Newer milestone thread

[TheMawn]

Originally Posted by retina

This may backfire (as I already stated in another thread) as many people submit results for the same exponent not aware that others before them have also done the same.

As far as I can tell, this only backfires against poachers. Let the knobs all work on the same exponent. I give zero hoots about their wasted effort.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by retina

What is the efficiency like for that? I would have expected that after about the first 4 cores the remainder add very little. Perhaps you should be running 5 tests of 4 cores each instead of 1 test on 20 cores?

Good question...not sure.

I haven't run the benchmark on my most recent purchases, but on a similar system I got last year I let it go through the full P95 benchmark test and it does keep reducing the time per iteration all the way up through all 20 cores. Adding hyper-threading cores gets very little benefit for LL tests as one would expect.

As for how much power it uses, one of them just finished a little bit ago. Power use when it was running was averaging 300W and now that it's not doing anything, average use is just 130W.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

.....
As for how much power it uses, one of them just finished a little bit ago. Power use when it was running was averaging 300W and now that it's not doing anything, average use is just 130W.

Thanks! That's a lot of bang for the watt. Lots of cores for that amount of power.

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by cuBerBruce

Less than 50,000 to go. Hurray! (Still a long way to go, I know.)

Right around a year at our present pace. An interesting (if not overly ambitious) goal would be to clear this milestone by the end of 2015.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

Right around a year at our present pace. An interesting (if not overly ambitious) goal would be to clear this milestone by the end of 2015.

It went back up. 50,247 right now.

Must have been a few that expired, and new assignments aren't keeping pace with the expired stuff at the moment.

[Madpoo]

Just an FYI, I went ahead and added the countdown to double-checking up to 34M on the milestone page, now that all exponents are assigned.

I guess we'll just keep on trucking with these minor things for now since they are kind of interesting after all.

I'm kind of waiting on adding the countdown for 57M single checks until we finish off the 54-55M milestones.

Those in the 54M range are stubborn... I can't remember who noticed it, but they were right, they're checking in frequently but just pushing out the estimated completion a little bit each time. If anything that just shows that the completion dates in the client are wildly inaccurate in some cases... like George said, if a machine is working at < 50% per day then it'll be way off. I suspect that may be the case...maybe a computer that's turned off nights and weekends or something.

[ATH]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

Those in the 54M range are stubborn... I can't remember who noticed it, but they were right, they're checking in frequently but just pushing out the estimated completion a little bit each time. If anything that just shows that the completion dates in the client are wildly inaccurate in some cases... like George said, if a machine is working at < 50% per day then it'll be way off. I suspect that may be the case...maybe a computer that's turned off nights and weekends or something.

Maybe a server calculated ETA? :) Maybe something like this:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...postcount=1548

[retina]

Originally Posted by ATH

Maybe a server calculated ETA? :) Maybe something like this:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...postcount=1548

There is a much simpler solution. Remove the useless ETA.

I suspect I may have suggested this previously. Maybe more than once? _{[sub][sub][sub]Hey, who broke my record?}[/sub][/sub][/sub]

[tha]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

It went back up. 50,247 right now.

Must have been a few that expired, and new assignments aren't keeping pace with the expired stuff at the moment.

Hmmm? As far as I know this number should never be able to go up, unless it is a correction of an error. Certainly new assignments or expirations should not be able to let this number go up.

[flagrantflowers]

Originally Posted by tha

Hmmm? As far as I know this number should never be able to go up, unless it is a correction of an error. Certainly new assignments or expirations should not be able to let this number go up.

I agree. How did this number go up. Only way I can see how is if a number of results were errors or if the original figure was wrong to begin with.

[cuBerBruce]

Originally Posted by flagrantflowers

I agree. How did this number go up. Only way I can see how is if a number of results were errors or if the original figure was wrong to begin with.

After Madpoo reported seeing the number jump up, I checked and saw the number about the same as before (below 50,000). I guessed what Madpoo observed was some sort of glitch. But then in the last couple days, I saw the number increase from 49,3xx to 49,6xx. So not only why was there an increase, but why did I see the number increeasing at a different time than Madpoo?

(BTW, I finished one of the <56M exponents a couple hours ago.)