mersenneforum.org > Data Strategic Double Clicking
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2017-10-08, 15:01   #1618
rudi_m

Jul 2005

2×7×13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mark Rose I still think this should be managed internally. A new work type. A new column for Madpoo to mark, and a new index for finding any SDC efficiently. Apply the DC cat 0/1/2 rules (no cat 3/4). Return normal DC if no SDC available. Prevent DC from returning assignments marked SDC.
Or maybe simply mark the candidates as suspect, so that the normal LL subscribers would do this work.

After one year strategic double checking, spending 55000 GHz Days for 577 exponents, I found about 170 mismatches. In other words I did basically 170 first time checks using 324 GHz Days per exponent. That's only about 30% less throughput than doing current larger first time checks. So people, who want's to find primes should not have any reason to complain about geting SDC sometimes.

As a side effect we would slightly increase the overall DC throughput to keep the gap smaller.

2017-10-08, 18:22   #1619
storm5510
Random Account

Aug 2009

19×101 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mark Rose I still think this should be managed internally. A new work type. A new column for Madpoo to mark, and a new index for finding any SDC efficiently. Apply the DC cat 0/1/2 rules (no cat 3/4). Return normal DC if no SDC available. Prevent DC from returning assignments marked SDC...
I see references to categories and a new work type. Does this only apply to Prime95? If one desires to control the data this closely then manual reservations may not be desirable. This would leave CUDALucas users out-in-the-cold, would it not?

2017-10-08, 19:02   #1620
Mark Rose

"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

1011011100112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rudi_m Or maybe simply mark the candidates as suspect, so that the normal LL subscribers would do this work. After one year strategic double checking, spending 55000 GHz Days for 577 exponents, I found about 170 mismatches. In other words I did basically 170 first time checks using 324 GHz Days per exponent. That's only about 30% less throughput than doing current larger first time checks. So people, who want's to find primes should not have any reason to complain about geting SDC sometimes. As a side effect we would slightly increase the overall DC throughput to keep the gap smaller.
That works for the low exponents, but for high exponents there is the risk of being assigned to a slow machine and not getting a check for years.

I ran a bunch of SDC of high exponents and not every one was a mismatch, so depending on the exponent range there can be a lot less "first time" throughput.

2017-10-08, 19:11   #1621
Mark Rose

"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

1011011100112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 I see references to categories and a new work type. Does this only apply to Prime95? If one desires to control the data this closely then manual reservations may not be desirable. This would leave CUDALucas users out-in-the-cold, would it not?
It's not so much controlling the data, but automating the process. An available SDC exponent report could always be published, too. That shouldn't be hard to implement either, and it would save Madpoo from copying and pasting results in this thread.

I got tired of fiddling with work queues for fifteen CPUs. So I just run normal DC now.

Automating the process would also allow future functionality such as looking at CPU heuristics and automatically SDC'ing work from flaky machines. Or periodically queuing the lowest exponents from machines without a DC. Or prioritizing TC work. Etc.

Last fiddled with by Mark Rose on 2017-10-08 at 19:18

2017-10-08, 21:41   #1622
rudi_m

Jul 2005

2·7·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mark Rose That works for the low exponents, but for high exponents there is the risk of being assigned to a slow machine and not getting a check for years. I ran a bunch of SDC of high exponents and not every one was a mismatch, so depending on the exponent range there can be a lot less "first time" throughput.
I see the point, but we have the "suspect" category already now, and there is already the risk that it's "just a double check". Assuming now 70-80% of the "suspects" are *really* bad, I see no big problem if Madpoo's semi-automatic selections would decrease this probability to 30-40%.

I remember some years ago I've had a problematic machine and I emailed George to set all it's completed LL''s to "suspect". He did it and all these LL's got double checked quickly. About 25% were bad, all fine.

Anyways to solve your point, maybe all suspect's could be assigned to cat-1 if that's possible to implement.

