mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Data

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2003-11-19, 15:51   #1
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

50348 Posts
Default 77.9M exponents

A new one just completed:

77909939,73, ,0xFF0AA5467D38CD__,19-Nov-03 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.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-19, 18:40   #2
Gary Edstrom
 
Oct 2002

5·7 Posts
Default

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.
Gary Edstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-19, 19:02   #3
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

22·647 Posts
Default

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.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-19, 20:44   #4
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

1CF116 Posts
Default

It probably only makes sense to do these if you do the double-check 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.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-21, 15:54   #5
dswanson
 
dswanson's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

23·52 Posts
Default

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.
dswanson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-24, 00:54   #6
pakaran
 
pakaran's Avatar
 
Aug 2002

3×83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Prime95
It probably only makes sense to do these if you do the double-check 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.
Hi George,

Do you know if Ken is still running the QA effort? Just curious, thanks.
pakaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-11-27, 16:31   #7
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

31·239 Posts
Default

I think Ken is out of the Mersenne hunting business. I wish him well.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2003-12-06, 01:44   #8
nfortino
 
nfortino's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

3·5·11 Posts
Default

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 non-harmful error code, and therefore this test could actually be worth something!
nfortino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-17, 18:01   #9
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

22·647 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GP2 View Post
A new one just completed:

77909939,73, ,0xFF0AA5467D38CD__,19-Nov-03 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.
Almost 13 years later, the double-check results are:
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 2016-08-17 at 18:01
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-21, 14:10   #10
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2·29·101 Posts
Default

This sounds like a fairly low error rate for exponents done so far ahead of the curve.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exponents which don't need any more ECM MatWur-S530113 PrimeNet 8 2016-10-12 08:00
ECM for exponents above 20,000,000 TObject Data 25 2014-05-24 15:45
exponents 42M-43M davieddy PrimeNet 11 2008-02-27 10:52
Unreserving exponents(these exponents haven't been done) jasong Marin's Mersenne-aries 7 2006-12-22 21:59
>10,000,000 exponents ninjabill PrimeNet 5 2006-02-07 17:28

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:31.

Mon Apr 19 00:31:38 UTC 2021 up 10 days, 19:12, 0 users, load averages: 1.61, 2.04, 2.33

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.