![]() |
|
|
#3081 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2·1,579 Posts |
I just manually looked at 200k or 300k ranges between 83M and 86,028,121 whatever showed below 1000 results for each page and added them up manually.
I suggested this milestone previously for the milestone page, but since it is not there, I just did it manually instead. Edit: Nevermind, I'm an idiot, I counted on the assignment lists, I forgot all the unassigned exponents, so the real number is quite a bit higher. Another idea for a milestone: Countdown to verifying all tests below M(49 979 687) (3,000,000th prime exponent) Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-04-11 at 16:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3082 | |
|
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.
5×199 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3083 |
|
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.
5×199 Posts |
Does anyone know what is happening with this exponent?
http://https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=83486549&full=1 It's been in the books for over 15 months! It says it's supposed to finish in 1 day more, but it does not say when it might expire. Of course, I have no idea if it is advancing but somehow it has managed -without getting there- to avoid expiring for 15 months. Also, it is a PRP search so what happens is someone does an LL test? Will the PRP result (if it finishes) count as 1 of the 2 needed for verification? Last fiddled with by rudy235 on 2019-04-22 at 01:37 Reason: fixed link |
|
|
|
|
|
#3084 |
|
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
231638 Posts |
I suspect that someone will take note of the exponent and will do a PRP and wait to submit it. If it expires, it will be submitted as a first time. If it does not expire, it will be an early double.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3085 |
|
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.
99510 Posts |
Yes, that's par for the course but I wonder if it has been progressing lately or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3086 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2·1,579 Posts |
Actually I'm about to "poach" it in ~8 hours, since it has no Expire Date and as you said it has been going for 15.5 months. If it had been an LL assignment on Jan 7th 2018 it would have been Cat 3, and would have expired after 270 days on Oct 4th 2018:
https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/?dt=2018-01-07 I think all PRP assignment had no expiration limit until recently? Edit: Cat 4 actually, but would still have expired after 360 days on January 2nd 2019. Last fiddled with by ATH on 2019-04-22 at 06:28 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3087 | |
|
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
26×5×17 Posts |
Quote:
If someone does an LL test, or a PRP test of a different residue type, there will need to be another run of some matching type to see whether there's a residue match. Could be LL, could be PRP same-residue-type. Note, I have an example of primenet not handling well, the case of PRP DC. I guess it takes a while to work the kinks out of the code when adding something like PRP support to a running system. See https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...9335979&full=1 It has one each PRP type 1 and PRP type 4 completed already by March 27. I got assigned March 28 that exponent on prime95 on an i3-370M (slow) system after setting it to request PRP DC from primenet, so it should have almost a year to complete it as a Cat 4 DC. Its expiration date shown in 5 days and being listed as issued as Cat 0 in https://www.mersenne.org/workload/ show it's being treated like a Cat 0 first time PRP, despite already having TWO completed PRPs before being assigned in response to PRPDC assignment preference! Prime95 does not show whether it's running type 1 PRP, type 4 PRP, or some other type. According to https://www.mersenne.org/thresholds/ it should be listed and treated as Cat 4 PRP DC. (The Double Check heading does not specify LL, PRP, or both. The first test section does say "Lucas Lehmer" not "primality first test" or "Lucas Lehmer or PRP".) Upgrading to prime95 v29.7b1 and then v29.8b1 has not resolved it. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-04-22 at 09:21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3088 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
3,313 Posts |
Quote:
I manually switched it to a double-check and you should be good. I wonder if that had anything to do with the mismatched set of previous results on it. The bit of code that assigns work as either first or double-check may have run into something funny because of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3089 |
|
Sep 2003
1010000110012 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3090 | |
|
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
544010 Posts |
Quote:
PRP=, and ,3,1. But since prime95 is a GUI application on Windows, I'm of the opinion that it ought rarely be necessary to go spelunking in the underlying files to sleuth out what happened. A worker window title saying in effect, PRP or LL, first time or DC, residue type 1 or 4 or whatever, % complete, whatever doesn't specify the work in the window contents at least. Heck, even EDT on a DEC VT52 text terminal in 1981 would show some status info in a fixed location on screen. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2019-04-29 at 19:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3091 |
|
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
125008 Posts |
forrest-lumpkin please double check your double-check runs (34 stalled since March in the 47m-48M range)
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| 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 |