![]() |
|
|
#1651 | |||
|
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5×223 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#1652 |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Thanks, that was good info.
The current database doesn't have date stamps for older results (pre-2007/2008'ish) so it's hard to nail the dates down. I confirmed the missing double-check stats with the ones you had, plus a few more. I don't have any dates on older double-check milestones (3M, 7M, 11M and 12M). I'll have to look through the single-check stats later and see if I can't fill in some of those... seems like I should be able to find them for 21M and up since those were all post-2007. Not much I could do for the single-check milestones missing before that (3M, 7M, 11M, 13M, 14M, 18M and 19M). The milestones don't always progress smoothly... there are several instances where one smaller exponent held up 2 or more 1M ranges because it was just so slow to finish. You noticed that when a <32M exponent checked in which officially finished everything up past 37M in one swell foop. There's always going to be those crazy outliers I guess. EDIT: Okay, I verified your #'s and there were just a few minor corrections, just a day or two on a couple. You kept good records! I was able to look back as far as the single-check milestone for 24M but further back than that takes us into 2008 which was in the midst of the v5 database update, so date stamps on results before then aren't available. Not bad though to go back that far. I'll try and streamline the milestone page...at least make it easier by grouping the milestones into sections. Maybe graphing or something, but I don't know how useful that would be since any graph is going to be sporadic with one slow result holding up millions of milestones. :) Maybe over the course of 6-7 years you'd get an idea of the trend line... that graph a few posts up is probably the best you'd expect. Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 2015-02-05 at 08:43 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1653 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
Rather than have it all together in one chronological lump of stew, I broke it into the single-check, double-check, and then the other miscellaneous stuff. It has dates filled in for some of those older things, wherever possible. If anyone else out there on the interwebs happens to have dates for those other things that they happened to capture, I can incorporate them. Ongoing, maybe it'll be good to put the latest n-millionth single/double-check milestones in that first section so they're more prominent, and then demote them to the older section when the next one is reached. Kind of been doing that, it seems, for the single-check milestones already, so nothing new there. I can start that with the double-checks when we hit 34M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1654 |
|
Undefined
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair
2×11×283 Posts |
Hehe, "Double time checks". Sounds like a musical beat rate measurement.
And we can add "Countdown to double checking all exponents below 34M: xx" and automatically bump it up to the next million as each milestone is reached. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1655 | |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2·1,579 Posts |
Quote:
2010-12-25 All exponents up to 33,219,253 (10 million digits) tested at least once. Maybe change the million digit to similar text to the 10M digit: 1998-12-26 All exponents up to 3,321,917 (1 million digits) tested at least once. and you could also add this approximate milestone: 2001-Feb/Mar All exponents up to 3,321,917 (1 million digits) double-checked. Based on the status file information I had (unless you can see more on the server): January 28th, 2001: All exponents below 3,210,800 have been tested and double-checked. March 25th, 2001: All exponents below 3,502,500 have been tested and double-checked. Last fiddled with by ATH on 2015-02-06 at 07:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1656 |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
2·7·19·37 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1657 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
I cut and paste that line from the "First Time" and just changed "First" to "Double". Yeah... I'll use the "it's late, I'm tired" excuse. Fixed to just say "Double checks" EDIT: Oh, and I can add a countdown to 34M being double-checked, but I wasn't sure if they'd all been assigned yet. I did a quick count and there were ~650 assignments in the 33M-34M range, but I'd have to see if there were any unassigned DC's in that range. I have the code to add that check to the page, I just need to modify and confirm. I think after the discussions about some of these recent n-millionth milestones, there seemed to be thought that it was a little target-rich for poachers... I know I got sucked in myself. Of course there's nothing to stop someone from checking it out for themselves on the exponent reports for stuff in a certain range. Last fiddled with by Madpoo on 2015-02-06 at 08:40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1658 | |
|
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
3×5×59 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1659 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
Estimated dates are denoted with an asterisk. I also added in some info on 100M digit numbers... curious thing though, the very first LL test to check in was for M332197123 but it had a non-zero error-code. Because of that, I actually skipped to the first check-in with an error code of zero, but just keep an eye on this one...when it gets verified at some point, it would officially become the first 100M digit exponent completed. I felt bad including it now since it's "suspect": http://www.mersenne.org/M332197123 We also have a grand total of 2 double-checked 100M digit exponents. The first one, however, was checked and double-checked by the same account, and both checked in at the same time. Different shift counts, so it should be okay but still worth mentioning. I noted it, but just to be fair I included the other one which was independently verified by different users. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1660 |
|
Aug 2012
Mass., USA
2·3·53 Posts |
It appears to me all remaining first LL tests with exponent less than 57M are now assigned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1661 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
If I read the comments right, it sounds like people generally like the milestones, and once the grandfathered assignments start to die off, the poaching issue should become less relevant? You won't have an assignment from 2013 chunking along super slow and "holding stuff up", in other words. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Newer X64 build needed | Googulator | Msieve | 73 | 2020-08-30 07:47 |
| Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware? | fivemack | GMP-ECM | 14 | 2015-02-12 20:10 |
| Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread | bcp19 | Data | 30 | 2012-09-08 15:09 |
| Newer msieves are slow on Core i7 | mklasson | Msieve | 9 | 2009-02-18 12:58 |
| Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels | Dresdenboy | Software | 3 | 2003-12-08 14:47 |