Prime95 v30.3 - Page 5

axn · 2020-08-14, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by S485122

a time stamp for each result written to results.txt and results.json.txt, even if they are a few seconds apart ;

All json entries have a timestamp field in it (UTC). This is also a standard format, independent of any locale-specific settings.

S485122 · 2020-08-14, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by axn

All json entries have a timestamp field in it (UTC). This is also a standard format, independent of any locale-specific settings.

Indeed, I was referring to the time stamp between square brackets line before each result. I didn't take the time to check if the time appeared somewhere else in a different format. I just looked at a result.jason.txt file with results coming a few seconds apart, and indeed even if there is only one time line for different results, each has is own timestamp. This means that my wishes where already fulfilled with the advent of the jason formatted result files. Sorry for the distraction :-(.

Jacob

storm5510 · 2020-08-14, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Wait and see. I would wager a doughnut that it will take care of things by itself. That is what .spl files are for.

There is no .spl file. Yes, it probably will take care of itself. I was concerned about an elongated period of time between the sending of the result and the upload of the certification file. If the period of time in between is not all that important, then I will not concern myself with it any further.

Uncwilly · 2020-08-14, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Can you run with "Debug=1" in the Primenet section of prime.txt? Then email/post prime.log if it happens again.

It was already set. I trimmed the file to include about a week before until a few hours after it went through the TF.

ATH · 2020-08-14, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

If it was "PRP=1,2,exp,-1" then prime 95 assumes it has been TF'ed to 2^0 and 0 tests will be saved by P-1 (that is, it needs TF and does not need P-1. That's inconsistent and I'll change it).

Yes I always just use "PRP=1,2,exp,-1" to just register the exponent and get an AID. Version 29.8 does not start doing TF, something has changed?

Uncwilly · 2020-08-14, 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

Yes I always just use "PRP=1,2,exp,-1" to just register the exponent and get an AID. Version 29.8 does not start doing TF, something has changed?

I am guessing that the "priority work" code path is seeing something odd. I think that some of my assignments didn't get the 99 that was expected, because they were cofactor assignments.

kriesel · 2020-08-14, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

Yes I always just use "PRP=1,2,exp,-1" to just register the exponent and get an AID. Version 29.8 does not start doing TF, something has changed?

The workaround seems apparent; start using "PRP=1,2,exp,-1,78,0" or some such.

Uncwilly · 2020-08-14, 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by kriesel

The workaround seems apparent; start using "PRP=1,2,exp,-1,78,0" or some such.

The problem should be fixed, not catered too. We are beta testing. This is a bug. ATH is a big boy and can deal with some bonus TF. My bonus TF did not take to long. But, users should not have to fix the assignments that PrimeNet hands out.

ATH · 2020-08-14, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by kriesel

The workaround seems apparent; start using "PRP=1,2,exp,-1,78,0" or some such.

Sure I will, that is no big deal. I'm just curious if this is intended or a bug, since it is a change in behavior.

Somehow it is the "correct" behavior to start trial factoring if no current limit is provided, but with all the GPU TF that has been done in the last many years it is not really the most efficient behavior anymore to assume no TF has been done.

Uncwilly · 2020-08-14, 15:54

Suggestion:

On a machine where there are multiple workers, allow the user to designate which worker gets to do the cert runs. If I have 4 cores running DC's and 2 running PRP-CF, I might want to let the tiny CF work yield to the Certs, vs the LL-DCs.

Separate issue: with the LL-DC and the PRP-DC work type combined, my machine that has been knocking out LL-DC's down in the Cat 0-1 area (although it and another one got Cat 4 and then Cat 3 work, I don't know why) has now picked up some PRP-DC work. I want to help with the LL-DC trailing edge.

Prime95 · 2020-08-14, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

Yes I always just use "PRP=1,2,exp,-1" to just register the exponent and get an AID. Version 29.8 does not start doing TF, something has changed?

Thanks for the log file. It clearly shows the problem is with prime95 sometimes losing the "has been factored to 2^99" information. The server is always sending the correct information.

For now, if you are doing PRPCF work add SkipTrialFactoring=1 to prime.txt.

The change from 29.8 is that PRP will now do any need TF before running the PRP test. This code is necessary for some 100Mdigit assignments.

2020-08-14, 15:54	#54
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 22007₈ Posts	Suggestion: On a machine where there are multiple workers, allow the user to designate which worker gets to do the cert runs. If I have 4 cores running DC's and 2 running PRP-CF, I might want to let the tiny CF work yield to the Certs, vs the LL-DCs. Separate issue: with the LL-DC and the PRP-DC work type combined, my machine that has been knocking out LL-DC's down in the Cat 0-1 area (although it and another one got Cat 4 and then Cat 3 work, I don't know why) has now picked up some PRP-DC work. I want to help with the LL-DC trailing edge.