20200508, 19:58  #67  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·4,643 Posts 
Quote:
In the official notice, the TF'ers and P1'ers (etc.) are covered in the "et al" language. But it would be kinda cool getting an official document from GIMPS for being in direct assistance for the next MP found. Just don't fall into Knuth's situation with regards to cheques... Also, a "bump" on this discussion. Do we have any code to the stage where it could be alpha tested on kit yet? We do have some places to test this... 

20200508, 20:34  #68  
"Seth"
Apr 2019
191 Posts 
Quote:
I think the 2nd sentence is missing an "are" (between "things for more") and I agree doubling with that, I've been thinking about if this could be adopted to P1 or ECM so that a factordb like service wouldn't have to trust blindly submissions. 

20200508, 21:00  #69  
"Seth"
Apr 2019
191 Posts 
Quote:
If you use linux and cuda 10.1 I can provide a binary if you can't compile it yourself. Everything should look like normal except the version is incremented and you should see proof lines in your results.txt Code:
M66023333 proof_k(20475767038603731855001): 28 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] M66023333 proof_k(33270468931786126541321): 27 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] M66023333 proof_k(33150685168141475305463): 25 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] M66023333 proof_k(28851305727414925240879): 24 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] M66023333 proof_k(32228068860752704443631): 22 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] M66023333 proof_k(23676960155764888060537): 20 bits [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] [Fri May 1 22:46:32 2020] no factor for M66023333 from 2^74 to 2^75 [mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] I'll provide a program to verify the proof logs this weekend; currently it's a combination of the check in #47 for small kernels (e.g. 75bit_mul32_gs) and https://gist.github.com/sethtroisi/a2942e29be6ab43a6eeb4b4987ee3246 for larger kernels 

20200508, 21:19  #70  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·4,643 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
And, could you define your datastream a bit more? Should the servers keep the values for each bit level? As in, it's effectively a threedimensional sparse matrix (Exponent, Bitlevel, PoW)? Separately, does anyone who understands both the maths and the Python understand what's being done here? Blackbox to me (and I'm OK with that). 

20200508, 22:04  #71  
"Seth"
Apr 2019
191 Posts 
Quote:
Right now the code outputs multiple proofs per <exponent,bitlevel>, I think the server should keep <user, exp, bitlevel, minpow> where minpow is the "best" proof of work where best = hardest = rarest = smallest res or most zeros. I need to change the code a little bit before this happens. I cleaned up the verify script and have a new version you can pass your results.txt file to. https://gist.github.com/sethtroisi/4...7007d55cdca7e5 my TODO is 1. Rename proof_k to proof_test or proof (it's not easy to manipulate large ints in mkfact) 2. Change output format from "X bits" to "X difficulty" 3. Run over large range of inputs and verify proof 4. Update verify script one more time. 

20200509, 12:20  #72  
"Seth"
Apr 2019
191 Posts 
Quote:
I ran ~50 exponents (5M to 250M) over several bitranges (5860, 6062, 6567, 7071) and verified ~458 proof statements (currently more than one can be generated per workitem). Newest verification script is at https://gist.github.com/sethtroisi/4...7007d55cdca7e5 

20200511, 18:56  #73 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·4,643 Posts 
OK... Sweet. I love data!
However, one comment (read: change request): Your mfaktc delta should print the proof lines after the datestamp line. As it is currently, parsing the data from a log file it is a pain to get the timestamp correct. The actual proof lines are great to RegEx through  easy to parse. Thanks for that. It's going to be interesting running this on a few different platforms, and ensure we get full convergence on the proofs. Anyone out there with flaky kit willing to give this a try? It would be good to get such testruns in the dataset. P.S. Is now the time to discuss optionally producing XML output? 
20200511, 22:41  #74  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·4,643 Posts 
Quote:
I see during the run that the different "proof" lines are generated during the run. However, the last proof isn't printed (perhaps it's not supposed to be). As an example (copied from the console where the job was run): Code:
got assignment: exp=5500021 bit_min=65 bit_max=67 (4.08 GHzdays) Starting trial factoring M5500021 from 2^65 to 2^66 (1.36 GHzdays) k_min = 3353940660840 k_max = 6707881323983 Using GPU kernel "barrett76_mul32_gs" Date Time  class Pct  time ETA  GHzd/day Sieve Wait May 11 18:14  260 5.7%  0.408 6m09s  299.71 82485 n.a.% M5500021 proof(47281205372229406961): 33 difficulty May 11 18:15  548 12.1%  0.401 5m38s  304.94 82485 n.a.% M5500021 proof(41186001143328300737): 34 difficulty May 11 18:15  923 20.2%  0.406 5m11s  301.18 82485 n.a.% M5500021 proof(55435150410008224727): 37 difficulty May 11 18:21  4619 100.0%  0.409 0m00s  298.97 82485 n.a.% no factor for M5500021 from 2^65 to 2^66 [mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs] tf(): total time spent: 6m 32.519s Is this by design? Or is there a way to get a useful hash for the last part of the run? 

20200513, 23:00  #75  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2·4,643 Posts 
Quote:
I'd like to start doing some widespread test runs using this, and collecting data. But I'd like the codebase to be stable (and, of course, sane) before I do. Thanks! 

20200514, 00:37  #76  
"Seth"
Apr 2019
191 Posts 
Sorry I missed these messages, I strongly rely on MF emails (I get a kick out of "You will probably never see this message because it will end up in your spam folder.") and seem to have missed theses
Quote:
This weekend I'll change it so at default verbosity the best proof is printed directly after printing the statusline Quote:


20200514, 17:52  #77  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
22106_{8} Posts 
Quote:
So you know, I've "forked" your mfaktc delta on GitHub, so I'll pull your changes once they've been applied. I want to make some changes myself, for use in Colab and BOINC runs. I'll send a "Pull request" once I'm happy with my changes. Quote:
Since I'm more concerned about kit sanity than cheating detection, this is fine. Someone would /really/ have to be motivated to get around this, even in the cases of 20% coverage. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
GPU Trial Factoring FAQ  garo  GPU Computing  100  20190422 10:58 
mfaktc for dummies  NBtarheel_33  GPU Computing  10  20111013 00:04 
How much Trial Factoring to do?  odin  Software  4  20100808 20:23 
How far to do trial factoring  S485122  PrimeNet  1  20070906 00:52 
trial factoring and P1  jocelynl  Math  8  20060201 14:12 