| Author |
Message |
|---|
![Profile](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="16" height="15"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg> "View the profile of Michael Goetz") Michael Goetz![Project donor](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="20" height="16"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg> "Project donor") Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
![Avatar](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="100" height="100"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
![The "Shut up already!" badge: This loud mouth has mansplained on the forums over 10 thousand times! Sheesh!!!](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="22" height="22"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg> "The \"Shut up already!\" badge: This loud mouth has mansplained on the forums over 10 thousand times! Sheesh!!!")
|
|
Seventeen or Bust
Seventeen or Bust was a distributed computing project attempting to solve the Sierpinski problem. The name of the project is due to the fact that, when founded, there were seventeen values of k < 78,557 for which no primes were known.
The project was conceived in March of 2002 by two college undergraduates. After some planning and a lot of programming, the first public client was released on April 1. Seventeen or Bust ceased operations in 2016. The project was administered by:
- Louis Helm, a computer engineer in Austin, Texas.
- David Norris, a software engineer in Urbana, Illinois.
- Michael Garrison, a Computer Science undergraduate at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
Starting in 2010, PrimeGrid partnered with Seventeen or Bust to work towards solving the Sierpinski Problem. After the demise of the original Seventeen or Bust project in 2016, PrimeGrid is continuing by itself to continue the Seventeen or Bust project in looking to solve the Sierpinski Problem.
As of October of 2016, PrimeGrid and Seventeen or Bust have eliminated twelve of those seventeen candidates. The project might now be styled "Five or Bust," but the original name will be kept for consistency.
PrimeGrid and Seventeen or Bust's twelve prime discoveries are:
- 46157*2^698207+1 with 210,186 decimal digits, discovered November 27, 2002. Crunched by Stephen Gibson.
- 65567*2^1013803+1 with 305,190 decimal digits, discovered December 2, 2002. Crunched by James Burt.
- 44131*2^995972+1 with 299,823 decimal digits, discovered December 5, 2002. Crunched by an anonymous participant.
- 69109*2^1157446+1 with 348,431 decimal digits, discovered December 6, 2002. Crunched by Sean DiMichele.
- 54767*2^1337287+1 with 402,569 decimal digits, discovered December 23, 2002. Crunched by Peter Coels.
- 5359*2^5054502+1 with 1,521,561 decimal digits, discovered December 6, 2003. Crunched by Randy Sundquist.
- 28433*2^7830457+1 with 2,357,207 decimal digits, discovered December 30, 2004. Crunched by a member of Team Prime Rib.
- 27653*2^9167433+1 with 2,759,677 decimal digits, discovered June 8, 2005. Crunched by Derek Gordon.
- 4847*2^3321063+1 with 999,744 decimal digits, discovered October 15, 2005 while double checking earlier tests. Crunched by Richard Hassler.
- 19249*2^13018586+1 with 3,918,990 decimal digits, discoverd March 26, 2007. Crunched by Konstantin Agafonov.
- 33661*2^7031232+1 with 2,116,617 decimal digits, discovered October 17, 2007 while double checking earlier tests. Crunched by Sturle Sunde.
- 10223*2^31172165+1 with 9,383,761 decimal digits, discovered October 31, 2016. Crunched by Szabolcs Péter (SyP). This prime eliminated k=10223 from both the Sierpinski Problem and the Prime Sierpinski Problem. (official announcement)
About the Sierpinski Problem
Wacław Franciszek Sierpiński (14 March 1882 — 21 October 1969), a Polish mathematician, was known for outstanding contributions to set theory, number theory, theory of functions and topology. It is in number theory where we find the Sierpinski problem.
Basically, the Sierpinski problem is "What is the smallest Sierpinski number?"
First we look at Proth numbers (named after the French mathematician François Proth). A Proth number is a number of the form k*2^n+1 where k is odd, n is a positive integer, and 2^n>k.
A Sierpinski number is an odd k such that the Proth number k*2^n+1 is not prime for all n. For example, 3 is not a Sierpinski number because n=2 produces a prime number (3*2^2+1=13). In 1962, John Selfridge proved that 78,557 is a Sierpinski number...meaning he showed that for all n, 78557*2^n+1 was not prime.
