![]() |
|
|
#100 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
11001000100112 Posts |
Code:
Tue Feb 8 13:57:42 2011 lanczos halted after 303981 iterations (dim = 19221961) Tue Feb 8 13:58:07 2011 lanczos error: only trivial dependencies found Tue Feb 8 13:58:07 2011 BLanczosTime: 1710603 |
|
|
|
|
|
#101 | |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3×1,171 Posts |
Quote:
D'oh!. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Bamboozled!
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷ð’€"
May 2003
Down not across
10,753 Posts |
If I'm a good dog they sometimes throw me a bone in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
145128 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Bamboozled!
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷ð’€"
May 2003
Down not across
2A0116 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England
2×3×13×83 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
147210 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal
101110000002 Posts |
A couple of days ago a thunderstorm provoked a rather significant voltage fluctuation in my area of residence. I was working at the computer and could clearly hear the blowers noise changing pitch, as if they were going to stop, and then resuming normal operating speed. The operation of the PC, from the point of view of the operator, was not at all affected. The house lights have also flickered, although there was no actual power cut.
End result: 4 DCs most probably gone to waste. ![]() As the tests were close to the end, I let them finish, to realize that none of the residues matched the previous ones. The curious fact about it was that no errors were reported (yes, I have error checking turned on...) and 3 of the 4 tests ended with zero error code. Just one of them gave out a sumout error a couple of hours after the voltage spike. The power stability in my area is very good, and severe thunderstorms aren´t that frequent, so I have never bothered spending money on UPSs, voltage stabilizers or similar stuff. Oh well, I guess that´s what Murphy Laws are all about... |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 | |||
|
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
1E0C16 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2011-03-11 at 00:01 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Bemusing Prompter
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California
2×5×239 Posts |
One of my computers just returned two double-checks with non-matching residues. What are the chances that something is wrong with the machine?
I guess I'll have to wait until the triple-checks are completed to know for sure. Last fiddled with by ixfd64 on 2011-04-07 at 19:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 | |
|
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
102538 Posts |
Quote:
The error rate is roughly 4%. The chance of both old residues being wrong whether yours are wrong or not, unless it's a special case like being some of the smallest 10M digit ones (they were run on older hardware, often overclocked, and took so long the chances of an error were much higher) or being close to an FFT cutoff, is about 1 in 625. The chances that over all your time with GIMPS you could really hit that 1 in 625 chance on one of your machines at some point could be very high, depending on your level of participation. After all, GIMPS found two primes about two weeks apart, which seems incredibly unlikely, but in fact over its then-12-year life, the chances of something like that were quite high (~40% IIRC). Besides the obvious conclusion of faulty hardware, it's always possible a power brownout or other error, not necessarily the fault of the hardware, could throw off both tests. Last fiddled with by Mini-Geek on 2011-04-07 at 23:09 |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Happy Me Thread | wblipp | Lounge | 1009 | 2021-07-02 18:33 |
| Unhappy Me: The "dead GPU" edition | kracker | GPU Computing | 294 | 2018-01-19 06:10 |
| Unhappy in choosing prime sequence :-) | pepi37 | Lounge | 9 | 2017-07-15 19:53 |
| This thread, annoying as it is | jasong | Soap Box | 90 | 2013-05-22 00:00 |
| Deutscher Thread (german thread) | TauCeti | NFSNET Discussion | 0 | 2003-12-11 22:12 |