Last fiddled with by rudi_m on 2017-10-08 at 21:59

2017-10-09, 03:20   #1623
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

329310 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rudi_m I see the point, but we have the "suspect" category already now, and there is already the risk that it's "just a double check". Assuming now 70-80% of the "suspects" are *really* bad, I see no big problem if Madpoo's semi-automatic selections would decrease this probability to 30-40%. I remember some years ago I've had a problematic machine and I emailed George to set all it's completed LL''s to "suspect". He did it and all these LL's got double checked quickly. About 25% were bad, all fine. Anyways to solve your point, maybe all suspect's could be assigned to cat-1 if that's possible to implement.
Suspect results hover around 50% bad (last time I bothered to analyze the data...maybe a year back).

I'm not totally sure what the "hit" rate of my lists are... if they at least matched the 50% mismatch rate that you get from suspect, it might be worth it, but it tends to vary quite a bit from "yeah, this result is almost 100% going to be bad" to "maybe 10% chance it's bad".

As I've learned from helping implement some of the recent Primenet changes to handle PRP (and George/James did most of the heavy lifting anyway), I realize it's more involved to just add a new work-type... lots of code changes ripple throughout a bunch of stuff.

2017-10-09, 12:53   #1624
rudi_m

Jul 2005

2×7×13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Madpoo Suspect results hover around 50% bad (last time I bothered to analyze the data...maybe a year back). I'm not totally sure what the "hit" rate of my lists are... if they at least matched the 50% mismatch rate that you get from suspect, it might be worth it, but it tends to vary quite a bit from "yeah, this result is almost 100% going to be bad" to "maybe 10% chance it's bad".
My last year hit rate for about 450 - 570 exponents (can't say exactly) was between 30-38%. BTW some of the larger exponents listed here were already marked suspect anyways. My stats have counted them as LL instead of DC.

Quote:
 As I've learned from helping implement some of the recent Primenet changes to handle PRP (and George/James did most of the heavy lifting anyway), I realize it's more involved to just add a new work-type... lots of code changes ripple throughout a bunch of stuff.
Could you manually move an exponent to a certain "cat"? Or is this only possible with continuous ranges?

Maybe just set SDC's suspect and "move" to "LL/cat-x".
Also move triple checks to "DC/cat-x"

