![]() |
|
|
#529 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
The squared-bug is still present in the new version of the DB, see for example in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#530 |
|
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
29·41 Posts |
After running fine for hours, my workers kept on crashing. They were not removed from the worker status page. There appear to be 4 running while i'm nut running one at all at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#531 |
|
Feb 2007
33×5 Posts |
I tried running the worker.pl script yesterday, but the whole system crashed twice, so I gave it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#532 | |
|
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17·251 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks Syd! Edit: which...doesn't work. 10^13 is broken.
Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2009-08-22 at 20:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#533 |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2×33×109 Posts |
my workers are hardly being given any work even though there is loads of work still unassigned
|
|
|
|
|
|
#534 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
22·19·137 Posts |
Aliquot sequence 10^25 is broken with the squared line bug. I've now clicked on "Repair sequence" but I don't know how long it will take to repair it.
Also, I messed up on Aliquot sequence 21552. I accidently hit "set prime" (intending to do a P+1 factorization) on index = 631 for the 91-digit factor. It is actually composite. I've hit "Repair sequence" on that one but I suspect the DB will not find the problem since I "made" the DB "think" that the 91-digit factor was prime. IMHO, the "set prime" is a dangerous choice and should be removed. Just about anyone could create an ID, request the appropriate permissions, and set all kinds of composites as primes, ruining the integrity of the DB in the process. That's because the DB does not actually check it for primality. I'll post here within a day or two if the "repair sequence" worked on either of the above problems. If not, people can assume that they are still broken. BTW, I think the squared line bug occurred because I may have submitted factorization for the same index twice. I know I submitted up through i=643 on 10^25 and was intending to submit more up to i=~800 by starting with i=643. Perhaps my second submission caused the DB to "think" that the factors for i=643 were squared. That's the only time I've thought I might have "caused" the problem. I hope this helps permanently fix it. Therefore I would propose to everyone: Until it is known for sure that the squared line bug is fixed, please attempt to avoid submitting factorizations for the same indexes twice on a sequence. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-08-23 at 05:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
#535 | |
|
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
141518 Posts |
Quote:
Oh, and if it wouldn't be too hard, maybe for even the trusted users, they'd have to enter a CAPTCHA (sp.?) to verify that they really did want to mark that number as prime, and didn't just hit the button accidentally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#536 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
I think it might even be better if the database requires to enter a certificate as ist is printed out by prime testing programs like Primo, Alpertrons Applet, Prime95, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#537 |
|
Nov 2008
1001000100102 Posts |
I'm not getting this "Set prime" button, but Syd said that I have it earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#538 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
22×19×137 Posts |
Aliquot sequences 10^27 and 10^35 now also have the squared line bug.
This is a SERIOUS bug that only seems to have gotten worse! It only appears to happen on the submission of factors. This time, I made sure I didn't submit any indexes twice on the same sequence. So that is not the problem. Once again, I've hit the "repair sequence" link to see if it fixes them. I'm still waiting on a fix for the previous 2 that I mentioned. Funny (or not so funny) thing about 10^35 that I think is another bug: Even though I never hit "add sequence to workers", it seems to keep calculating increasing indexes on its own, right on after the squared line bug occurred for factors that I never submitted. I suppose it will stop once it gets up to 70 digits. Question for everyone: Was the new version of the DB beta tested? Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-08-23 at 07:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
#539 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
22·19·137 Posts |
Quote:
I would never need to set a prime because I'm not testing numbers so large that the DB couldn't quickly find them as prime on its own. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Database for k-b-b's: | 3.14159 | Miscellaneous Math | 325 | 2016-04-09 17:45 |
| Factoring database issues | Mini-Geek | Factoring | 5 | 2009-07-01 11:51 |
| database.zip | HiddenWarrior | Data | 1 | 2004-03-29 03:53 |
| Database layout | Prime95 | PrimeNet | 1 | 2003-01-18 00:49 |
| Is there a performance database? | Joe O | Lounge | 35 | 2002-09-06 20:19 |