mersenneforum.org Testing....
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2010-03-07, 12:28 #221 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 2,999 Posts i've done these tests: - Riesel Base 2 and 3 for n=1 to 1000, unsieved - Sierpinski Base 2 and 3 for n=1 to 1000, unsieved for the Sierp-base3 some pairs were rejected because of this: Code: 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 1 -2 trial_factored 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 2 -2 trial_factored 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 3 -2 trial_factored 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 5 -2 00000000D2576673 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 6 -2 00000002A13F8C65 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 7 -2 00000000DAF1D0B3 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 8 -2 0000000000000003 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 9 -2 0000005B8EA2792F 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 10 -2 000000B90D033B33 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 11 -2 000002BE41FF18BF 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 12 -2 00000E0DEA87A431 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 13 -2 000023D502B963B3 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 14 -2 0000136EA66DF8C3 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 37182145 15 -2 0000C22287CBEA43 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 15 -2 00009DDFFF61E0CF 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 16 -2 0002743D96B041CB 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 17 -2 0000372E14DB2E1B 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 18 -2 000000000000001B 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 19 -2 00438DE7AFF3AA87 5000000000000:M:1:2:258 111546435 20 -2 000000000000001B LLR changed the kn-value (111546435 divisible by 3 so exponent +1). so as we assumed: this has to be done by the person filling in the knpairs.txt into the sever: be sure the k-values are 'normalized'. but i found another issue in WIN-(c)LLR: Riesel base 3 caused an error, stopping LLR, the same in cLLR. the first error occurs when n=89 from starting at n=1. it does not occur whit n=89 alone! i've sent Jean a mail about this! i've also tested Gary 'big testfile' with 179883 knpairs: i found 533 primes (no rejected pairs). Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-07 at 12:33
2010-03-07, 22:30   #222
gd_barnes

"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

2·5·1,181 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler @Gary: sounds like a plan. I've uploaded the latest files to the web. Could you also send me your latest README.txt file for do.pl? I must not have the latest as mine still has the "code" in three places in one sentence. I looked in my PM box but couldn't find a PM from Karsten detailing changes that needed to be made to the readme; when I get your latest one I'll read it over in depth and fix any problems I find.

 2010-03-07, 22:38 #223 gd_barnes     "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2×5×1,181 Posts I just don't have time to read the tremendous amount of info. that came through in the last 2-3 days. Can someone pleae give me a synopsis? It looks like there were quite a few server file changes. The main thing: Will the Windows cancellation process act just like (or very similar to the Linux cancellation process)? I just don't want the user to have to do several runs to return processed results and cancel remaining pairs. I'm sorry if this causes extra work but: Can one of you post both the new Windows and Linux server and client (all files)? I'm ask for both because I am assuming that a couple of the server files were changed also. Thanks, Gary
 2010-03-07, 22:45 #224 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 2,999 Posts the latest version is available under the link in post #198. the cancelling in my WIN-version was implemented only by changing the do.bat and a new gawk-script/-call: - submitting results in tosend.txt by the client - delete these pairs from the client-workfile.txt - cancelling the remaining knpairs in workfile.txt (i think the same way like the do.pl) nothing else!
2010-03-08, 04:02   #225
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes I just don't have time to read the tremendous amount of info. that came through in the last 2-3 days. Can someone pleae give me a synopsis? It looks like there were quite a few server file changes. The main thing: Will the Windows cancellation process act just like (or very similar to the Linux cancellation process)? I just don't want the user to have to do several runs to return processed results and cancel remaining pairs. I'm sorry if this causes extra work but: Can one of you post both the new Windows and Linux server and client (all files)? I'm ask for both because I am assuming that a couple of the server files were changed also. Thanks, Gary
As Karsten said, the only change was to the Windows script, and yes, it now works just like the Linux one with regard to the cancellation process.

As for the server and client, I'm pretty sure that absolutely no changes were made to the server. Karsten, is that correct?

Here are the links to the latest do.pl packages:
WIN32
Linux32

And here's the link to the latest do.bat package:
http://www.rieselprime.de/dl/LLRnetV07.zip
Note that this includes a copy of the server as well (preconfigured for a test scenario Karsten was using) but I'm pretty sure there are no differences in it from the standard server code that we're using on all the NPLB servers, aside from the date/time formatting.

Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-08 at 08:27

2010-03-08, 04:10   #226
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

141518 Posts

Quote:
Yes, I read that. However, while I have the version of the readme from you that changed the wording to 3rd person, my latest copy still has the word "code" in the first sentence rather redundantly, which you mentioned you fixed; as such I'm not sure if I have your latest rewrite to use as a starting point for further changes.

