mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-06-08, 08:24   #1
patrik
 
patrik's Avatar
 
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

23·53 Posts
Default Error rate plot

I took the last of the v4 server status files (03 Feb 2008) and plotted the error rate.

The red curve shows verified (lucas_v) and bad (bad) data only, while the green curve also counts exponents with more than one unverified test performed. (See GP2's old discussion in this thread.)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	error_rate_50k_hrf.png
Views:	341
Size:	6.3 KB
ID:	2497  
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-08, 08:26   #2
patrik
 
patrik's Avatar
 
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

23·53 Posts
Default

And one more post with the plot going up to 40M.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	error_rates_50k_hrf_40M.png
Views:	273
Size:	6.6 KB
ID:	2498  
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-08, 08:43   #3
patrik
 
patrik's Avatar
 
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

23×53 Posts
Default Corrected plot

Sorry, these was a small mistake in the first plot.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	error_rate_50k_hrf.png
Views:	293
Size:	6.3 KB
ID:	2500  
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-08, 09:16   #4
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

5,879 Posts
Default

Could the spike at ~33M be the initial groups of testers taking 1year (or more) to complete? One imagines that the longer the test runs the more chance there is for it to go wrong.

Actually, this would tend to validate my assumption about the recent PC hardware becoming more reliable. The trend seems to be coming down with (what is presumably) people upgrading their machines to newer, more reliable, models.

Last fiddled with by retina on 2008-06-08 at 09:21
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-09, 06:53   #5
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

787 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Could the spike at ~33M be the initial groups of testers taking 1year (or more) to complete?
If you look at the actual machines that did those tests, it appears to me that the overclockers joined the land rush over there much more fanatically than non overclocked machines. Overclocked machines tend to be much more unreliable.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-09, 12:11   #6
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
If you look at the actual machines that did those tests, it appears to me that the overclockers joined the land rush over there much more fanatically than non overclocked machines. Overclocked machines tend to be much more unreliable.
Do reasonably OCed machines increase total GIMPS throughput? A better way to say it may be: If all the machines were OCed but still mostly stable, would GIMPS's total speed be higher than if they were all at standard clock speeds?
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-09, 17:36   #7
tha
 
tha's Avatar
 
Dec 2002

11000100112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
Do reasonably OCed machines increase total GIMPS throughput? A better way to say it may be: If all the machines were OCed but still mostly stable, would GIMPS's total speed be higher than if they were all at standard clock speeds?
I believe (literally, not based on figures) the extra throughput is entirely wiped out by errors in the results. Of course a little overclocking does less harm than more aggressive overclocking etc. Still I don't see a reason to overclock for GIMPS machines.
tha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-09, 19:14   #8
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

5×653 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
If you look at the actual machines that did those tests, it appears to me that the overclockers joined the land rush over there much more fanatically than non overclocked machines. Overclocked machines tend to be much more unreliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tha View Post
I believe (literally, not based on figures) the extra throughput is entirely wiped out by errors in the results. Of course a little overclocking does less harm than more aggressive overclocking etc. Still I don't see a reason to overclock for GIMPS machines.
Probably overclocking is to the advantage of people who are chasing the prize for being the first to find a 10-million decimal digit prime. By testing as many exponents as possible around exponent 33 million in a less than fully reliable way they are probably increasing their individual chance of this prize. But I guess that you are very likely correct in your judgment that overclocking does not help the categorisation of Mersenne numbers generally. It is also very possible that a Mersenne prime around this range could be missed for the time being due to an overclocked computer giving a false negative result.
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-06-10, 06:29   #9
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

6,451 Posts
Default

Isn't the decline in the green line from 20M to 40M
simply down to fewer double checks to expose "bad" tests?

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-28, 18:05   #10
patrik
 
patrik's Avatar
 
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

23×53 Posts
Default

I have spent some time yesterday and today downloading the Lucas-Lehmer results in 50000 lines chunks (maximum allowed) and have made my own files similar to bad.txt, hrf3.txt and lucas_v.txt. Then I updated the error rate plot from February 2008. Almost no changes.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	error_rate_50k_40M_20081228.png
Views:	298
Size:	7.0 KB
ID:	3081  
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-28, 23:44   #11
garo
 
garo's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Termonfeckin, IE

1001110011102 Posts
Default

Thanks for the great work. I wonder what the twin spikes at 15M and 17.5M due to. Perhaps due to wrong FFT boundaries? They were changed in v22.4 so perhaps the previous SSE2 boundaries were incorrect?
garo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
error rate and mitigation ixfd64 Hardware 4 2011-04-12 02:14
EFF prize and error rate S485122 PrimeNet 15 2009-01-16 11:27
A plot of Log2 (P) vs N for the Mersenne primes GP2 Data 3 2003-12-01 20:24
What ( if tracked ) is the error rate for Trial Factoring dsouza123 Data 6 2003-10-23 22:26
Error rate for LL tests GP2 Data 5 2003-09-15 23:34

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:54.

Sun Nov 29 16:54:21 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 14:05, 4 users, load averages: 1.21, 1.09, 1.04

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.