mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Fun Stuff > Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-12-29, 17:19   #1
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

52×29 Posts
Default just finished the biggest (successful) LL test

As far as I know I just finished successfully the biggest LL test:

[Dec 29 18:02] M123456811 is not prime. Res64: A41D7D17044F74xx. We4: xxx
[Dec 29 18:02] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on any logical CPU.
....
[Comm thread Dec 29 18:02] pnErrorResult=0
[Comm thread Dec 29 18:02] CPU credit is 605.4956 GHz-days.
[Comm thread Dec 29 18:02] ==END==

Unfortunately it's not a prime number (it even looks very nice). It needed more than a year with two cores running.

Anyway, who got more CPU credits? ;)

Last fiddled with by akruppa on 2010-12-29 at 19:46 Reason: removed last 2 residue digits
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 17:45   #2
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

102538 Posts
Default

Not quite the biggest, these two beat it out:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...p_lo=332197123
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...p_lo=150000091
By the way, here's a listing with a lot of information on exponent statuses:
http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/
And here's a list of LL results for exponents over 100M:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?e...B1=Get+LL+data
Third-biggest, still quite impressive! Unfortunately, with a non-0 error code, this test is more likely (than average) to be bad.
Please hide the last two hexdigits in the Res64 so nobody is able to resubmit that result and get all that credit without any work.
By the way, I should hope you really did TF farther than the 65 bits and no P-1 that PrimeNet knows about before running this monster LL.

The error code indicates 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4 error occurred. From this thread, it looks like about 40% of numbers with that sort of error code are usually bad. Considering this and the length of time this number took, I'd give it a 50/50 chance for actually being correct.

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2010-12-29 at 18:03
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 17:48   #3
moebius
 
moebius's Avatar
 
Jul 2009
Germany

547 Posts
Default

Unfortunatley it is a Suspect LL.
moebius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 18:14   #4
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

52·29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
Third-biggest, still quite impressive! Unfortunately, with a non-0 error code, this test is more likely (than average) to be bad.
Please hide the last two hexdigits in the Res64 so nobody is able to resubmit that result and get all that credit without any work.
By the way, I should hope you really did TF farther than the 65 bits and no P-1 that PrimeNet knows about before running this monster LL.

The error code indicates 1 ROUNDOFF > 0.4 error occurred. From this thread, it looks like about 40% of numbers with that sort of error code are usually bad. Considering this and the length of time this number took, I'd give it a 50/50 chance for actually being correct.
The error occurred before I disabled the error corrections (and I downclocked the cpu) so I'm pretty confident it will be right. We'll see in a few years.

Tell me more about the correct way to proceed TF and P-1 (up to which bits?) before running such a number? I thought Prime95 will do the necessary (and useful) tests for itself? Any receipts?

Last fiddled with by joblack on 2010-12-29 at 18:18
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 18:28   #5
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

11001010010102 Posts
Default Can someone bump the "When 100M digit?" poll?

I think <2025 is pie in the sky.

David

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2010-12-29 at 18:31
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 18:53   #6
joblack
 
joblack's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
n00bville

13258 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
Not quite the biggest, these two beat it out:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...p_lo=332197123
http://www.mersenne.org/report_expon...p_lo=150000091
By the way, here's a listing with a lot of information on exponent statuses:
http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/
And here's a list of LL results for exponents over 100M:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?e...B1=Get+LL+data
Third-biggest, still quite impressive!
Damn it, there are always bigger fishes in the ocean. ;-)
joblack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 19:05   #7
davieddy
 
davieddy's Avatar
 
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

2·3·13·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joblack View Post
Damn it, there are always bigger fishes in the ocean. ;-)
You asked for it:
Too many fish in the sea

David
davieddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 20:10   #8
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joblack View Post
Tell me more about the correct way to proceed TF and P-1 (up to which bits?) before running such a number? I thought Prime95 will do the necessary (and useful) tests for itself? Any receipts?
What did your Test= worktodo line look like (without the assignment ID, please)?

Test=aID,exponent,TFdone,P-1done

where TFdone = bit level to which TF had previously been done

and

P-1done = 1 if P-1 has been done, else 0

If your worktodo line was:

Test=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,123456811,73,1

for instance,

then prime95 would think that it had already been TFed to 2^73 (which is the default limit for exponents from 115300000 to 147500000), and that standard P-1 had already been done.

It should have looked like:

Test=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,123456811,65,0

which indicates that no P-1 has been done, and TF to only 2^65, matching the PrimeNet database entry for that exponent.

- - -

(I'm tracking down what prime95 would do if the last two parameters had been left off.)

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2010-12-29 at 20:13
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 22:36   #9
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10001101110012 Posts
Default Server thinks you still (again) have it.

Code:
Exponent Status Data  
123456811 No factors below 2^65 
 Suspect LL A41D7D17044F74__ by "joblack" on 2010-12-29 
 Assigned LL testing to "joblack" on 2010-12-07 <====================
 History no factor from 2^62 to 2^63 by "GIMPS Visualization" on 2009-03-06 
 History no factor from 2^63 to 2^64 by "Richard" on 2010-05-30 
 History no factor from 2^64 to 2^65 by "Richard" on 2010-12-06 
 History A41D7D17044F74__ by "joblack" on 2010-12-29
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-29, 23:24   #10
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joblack View Post
Tell me more about the correct way to proceed TF and P-1 (up to which bits?) before running such a number? I thought Prime95 will do the necessary (and useful) tests for itself? Any receipts?
If you look in results.txt, it will list any TF or P-1 that was completed. If you have anything to report and it's not reporting automatically, (which, unless there are complicating factors like the TF and P-1 being run on a different computer, it's clearly not - though you could try triggering a manual communication to see if it does anything different) you could report it at http://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/. If you use Test= and gave it the appropriate (or lower-than-actual) TF and P-1 levels, (which it does any time PrimeNet gives it to you) it will have run both to the optimal level automatically. If you used Test= and gave it inaccurately high TF/P-1 levels/completions, it will skip work based on that. If you used AdvancedTest= (which is the same as clicking Advanced > Test in the GUI), it will skip all TF/P-1. If you know exactly how you gave it to Prime95, you can know exactly what you can expect it to have done. And you can also look at the results.txt and see what it actually did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesehead View Post
(I'm tracking down what prime95 would do if the last two parameters had been left off.)
Looks like you might have forgot about this or can't do it right now, so I did it: it ("Test=123456811") is the same as if you told it no TF or P-1 had been done ("Test=123456811,0,0"), so it starts TFing at the beginning. This would duplicate a little work, but only about as much as the first bit level you need to test would take, (i.e. from 0 to 2^65 is roughly the same work as from 2^65 to 2^66, and you needed to do 2^65 to 2^73) a minuscule amount for a test this large.

Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2010-12-29 at 23:35
Mini-Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-30, 01:17   #11
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

59·157 Posts
Default

If I remember correctly, read it sometime ago on this forum -- "if someone decides to finish the TF from 65 to 73 bits and finds a factor - the LL credit will be voided."
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biggest factors found by P-1 TheMawn Lounge 29 2014-12-14 12:43
Successful TF worth more than unsuccessful TF?! NBtarheel_33 PrimeNet 5 2010-06-17 00:17
New Job and nearly finished LL test Orgasmic Troll Lounge 4 2004-05-07 12:54
Biggest factors GP2 Data 6 2003-09-16 01:15
What makes a team successful? eepiccolo Teams 5 2003-05-24 23:50

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:55.

Sun Jan 24 16:55:05 UTC 2021 up 52 days, 13:06, 1 user, load averages: 4.59, 4.48, 4.43

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.