PrimeNet 5.0 Upgrade

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Prime95

This is definitely not a server problem.

Is this system also afflicted with SpeedStep?

In summary, we have 2 or 3 causes of unreserves:

1) P-1 over 100% complete bug. "Fixed" in 25.9.

2) Speedstep. You can workaround this by setting CpuSpeed in local.txt or by making UnreserveDays really huge.

3) Some other undiagnosed cause.

I was not implying a server problem but rather that the server initiated the communication with my PC that resulted in the unreserve because my understanding is that the only times the PC talks to the server is:
- At the "send new end dates" time
- When an assignment is completed
- At reboot
- By me communicating manually or asking for work or unreserving work, etc.
I don't think any of these happened.

I have never heard of Speedstep so I don't know if I have it.

I had Unreserve days at about 250 and had about 220 days of work for this worker. It had 6 18M DC tests and then 15 28M LL tests. Only the 15 LL were Unreserved and then it got 6 of them back to get it up to 90 days.

Thanks.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by petrw1

I have never heard of Speedstep so I don't know if I have it.

I had Unreserve days at about 250 and had about 220 days of work for this worker.

Speedstep is the Intel feature that clocks the CPU way down (like 700MHz) when the CPU is relatively idle. When mprime starts after a reboot, it measures the CPU speed as 700 rather than the usual 2400 or 2600 or 2800 that your computer usually runs at. Thus the estimated completion dates are about a factor of 4 off resulting in some unreserves.

P.S. The server cannot initiate communication with the client.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Speedstep is the Intel feature that clocks the CPU way down (like 700MHz) when the CPU is relatively idle.

OK thanks, so how do I know if I have it?

[petrw1]

The 7 day graph on this page is interesting....
http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/

but I suggest graphing it over a much longer term (365 days?) would better indicate how the projects is growing (hopefully).

[g0ods]

Not for the first time I have received a string of "Result not needed" responses from the server when my laptop returns its work. I don't mind what exponents I test but it is pointless doing the same work as someone else, worse there could be a bug meaning that the wrong work is being reported as done. Today this problem affected about four complete TF-LMH assignments, it always seems to be the same other account that does the work before I do, called "monst". I have attached a screen shot of one such exponent status. Does anyone have any ideas why this is happening?

Miles

[Graff]

Originally Posted by g0ods

Not for the first time I have received a string of "Result not needed" responses from the server when my laptop returns its work. I don't mind what exponents I test but it is pointless doing the same work as someone else, worse there could be a bug meaning that the wrong work is being reported as done. Today this problem affected about four complete TF-LMH assignments, it always seems to be the same other account that does the work before I do, called "monst". I have attached a screen shot of one such exponent status. Does anyone have any ideas why this is happening?

Miles

Not that it's much comfort, but count yourself lucky it's only four!
I just reported 807 LMH results for exponents in the 125M range that I
claimed about a week ago via the manual testing pages. 804 of
them already had results reported for the factoring range I'd worked on!
I got credit for only three :-(

Graff

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by Graff

Not that it's much comfort, but count yourself lucky it's only four!
I just reported 807 LMH results for exponents in the 125M range that I
claimed about a week ago via the manual testing pages. 804 of
them already had results reported for the factoring range I'd worked on!
I got credit for only three :-(

Graff

It does appear that someone(s) is "clearing up" incomplete LMH in the 100-130M range. Systematically over the last few weeks ranges that were less than the assigned 63 bits showed up on the distribution map with over 20,000exponents suddenly assigned. Now if that person simply grabbed all exponents under 63 bits in that range without checking for those already assigned to someone then your results and those of g0ods could have happened.

Similarly I have had some TF assignments from a sporadic v4 client (on a PC I no longer have access to) recently completed by someone else. These may have been deemed abandoned and released by the server, and as they complete my PC is likely being told "too late". Is it possible this is your scenario?

[petrw1]

I have a suspicion that the Assignments Details screen should NOT allow Unreserve for V4_Computers.

A couple months ago I did just that and unreserved about a dozen TF assignments from a v4_computer. About a month later they reappeared as assignments but this time as LL. Every couple days another one stops reporting and shows overdue with no result showing up. When I do an Exponent Status it shows the TF as complete by someone else with a date in the recent past but later than the date I unreserved them.

I don't have access to this PC anymore and it is powered up and used sporadically (a few times a month) so I am only guessing but I think what happened is:

1. I unreserved the TF assignments
2. The V5 Server declared them available and reassigned them but was NOT able to notify the V4 client to drop them.
3. The next time the V4 client communicated a few weeks later it said "I am still working on these assigments".
4. The server noticed the TF had already been completed and decided it must be doing LL instead.
5. The client completed the TF and reported in and went on to the next one.
6. The server said: "Result not needed" since someone else completed this already and did not report a result.

Does this make sense?

[Graff]

Originally Posted by petrw1

It does appear that someone(s) is "clearing up" incomplete LMH in the 100-130M range. Systematically over the last few weeks ranges that were less than the assigned 63 bits showed up on the distribution map with over 20,000exponents suddenly assigned. Now if that person simply grabbed all exponents under 63 bits in that range without checking for those already assigned to someone then your results and those of g0ods could have happened.

Unlikely. I grabbed some large number of exponents (maybe 20000, about
two weeks worth of work, assuming lightly-loaded machines) a short
while back, mostly in the 125M-126M range. I reserved the exponents
using the manual reservation form using a curl script. I prepared two lists
for each 1M range: one of exponents factored to 2^63 or above; one of
exponents factored factor up to 2^62. I reduced the number of entries
in this latter list by combining exponents into ranges where no exponent
was at 2^63 or above. Each range was then requested from the manual
reservation script using the curl script. The output returned by the
script was parsed. A small number of the exponents were already
assigned and so were ignored. The remainder had been assigned to me
(i.e., I got a 32-hexdigit assignment key for each exponent) and were
added to my worktodo file.

I haven't figured out how to get the curl script to register the exponents
to my account, so they are shown as Anonymous. However, I get credit
when I report the results.

Graff

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by petrw1

A couple months ago I did just that and unreserved about a dozen TF assignments from a v4_computer. About a month later they reappeared as assignments but this time as LL. Every couple days another one stops reporting and shows overdue with no result showing up. When I do an Exponent Status it shows the TF as complete by someone else with a date in the recent past but later than the date I unreserved them.

Does this make sense?

I have expos that are TF assignments that show up as LL's. I have given up on trying to correct the server.

[Graff]

Originally Posted by Graff

Not that it's much comfort, but count yourself lucky it's only four!
I just reported 807 LMH results for exponents in the 125M range that I
claimed about a week ago via the manual testing pages. 804 of
them already had results reported for the factoring range I'd worked on!
I got credit for only three :-(

Graff

My latest batch of 1721 results yielded only about 50 new results.
My 24-hour CPU meter, which normally lies between 100 and 250%,
is currently showing 8%.

Graff