2010-03-08, 07:21   #227
gd_barnes

"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

2×5×1,181 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler As Karsten said, the only change was to the Windows script, and yes, it now works just like the Linux one with regard to the cancellation process. As for the server and client, I'm pretty sure that absolutely no changes were made to the server. Karsten, is that correct? Here are the links to the latest do.pl packages: WIN32 Linux32 And here's the link to the latest do.bat package: http://www.rieselprime.de/dl/LLRnetV07.zip Note that this includes a copy of the server as well (preconfigured for a test scenario Karsten was using) but I'm pretty sure there are no differences in it from the standard server code that we're using on all the NPLB servers, aside from the date/time formatting.

Thanks for posting all of those Max.

OK, that was what I was wondering about on the servers. The date/time formatting. I don't think I mentioned that in my "guidelines" post about who does what. Has the Linux server date/time been synced up with the Windows server date/time formatting?

I suppose that might be a dumb question. Maybe the code is exactly the same on both since it's an LUA file. If so, just let me know.

What I'll want to make sure is that we get the exact correct files posted for everyone for both Windows and Linux. I don't want to end up with one set of server files on one and a different set of server files on the other. (Well, in this case, it would [I assume] be only one file difference if we didn't get the date-time formatting updated on the Linux server.)

Gary

Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-08 at 08:27

2010-03-08, 07:43   #228
gd_barnes

"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS

2·5·1,181 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Yes, I read that. However, while I have the version of the readme from you that changed the wording to 3rd person, my latest copy still has the word "code" in the first sentence rather redundantly, which you mentioned you fixed; as such I'm not sure if I have your latest rewrite to use as a starting point for further changes.
That's not the right one. Obviously I'm beating my head against the wall.

Clearly you're misunderstanding my points:

1. I never said I corrected "code". Can you show where I said that? I asked you to do that.

2. You have the latest version of README. It's in the client that I sent by Email right before I left. Can you show where I said that's not the latest one?

I was quite frustrated by all of this misremembering that is going on. If you wanna see why, just read my deleted posts. If not, don't worry about it.

The bottom line is that what you have is what needs to be updated to correct one paragraph and remove so many "codes" in another sentence. That's all. Nothing more...nothing less.

Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-03-08 at 07:45

 2010-03-08, 08:32 #229 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 299910 Posts first of all: i've corrected the do.pl-links in both recent posts: they were done with (...) in it! and again to the date-format: the only change of 'code' is the entry in the llr-serverconfig.txt. this file must contain the lines: Code: function DisplayDate() return date("%Y-%m-%d\ %H:%M:%S") end when the server is started, the function is in the llrserver.lua declared. but then the llr-serverconfig.txt will be loaded and the 'internal' function is overwritten by the 'external' one! no changes in LUA's!!!!! so this is in the hand of the server-guy, not the client! Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-09 at 23:27
 2010-03-08, 17:10 #230 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 2,999 Posts Gary, i know you don't want much more changes before releasing this working script. so decide if you/we want this one, too: as we know, llrnet-server will write the time of a test as the timeframe from submitting the pair to the client and getting back the result from the client. so timings for your current G6000-work says about 2400 seconds for a test, but you got a WUCacheSize of 5 (if i'm right) and therefore the correct timings has to be about 480 secs! yesterday/today i've changed 4 files (client.lua, llrnet.lua, do_tosend.awk, llserver.lua) and the right timings will be saved in the llrserver-result-file! i have to do some more tests with 'exceptions' and cancelling but it seems to work fine! what i want to do before making the script official (with or without the above): tidy up the llrclient- and llrserver-folders: llrserver don't need for example gui.lua, so why is this file in there!? (my) other wish is to release a 'minimum' server/client-pair: the less the user have to look at, the less errors occurs and the easier to install such package: - no GUI - no SQL - no proxy - minimum config-files but this can wait (Note: the latter 3 i've done so far!) Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-08 at 17:17
 2010-03-08, 21:01 #231 kar_bon     Mar 2006 Germany 299910 Posts ok, guys. look and test a little bit with some new things mentioned above. a new Version 0.8 is here. see the ReadMe for some notes. for testing under Unix, the do.pl have to be changed (a little bit easier now, see notes). PS: Jean has uploaded a new developer-version for LLR3.8 here, which should handle the error with the Riesel Base 3 test (n=1-1000) i mentioned. i will test this. Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-08 at 21:01

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post kladner Soap Box 3 2016-10-14 18:43 GARYP166 Information & Answers 9 2009-02-18 22:41 gd_barnes Riesel Prime Search 20 2007-11-08 21:13 grobie Marin's Mersenne-aries 1 2006-05-15 12:26 eepiccolo Math 6 2006-03-28 20:53

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:44.

Tue Jan 31 04:44:29 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 2:13, 0 users, load averages: 0.75, 0.76, 0.83