![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Apr 2017
78 Posts |
I'm having a hard time uploading results for M80,563,501.
I go to the manual upload page and attach the results.txt. At the bottom of the page confirm uploading I see the following: So I'm confused. One line says "Skipped 0 lines already in the database." which is what I expect. But then the next field says "These Prime exponents were already in the database." So which is it? After uploading results, when I check the page for this exponent, it doesn't post my results: https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...0563501&full=1 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
22308 Posts |
What happens if you copy/paste the result lines from your results.txt into the box on the manual results page and submit them in that way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Sep 2003
5×11×47 Posts |
Are you posting your results to this page: https://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/
Or perhaps some other page, for example at mersenne.ca ? Is your result an LL test, or some other kind of test? If it's an LL test, it should be in the format: Code:
UID: username/machinename, M80563501 is not prime. Res64: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. We8: XXXXXXXX,YYYYYYYY,00000000, AID: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2×53×71 Posts |
The problem is that you are trying to post a "this is a new prime" result.
It is extraordinarily likely that this is due to a bad build of CUDALucas or bad drivers. Someone here should be able to help you with that (or point you to a pre-compiled binary.) BTW, welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick with it despite the start. Last fiddled with by Prime95 on 2017-04-20 at 01:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
"/X\(‘-‘)/X\"
Jan 2013
293210 Posts |
I wonder how many people are now checking if M80563501 is prime. I bet at least half a dozen. I won't bother since I know others have faster setups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Apr 2017
1112 Posts |
Quote:
Yes that's correct. I'm suspicious too. But I figured I could submit the result anyway. Isn't this what the LL double check jobs are for? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Sep 2003
5×11×47 Posts |
Quote:
The first tester can't submit it, but as long as there is an unexpired first-test assignment, it can't be reserved as a double check either. And no one is particularly eager to poach it, knowing that it'll take a long time and might end up being a wasted effort if others do the same thing. Maybe MadPoo should take it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
35·13 Posts |
I started to test it earlier. ETA ~34 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2·53·71 Posts |
Prime reports go through a whole different path. It is not heavily tested, especially for manual reports.
Madpoo is running a test. He started a day or two ago. We've had plenty of false positives from incorrect CudaLucas builds, so we don't get real excited when a first-time user reports a CudaLucas prime. In the meantime, try doing a few triple-checks on exponents below 10 million or so to see if your CudaLucas matches known good results. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
35×13 Posts |
It was not prime unfortunately, but as expected:
http://mersenne.org/M80563501 |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
7·11·43 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Can't get manual page to parse a result | Siegmund | PrimeNet | 6 | 2017-01-08 22:22 |
| manual TF result processing order changed? | ixfd64 | PrimeNet | 2 | 2014-09-08 23:06 |
| Manual result submission could fail | sonjohan | PrimeNet | 12 | 2012-04-25 13:17 |
| Manual submission of automatic assignment result | tichy | PrimeNet | 4 | 2010-12-17 09:57 |
| Reporting manual result | pacionet | Information & Answers | 1 | 2010-08-25 20:13 |