Last fiddled with by rudi_m on 2017-10-09 at 12:59

 2017-10-26, 05:17 #1625 Madpoo Serpentine Vermin Jar     Jul 2014 63358 Posts New list Here's a new list... I limited this to exponents below 50M just to mix it up a bit. Code: exponent Bad Good Unk worktodo 41749109 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=41749109,72,1 42015691 2 1 1 DoubleCheck=42015691,72,1 42205903 1 3 3 DoubleCheck=42205903,72,1 42233071 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=42233071,72,1 42269677 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=42269677,72,1 42292573 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=42292573,72,1 42293327 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=42293327,72,1 42328829 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=42328829,72,1 42354199 7 24 7 DoubleCheck=42354199,72,1 42416909 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=42416909,72,1 42447133 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=42447133,72,1 42597067 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=42597067,72,1 42740827 1 3 3 DoubleCheck=42740827,72,1 42933509 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=42933509,72,1 43085579 10 36 8 DoubleCheck=43085579,72,1 43137767 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=43137767,72,1 43274137 7 24 7 DoubleCheck=43274137,72,1 43292021 2 2 1 DoubleCheck=43292021,72,1 43302949 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=43302949,72,1 43315511 1 1 3 DoubleCheck=43315511,72,1 43358989 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=43358989,72,1 43373563 2 7 1 DoubleCheck=43373563,72,1 43475947 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=43475947,72,1 43523143 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=43523143,72,1 43546729 2 6 1 DoubleCheck=43546729,72,1 43559209 2 6 1 DoubleCheck=43559209,72,1 43574287 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=43574287,72,1 43593229 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=43593229,72,1 44000899 2 2 3 DoubleCheck=44000899,72,1 44030093 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=44030093,72,1 44071549 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=44071549,72,1 44155721 2 2 3 DoubleCheck=44155721,72,1 44185403 1 3 3 DoubleCheck=44185403,72,1 44271839 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=44271839,72,1 44354813 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=44354813,72,1 44367319 8 18 9 DoubleCheck=44367319,72,1 44450647 7 24 7 DoubleCheck=44450647,72,1 44522461 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=44522461,72,1 44587723 10 36 8 DoubleCheck=44587723,72,1 44602699 2 3 3 DoubleCheck=44602699,72,1 44664989 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=44664989,72,1 44693777 8 18 9 DoubleCheck=44693777,72,1 44716459 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=44716459,74,1 44729521 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=44729521,72,1 44736221 10 35 6 DoubleCheck=44736221,72,1 44752111 1 3 4 DoubleCheck=44752111,72,1 44777701 9 17 21 DoubleCheck=44777701,72,1 44838923 2 6 2 DoubleCheck=44838923,72,1 44842349 9 17 21 DoubleCheck=44842349,72,1 44849569 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=44849569,72,1 44858269 1 3 4 DoubleCheck=44858269,72,1 44890003 1 3 4 DoubleCheck=44890003,72,1 44938771 10 35 6 DoubleCheck=44938771,72,1 44976683 1 2 8 DoubleCheck=44976683,72,1 45054767 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=45054767,74,1 45056507 1 2 4 DoubleCheck=45056507,72,1 45085349 8 18 9 DoubleCheck=45085349,72,1 45089663 2 4 3 DoubleCheck=45089663,72,1 45128969 2 4 3 DoubleCheck=45128969,72,1 45166157 1 3 4 DoubleCheck=45166157,72,1 45230543 1 3 4 DoubleCheck=45230543,72,1 45308309 2 4 3 DoubleCheck=45308309,72,1 45309533 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=45309533,72,1 45322567 4 14 5 DoubleCheck=45322567,72,1 45323713 4 14 5 DoubleCheck=45323713,72,1 45329093 1 3 1 DoubleCheck=45329093,72,1 45389653 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=45389653,72,1 45422627 8 18 9 DoubleCheck=45422627,72,1 45495647 12 18 1 DoubleCheck=45495647,72,1 45501793 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=45501793,72,1 45599839 2 3 2 DoubleCheck=45599839,72,1 45623021 4 11 34 DoubleCheck=45623021,72,1 45675743 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=45675743,72,1 45702901 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=45702901,72,1 45719057 2 7 1 DoubleCheck=45719057,72,1 45732961 4 11 34 DoubleCheck=45732961,72,1 45770513 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=45770513,72,1 45770519 1 1 2 DoubleCheck=45770519,72,1 45782861 9 17 21 DoubleCheck=45782861,72,1 45943889 1 1 5 DoubleCheck=45943889,72,1 45954151 10 35 6 DoubleCheck=45954151,72,1 45958819 2 6 1 DoubleCheck=45958819,72,1 46020787 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=46020787,73,1 49110287 1 2 4 DoubleCheck=49110287,73,1 49137329 1 2 4 DoubleCheck=49137329,73,1 49176067 1 2 11 DoubleCheck=49176067,73,1 49298971 1 2 5 DoubleCheck=49298971,73,1 49334843 1 2 1 DoubleCheck=49334843,73,1 49346747 1 3 2 DoubleCheck=49346747,73,1 49395569 1 2 6 DoubleCheck=49395569,73,1 49512989 1 2 2 DoubleCheck=49512989,73,1 Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 2017-10-26 at 06:12
 2017-10-26, 06:09 #1626 Prime95 P90 years forever!     Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 1CFC16 Posts To mix things up I took from the middle: 43.6M to 44.0M
2017-10-26, 06:12   #1627
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

63358 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 To mix things up I took from the middle: 43.6M to 44.0M
Cool, I edited the list and removed those to be helpful to the next volunteer.

 2017-10-26, 07:05 #1628 rudi_m     Jul 2005 B616 Posts I tool all below 45M.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Mysticial Software 51 2021-04-18 18:12 marigonzes Information & Answers 2 2017-02-14 16:56 jasong jasong 7 2015-08-17 10:56 137ben PrimeNet 6 2012-03-13 04:01 Uncwilly Puzzles 8 2006-07-03 16:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:19.

Wed Apr 21 18:19:20 UTC 2021 up 13 days, 13 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 2.32, 2.22, 2.20