mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-01-15, 14:39   #1
Gerard
 
Gerard's Avatar
 
Oct 2018
Stem, NC (USA)

32 Posts
Question Dates do not coincide.

I am using "Bp95v294b5.FreeBSD11-64.tar.gz" on a FreeBSD 12 amd64 machine.


Everything appears to be working correctly. However, I find this notation in the log files. The times change, but the general idea that the completion date is going to be earlier than the actual time does seem strange. Is this normal?



[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Updating computer information on the server
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending interim residue 40000000 for M88304743
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending expected completion date for M88304743: Feb 13 2019
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Done communicating with server.


Thanks
Gerard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-15, 16:16   #2
GP2
 
GP2's Avatar
 
Sep 2003

1010000110012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard View Post
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Updating computer information on the server
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending interim residue 40000000 for M88304743
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending expected completion date for M88304743: Feb 13 2019
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Done communicating with server.
This is perfectly normal.

To test M88304743, the program has to do 88,304,743 iterations. It has just completed 40 million of them as of today, and expects to complete the full 88.3 million by February 13.

The program sends a status update every 10 million iterations, with an interim residue that summarizes the state of the calculations so far. In the future, when someone runs a double-check maybe ten years from now, their interim residues should match yours at every step of the way. If they don't, it will be an early sign of trouble with either your calculations or theirs.
GP2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-15, 18:47   #3
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

3·31·113 Posts
Default

It is not uncommon for the estimate to change or be off. If you told Prime95 that you will be running it 12 hours a day and run it more or less, your estimated time to finish will be too long or too short respectively.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-16, 03:09   #4
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

2·3·1,693 Posts
Default

On my machine, Prime95 does not recognize that the CPU is running at 4300 MHz. It consistently reports 4008 MHz. I am pretty sure that assignments finish sooner than the estimated completion. This might relate to the POST report of 4000. If I run at 4400 MHz, the POST reports correctly. I have stayed away from that level of OC for a while, so I don't remember what P95 reported.
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-16, 04:05   #5
nomead
 
nomead's Avatar
 
"Sam Laur"
Dec 2018
Turku, Finland

317 Posts
Default

And on my machine, Prime95 (sort of correctly) reports 3693 MHz, since the single core boost clock is 3.7 GHz. But when the workers start running, the processor will drop into the 3.5 GHz base clock. I guess this could skew the reported benchmarks a bit, but since the throughput benchmarks are done at 3.5 anyway, it shouldn't have much effect on projected end dates. Anyway even when the clocks are switched around this way (reported is higher than actual running speed), the assignments finish a bit sooner than projected. Some sort of safety margin, perhaps?
nomead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-16, 04:19   #6
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

100111101011102 Posts
Default

The internal logic of completion dates is beyond me.

As far a boost frequency goes, I don't deal with it. I set the max multiplier to 43, with 'Sync all cores' set. Under load, it goes right to 4300 and runs there. At idle, it may drop intermittently to 800 MHz, with appropriate voltage drops.
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-16, 20:44   #7
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013

23×32×41 Posts
Default

If you look in local.txt, you'll see a RollingAverage= line, which I believe indicates how the actual speed of the system relates to the expected speed. I believe 1000 is expected speed, and above is faster and below is slower. Once the RollingAverage approaches its stable value you should see better time estimates.
Mark Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-17, 01:00   #8
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

2×3×1,693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rose View Post
If you look in local.txt, you'll see a RollingAverage= line, which I believe indicates how the actual speed of the system relates to the expected speed. I believe 1000 is expected speed, and above is faster and below is slower. Once the RollingAverage approaches its stable value you should see better time estimates.
First few lines of local.txt:
Code:
OldCpuSpeed=4008
NewCpuSpeedCount=0
NewCpuSpeed=0
RollingAverage=1273
RollingAverageIsFromV27=1
I am puzzled by the last line. Why not something more recent?
NewCpuSpeed=0 accepts no other value in my tests. I tried inserting 4300 and 1 but it always reverts to 0 on restart.
I will have to track RollingAverage for a while to see if it is stable.
Edit: My most recent DC finished this morning, 4 or 5 hours ahead of predicted.

Last fiddled with by kladner on 2019-01-17 at 01:02
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-01-17, 16:20   #9
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerard View Post
Everything appears to be working correctly. However, I find this notation in the log files. The times change, but the general idea that the completion date is going to be earlier than the actual time does seem strange. Is this normal?



[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Updating computer information on the server
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending interim residue 40000000 for M88304743
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Sending expected completion date for M88304743: Feb 13 2019
[Comm thread Jan 15 00:35] Done communicating with server.


Thanks
To check the obvious, you did notice the completion dates are different months?

Chris
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Expiration Dates Fred PrimeNet 3 2016-02-20 08:30
Expected completion dates for LL wildrabbitt PrimeNet 3 2015-08-17 10:57
Estimated completion dates Yura Software 3 2012-11-13 19:45
Production of Dates heich1 Information & Answers 35 2011-12-02 01:12
Discussion about dates Flatlander Twin Prime Search 12 2011-11-17 09:40

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:26.


Mon May 16 04:26:50 UTC 2022 up 32 days, 2:28, 0 users, load averages: 2.50, 2.83, 2.80

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 ς𝜍 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