mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-10-14, 12:10   #1
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
"Juan Tutors"
Mar 2004

13×43 Posts
Default Should I abandon this test?

I am doing a PRP test on a 10^8 digit Mersenne for which I am only at 3.79% of the way done. It has already had 2 Gerbicz/double check errors. It won't finish until maybe September 2022. Should I just abandon it/unreserved it and start a new test? FYI I have already stopped the test to do a DC assignment that passed.

Last fiddled with by JuanTutors on 2021-10-14 at 12:11
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-14, 18:02   #2
Viliam Furik
 
Viliam Furik's Avatar
 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia

2·353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanTutors View Post
I am doing a PRP test on a 10^8 digit Mersenne for which I am only at 3.79% of the way done. It has already had 2 Gerbicz/double check errors. It won't finish until maybe September 2022. Should I just abandon it/unreserved it and start a new test? FYI I have already stopped the test to do a DC assignment that passed.
If in the event of abandoning this test, and starting another 100M digit one, I strongly recommend not to do this. However, if you start with some smaller number to test, i.e. under 150M exponent, I would recommend doing this.
Viliam Furik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-14, 18:08   #3
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2×383 Posts
Default

You should also pay attention on the errors: Doing DC instead or LL likely will soon cause a bad result! You could do "normal" PRP with proofs or even LL-DC by doing a PRP with proof; there is also PRP-CF which has proofs.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-14, 18:35   #4
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
"Juan Tutors"
Mar 2004

13×43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
You should also pay attention on the errors: Doing DC instead or LL likely will soon cause a bad result! You could do "normal" PRP with proofs or even LL-DC by doing a PRP with proof; there is also PRP-CF which has proofs.
I am doing a first time PRP test.
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-21, 12:30   #5
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
"Juan Tutors"
Mar 2004

13×43 Posts
Default

Update to this post: I did decide to switch exponents since I was so early into the test. The thing is, with my new exponent, I am only 2.15% of the way through the newest test and I am already at 3 Gerbicz errors in. Should I quit this machine? Should I use it to just constantly P-1 on my current assignments? Should I keep going with this PRP test?
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-21, 12:45   #6
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

13768 Posts
Default

If your machine is that problematic, PRP-CF is an option, since its assignments are so short that they should come through nicely.

P-1 is risky if the machine is unstable, factors are likely missed. If a normal P-1 would turn up with a factor, a single problem in the computation would prevent that factor from coming up. With you machine it is thus likely that it might never find a factor.

Needless to say, you should try to investigate why the errors occur. Unstable memory? Over-/underclock? Maybe try the stress test; are small FFTs stable? Are big FFTs stable?

Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2021-10-21 at 12:45 Reason: Punctation.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-21, 12:50   #7
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2×7×281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanTutors View Post
Update to this post: I did decide to switch exponents since I was so early into the test. The thing is, with my new exponent, I am only 2.15% of the way through the newest test and I am already at 3 Gerbicz errors in. Should I quit this machine? Should I use it to just constantly P-1 on my current assignments? Should I keep going with this PRP test?
Find out why you are getting Gerbicz errors. In the first place check your thermals with some temperature monitoring software. Other than this voltage and timings are crucial. What is the specifiction of your computer system?
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-22, 17:13   #8
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
"Juan Tutors"
Mar 2004

10578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Maybe try the stress test; are small FFTs stable? Are big FFTs stable?
Will have to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
Find out why you are getting Gerbicz errors. In the first place check your thermals with some temperature monitoring software. Other than this voltage and timings are crucial. What is the specifiction of your computer system?
Average temp hovering between 78C and 80C. Intel Core i5 6500 (Skylake) 3.20 GHz processor (though core temp says 3292.74MHz). TDP 65.0 Watts. Power around 40.0 Watts.
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-22, 17:36   #9
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

1111010111102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanTutors View Post
Average temp hovering between 78C and 80C. Intel Core i5 6500 (Skylake) 3.20 GHz processor (though core temp says 3292.74MHz). TDP 65.0 Watts. Power around 40.0 Watts.
On warmer days this might be a problem. Is it a stock Intel cooler? Would you consider getting an all-in-one water cooler?

I have run Intel chips at these temperatures, but if heat builds in the case it might overheat other components such as RAM or bridge chips.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2021-10-22 at 17:37
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-22, 18:01   #10
JuanTutors
 
JuanTutors's Avatar
 
"Juan Tutors"
Mar 2004

13·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
On warmer days this might be a problem. Is it a stock Intel cooler? Would you consider getting an all-in-one water cooler?

I have run Intel chips at these temperatures, but if heat builds in the case it might overheat other components such as RAM or bridge chips.
It's a work PC so that's not an option but will throttling do it? I am definitely willing to restart this test if that might work.

Also an update, I just tried switching BACK to the number that I had stopped working on just last week and there was an error reading ALL the intermediate files. I don't even have a viable explanation for that.
JuanTutors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-22, 18:06   #11
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

2·7·281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanTutors View Post
It's a work PC so that's not an option but will throttling do it? I am definitely willing to restart this test if that might work.

Also an update, I just tried switching BACK to the number that I had stopped working on just last week and there was an error reading ALL the intermediate files. I don't even have a viable explanation for that.
There is no need to restart your number (after throttling). You can be very confident with any number of Gerbicz errors.
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I found the primality test, there seems to be no composite numbers that pass the test sweety439 sweety439 7 2020-02-11 19:49
Modifying the Lucas Lehmer Primality Test into a fast test of nothing Trilo Miscellaneous Math 25 2018-03-11 23:20
Double check LL test faster than first run test lidocorc Software 3 2008-12-03 15:12
Will the torture test, test ALL available memory? swinster Software 2 2007-12-01 17:54
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than Pépin's test ? T.Rex Math 0 2004-10-26 21:37

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:34.


Wed Dec 1 02:34:10 UTC 2021 up 130 days, 21:03, 3 users, load averages: 1.26, 1.41, 1.43

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.