20031119, 15:51  #1 
Sep 2003
5034_{8} Posts 
77.9M exponents
A new one just completed:
77909939,73, ,0xFF0AA5467D38CD__,19Nov03 01:35,hsoftdev17,Geek2 Unfortunately, the two previous 77.9M exponents don't set a promising precedent: 77900461,Team_Prime_Rib,DSheets_60,WZ1,0B003300 77909869,Team_Italia,Paperino,WZ1,0B014103 Check out the scary error codes (last field). Let's cross our fingers and check out the next HRF3.TXT to see how the error code for the latest one turned out. 
20031119, 18:40  #2 
Oct 2002
5·7 Posts 
I was just curious: How do you check out 77.9m exponents for testing? I'm not really interested in doing one, but I was just wondering.

20031119, 19:02  #3 
Sep 2003
2^{2}·647 Posts 
I think you have to specially request them.
I suppose some people might be doing them for QA of the code at higher FFT sizes, or some people might be doing them so that they can 'dump a bomb' in the statistics charts. We'll have to see what the error codes look like for this latest one, and also a few others in the pipeline. My instinct is that it doesn't make sense to do these with current hardware. 
20031119, 20:44  #4 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
1CF1_{16} Posts 
It probably only makes sense to do these if you do the doublecheck at the same time. Take two machines and set InterimFiles and InterimResidues to 500,000 or so. Compare the residues as the test progresses. If they get out of sync, back them up until you find the error and get back in sync.
Note this might also be useful for a marginal machine. Rather than hoping you can do all 10 or 20 million iterations of a test without error, you can team up with someone and an error will set you back only a little bit. 
20031121, 15:54  #5 
Aug 2002
2^{3}·5^{2} Posts 
George,
If I run two parallel checks as you describe, and in the end both computers report back identical residues, do I get credit for both the first time LL and the doublecheck? The two results would have different shift counts, but the user ID would be the same for both. I seem to recall that you don't officially credit the doublecheck if the user ID is the same. 
20031124, 00:54  #6  
Aug 2002
3×83 Posts 
Quote:
Do you know if Ken is still running the QA effort? Just curious, thanks. 

20031127, 16:31  #7 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
31·239 Posts 
I think Ken is out of the Mersenne hunting business. I wish him well.

20031206, 01:44  #8 
Nov 2003
3·5·11 Posts 
I just remembered this thread, and how it was going to have the error code for M77909939 once HRF3.TXT got updated. So here's the line from HRF3.TXT:
77909939,hsoftdev17,Geek2,WY1,10001000 Although I am not sure, I think this qualifies as a nonharmful error code, and therefore this test could actually be worth something! 
20160817, 18:01  #9  
Sep 2003
2^{2}·647 Posts 
Quote:
77909939: verified good 77900461: verified good 77909869: mismatch, as mentioned in this thread. The original test in 2003 took 150 days. These were the very first 7xM results ever attempted, back in 2003, along with 77900497 which was recently verified good by Mark Rose. Last fiddled with by GP2 on 20160817 at 18:01 

20160821, 14:10  #10 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2·29·101 Posts 
This sounds like a fairly low error rate for exponents done so far ahead of the curve.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Exponents which don't need any more ECM  MatWurS530113  PrimeNet  8  20161012 08:00 
ECM for exponents above 20,000,000  TObject  Data  25  20140524 15:45 
exponents 42M43M  davieddy  PrimeNet  11  20080227 10:52 
Unreserving exponents(these exponents haven't been done)  jasong  Marin's Mersennearies  7  20061222 21:59 
>10,000,000 exponents  ninjabill  PrimeNet  5  20060207 17:28 