mersenneforum.org Manual Result already in database?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2017-04-19, 14:02 #1 emiller   Apr 2017 2·5 Posts Manual Result already in database? I'm having a hard time uploading results for M80,563,501. I go to the manual upload page and attach the results.txt. At the bottom of the page confirm uploading I see the following: So I'm confused. One line says "Skipped 0 lines already in the database." which is what I expect. But then the next field says "These Prime exponents were already in the database." So which is it? After uploading results, when I check the page for this exponent, it doesn't post my results: https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...0563501&full=1
 2017-04-19, 17:14 #2 VictordeHolland     "Victor de Hollander" Aug 2011 the Netherlands 100100110112 Posts What happens if you copy/paste the result lines from your results.txt into the box on the manual results page and submit them in that way?
 2017-04-19, 18:14 #3 GP2     Sep 2003 50338 Posts Are you posting your results to this page: https://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/ Or perhaps some other page, for example at mersenne.ca ? Is your result an LL test, or some other kind of test? If it's an LL test, it should be in the format: Code: UID: username/machinename, M80563501 is not prime. Res64: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. We8: XXXXXXXX,YYYYYYYY,00000000, AID: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 2017-04-20, 01:24 #4 Prime95 P90 years forever!     Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 22×32×13×17 Posts The problem is that you are trying to post a "this is a new prime" result. It is extraordinarily likely that this is due to a bad build of CUDALucas or bad drivers. Someone here should be able to help you with that (or point you to a pre-compiled binary.) BTW, welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick with it despite the start. Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 2017-04-20 at 01:25
 2017-04-20, 03:07 #5 Mark Rose     "/X\(‘-‘)/X\" Jan 2013 1011100001112 Posts I wonder how many people are now checking if M80563501 is prime. I bet at least half a dozen. I won't bother since I know others have faster setups.
2017-04-20, 13:40   #6
emiller

Apr 2017

2×5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 The problem is that you are trying to post a "this is a new prime" result. It is extraordinarily likely that this is due to a bad build of CUDALucas or bad drivers. Someone here should be able to help you with that (or point you to a pre-compiled binary.) BTW, welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick with it despite the start.

Yes that's correct. I'm suspicious too. But I figured I could submit the result anyway. Isn't this what the LL double check jobs are for?

2017-04-20, 16:15   #7
GP2

Sep 2003

258710 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 The problem is that you are trying to post a "this is a new prime" result. It is extraordinarily likely that this is due to a bad build of CUDALucas or bad drivers. Someone here should be able to help you with that (or point you to a pre-compiled binary.) BTW, welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick with it despite the start.
The problem is, the exponent is now stuck.

The first tester can't submit it, but as long as there is an unexpired first-test assignment, it can't be reserved as a double check either. And no one is particularly eager to poach it, knowing that it'll take a long time and might end up being a wasted effort if others do the same thing. Maybe MadPoo should take it.

 2017-04-20, 17:57 #8 ATH Einyen     Dec 2003 Denmark D1616 Posts I started to test it earlier. ETA ~34 hours.
 2017-04-20, 21:50 #9 Prime95 P90 years forever!     Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 22·32·13·17 Posts Prime reports go through a whole different path. It is not heavily tested, especially for manual reports. Madpoo is running a test. He started a day or two ago. We've had plenty of false positives from incorrect CudaLucas builds, so we don't get real excited when a first-time user reports a CudaLucas prime. In the meantime, try doing a few triple-checks on exponents below 10 million or so to see if your CudaLucas matches known good results.
 2017-04-22, 02:31 #10 ATH Einyen     Dec 2003 Denmark 2·52·67 Posts It was not prime unfortunately, but as expected: http://mersenne.org/M80563501
2017-04-23, 00:44   #11
Serpentine Vermin Jar

Jul 2014

3×11×101 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ATH It was not prime unfortunately, but as expected: http://mersenne.org/M80563501
I forgot to check my run of it and reported mine just a few hours after yours. Well, it's successfully double-checked now.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Siegmund PrimeNet 6 2017-01-08 22:22 ixfd64 PrimeNet 2 2014-09-08 23:06 sonjohan PrimeNet 12 2012-04-25 13:17 tichy PrimeNet 4 2010-12-17 09:57 pacionet Information & Answers 1 2010-08-25 20:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:27.

Mon Aug 15 18:27:41 UTC 2022 up 39 days, 13:15, 1 user, load averages: 1.46, 1.36, 1.33