OFFICIAL "SERVER PROBLEMS" THREAD

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by lisanderke

I seem to be able to manually submit my small ECM'ed assignments multiple times
.. has in some way added on to a tally of these curves being ran on those numbers.

Yes, it's possible since it's hard to authenticate whether a submitted result is a new set of results or the same result submitted again.
It will affect the number of future curves run at the current bounds (since the server now thinks the exponent has had more ECM factoring applied than it actually has). If you have a definitive list of which exact exponents you duplicate-submitted and how many extra curves you claimed but didn't actually run, you could PM this to George and he may wish to fiddle the database to make the correction (or not, at his discretion).
Please avoid duplicate ECM result submissions.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by gjmccrac

Also in this section the values to do not balance

 240000000 52073    | 31277     1             20795 |                 3       | 20789     2     1       |
 241000000 51674    | 30940                   20734 |                         | 20731     2     1       |
 242000000 51625    | 31104                   20521 |                         | 15190     3     1       |
 243000000 51704    | 30772                   20932 |                 1       |  2535                   |
 244000000 52040    | 31187                   20853 |                         | 11963     4     1       |
 245000000 51723    | 30937                   20786 |                15       | 20757                   |
 246000000 51693    | 31308                   20385 |                         | 20308    76     1       |
 247000000 51695    | 31012                   20683 |                24       | 20640    18     1       |
 248000000 51780    | 31161                   20619 |                         | 20612     6     1       |
 249000000 51767    | 30860                   20907 |                         | 20895    11     1       |
 
----------=-----=-- | -----=-----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- |
  Exponent Range    | Composite  | Status Unproven  |        Assigned         |        Available        |
   Start   Count  P |   F    DC  |LL/PRP  ERR NO-LL |  TF    P-1  LL/PRP  DC  |  TF    P-1  LL/PRP  DC  |
----------=-----=-- | -----=-----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- | -----=-----=-----=----- |

I haven't checked the forums lately and wasn't aware there was an issue.

I'd guess these instances have something to do with the new certification work types being done, or something like that. It's something to look at when time allows.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

I haven't checked the forums lately and wasn't aware there was an issue.

I'd guess these instances have something to do with the new certification work types being done, or something like that. It's something to look at when time allows.

Never mind the cert... I see these are for ranges much higher than the current assignment range for first-time checks.

And you're specifically referring to the "Available" counts (since the total-composite-noLL=0)

For example, for 242M there are 20521 with no LL (or PRP) done, so the # available should add up to that. That gives me something to look into... odds are they're probably available but as one of the obscure work types, and the report isn't showing those.

[lisanderke]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Yes, it's possible since it's hard to authenticate whether a submitted result is a new set of results or the same result submitted again.
It will affect the number of future curves run at the current bounds (since the server now thinks the exponent has had more ECM factoring applied than it actually has). If you have a definitive list of which exact exponents you duplicate-submitted and how many extra curves you claimed but didn't actually run, you could PM this to George and he may wish to fiddle the database to make the correction (or not, at his discretion).
Please avoid duplicate ECM result submissions.

Oh dear... I have turned in an awful amount of bogus results...
A small list of some of these exponents I accidentally over-submitted as new ECM curves:
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1
https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...ll=1&ecmhist=1

[lisanderke]

It seems in total I have 606 counts of a bogus result submission (as in: any amount of submissions more than just the first time I clocked in the result.)


I'm able to pin-point every one of them in my results tab, sorting by ECM->only manual results. I'm not sure if I should print this page to pdf and attach it in an email or perhaps go through every single exponent and say that only 1 of the results for said exponents should be valid...


Edit: missed a plural form of a word :)

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Never mind the cert... I see these are for ranges much higher than the current assignment range for first-time checks.

And you're specifically referring to the "Available" counts (since the total-composite-noLL=0)

For example, for 242M there are 20521 with no LL (or PRP) done, so the # available should add up to that. That gives me something to look into... odds are they're probably available but as one of the obscure work types, and the report isn't showing those.

I think it comes down to some cleanup work George did, removing ancient TF assignments. They didn't seem to get re-added to the list of available exponents.

I'm running some cleanup now - it seems like it was mostly centered around some specific ranges where people had reserved a bunch of TF and then abandoned them, but there are a handful of others here and there. Could take a while to get them all sorted and then we'll see how it looks.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by lisanderke

It seems in total I have 606 counts of a bogus result submission (as in: any amount of submissions more than just the first time I clocked in the result.)


I'm able to pin-point every one of them in my results tab, sorting by ECM->only manual results. I'm not sure if I should print this page to pdf and attach it in an email or perhaps go through every single exponent and say that only 1 of the results for said exponents should be valid...


Edit: missed a plural form of a word :)

Sounds like you have a lot of ECM work to do to make your reports accurate! :)

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by lisanderke

Oh dear... I have turned in an awful amount of bogus results...

I'm not overly concerned. The only negatives are 1) we switch to the next B1 bound a little earlier than we would have (and that's not necessarily a bad thing), and 2) you have some unearned CPU credit.

If you feel particularly guilty, you can turn off "Use Primenet" option, fill your worktodo.txt, and only report a factor if you find one.

[lisanderke]

Originally Posted by Prime95

I'm not overly concerned. The only negatives are 1) we switch to the next B1 bound a little earlier than we would have (and that's not necessarily a bad thing), and 2) you have some unearned CPU credit.

If you feel particularly guilty, you can turn off "Use Primenet" option, fill your worktodo.txt, and only report a factor if you find one.

But wouldn't switching to the next bound earlier not mean we might (very slight chance I presume) have missed a factor in that bound?

[VBCurtis]

I think your question means you don't understand ECM well. If an ECM curve would find a factor, increased bounds with the same sigma would also find the factor.

There's a slight loss in efficiency in running curves "too big" for a factor hunt, but not much. For example, if an input called for B1=50k curves but you ran curves at B1=100k, you improve your chances to find a bigger factor (say, 27-29 digits) at the expense of taking longer to find a 24-25 digit factor than you would expect to take running curves at B1=50k.

So, your false reports might trigger the next user to run curves at B1=250k sooner, but that's hardly a waste. I skip the 50k level entirely sometimes, such as my current work in 14.01M range.

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

I think your question means you don't understand ECM well.

Well explained, thank you. I'm sure there's many users here (myself especially included) who run this stuff for some fun without really understanding the math behind it, so simple explanations like that are wonderful.