20050213 and 20041129 versions of PFGW for the earlier results? Everything up through version 3.1.0 (I don't know the exact release date for 3.1.0, but it was somewhere in 2009) produced 62bit residues even though they were outputted as "64bit" residuals (essentially the first character was repeatable but nonetheless inaccurate and could be thrown out for comparison with other 62bit residues). The 20050213 version which you used for 64bit residuals was actually outputting 62bit ones in this manner. In fact, you could just as well use the latest, true 64bit residue version of PFGW (3.2.2) for comparison with originally 62bit residuals, as long as you ignore the first character of the 64bit ones when comparing them. You could even use Prime95 for this if you wanted since it produces the same true 64bit residues as the latest version of PFGW. 

20090926, 00:10  #60 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
183_{10} Posts 
The SUMOUT error was from me, and I'm pretty sure it was a result of a power blackout. Phil is rerunning the test, hopefully it'll check out.

20090926, 03:37  #61  
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
10001011110_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:


20090926, 10:44  #62  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
I think the 20041129 version may have not even tried to print 64bit residuals, but rather only printed the 62bit residual (i.e. leaving off the first character entirely). Don't quote me on that though. Quote:
I'm assuming I read that wrong, then? 

20090926, 16:49  #63  
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
2×13×43 Posts 
Quote:


20090926, 17:26  #64  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
1100001101001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 20090926 at 17:26 

20090926, 21:22  #65 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.
45E_{16} Posts 
I wouldn't say that 20050213 was hacked, but it had a number of enhancements that had been added by Jim Fougeron, the same guy who had put out many of the previous versions. It was officially a "beta" version, while the earlier 20041129 was an "alpha" version, presumably stable but with much slower FFT routines for numbers of the form a*2^n+b. Unfortunately, when Mark decided to update pfgw, he was unable to obtain Jim's source code which contained the newer enhancements.

20090926, 22:23  #66  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
P1 discussion thread  Rincewind  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  57  20110206 21:53 
Sieving discussion thread  jasong  Twin Prime Search  311  20101022 18:41 
Sieving discussion thread  philmoore  Five or Bust  The Dual Sierpinski Problem  66  20100210 14:34 
Theological Discussion Thread  clowns789  Soap Box  3  20060309 04:05 
New Sieve Thread Discussion  Citrix  Prime Sierpinski Project  15  20050829 13:56 