Most number theorists believe that 78,557 is the smallest Sierpinski number, but it hasn't yet been proven. In order to prove it, it has to be shown that every single k less than 78,557 is not a Sierpinski number, and to do that, some n must be found that makes k*2^n+1 prime.
The smallest proven 'prime' Sierpinski number is 271,129. In order to prove it, it has to be shown that every single 'prime' k less than 271,129 is not a Sierpinski number, and to do that, some n must be found that makes k*2^n+1 prime.
Seventeen or Bust is working on the Sierpinski problem and the Prime Sierpinski Project is working on the 'prime' Sierpinski problem. The following k's remain for each project:
Sierpinski problem 'prime' Sierpinski problem
21181 22699*
22699 67607*
24737 79309
55459 79817
67607 152267
156511
168451
222113
225931
237019
being tested by Seventeen or Bust
Fortunately, the two projects (and later PrimeGrid's Extended SIerpinski Project) combined their sieving efforts into a single file. Therefore, PrimeGrid's PSP sieve supports all three projects.
Additional Information
For more information about Sierpinski, Sierpinski number, and the Sierpinsk problem, please see these resources:
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we expecting a 64bit application?
____________
|
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
Can we expecting a 64bit application?
There's no 64 bit LLR application.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
A very interesting development.
One comment I have: beware, these are LONG, with n>17m! Cullen and Woodall tasks are sprints in comparison.
Five questions:
1. We use LLR, whereas SOB have adopted the Prime95 (originally developed for GIMPS). Are the relative speeds similar?
2. Will there be some trickle method of reporting (similar to CPDN)? If not, I expect a lot of computation errors and frustration.
3. Will traditional BOINC credits apply? If so, how will credit be calculated? I expect the first badges will be a while in coming!
4. Have we been allocated a range of n, which SOB will not crunch?
5. Who will get credit if a prime is found?
____________
Warped
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="320" height="309"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) ![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="968" height="81"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
A very interesting development.
One comment I have: beware, these are LONG, with n>17m! Cullen and Woodall tasks are sprints in comparison.
Five questions:
1. We use LLR, whereas SOB have adopted the Prime95 (originally developed for GIMPS). Are the relative speeds similar?
2. Will there be some trickle method of reporting (similar to CPDN)? If not, I expect a lot of computation errors and frustration.
3. Will traditional BOINC credits apply? If so, how will credit be calculated? I expect the first badges will be a while in coming!
4. Have we been allocated a range of n, which SOB will not crunch?
5. Who will get credit if a prime is found?
Well, having just past the first checkpoint, if the percentage-done number is to be believed, this task is going to take 10 days to crunch. (That's on a C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz)
I'm not personally worried about trickles. CPDN is a weird project, and its credit system works very differently than anyone else's. CPDN's tasks are also MUCH longer than even this SoB project -- the longest CPDN can run up to 100 days even on a fast computer. Furthermore, CPDN is very sensitive to errors because, IMHO, their code is buggy. They like to blame it on widespread hardware errors, but I don't buy it. Their code is problematic. So I'm not really worried about running a WU here for 10 days or so. Then again, I rarely get any kind of computational error, not counting those that can be explained away by something I did. Except for CPDN, but that's their problem, literally.
I've been crunching SETI stuff since 1999, and considering how comparatively slow the computers were then, WUs running for days and days was not only the norm, all of the tasks ran for that long. Problems with errors tend to have their roots in either buggy code (which most projects fix), or some kind of hardware problem (usually excessive over-clocking, heat, or the power supply). If you're not seeing errors now, I don't expect you'll see errors with these new tasks, since it appears we're running the same executable image as with the PPS LLR tasks.
I wouldn't worry about trickles until the long WUs actually prove to be problematic.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Michael
10 days is quite quick - it looks like that's an improvement on the existing SOB software. Yes, agreed, if it's that short then stability, and for that matter, trickles and BOINC credit calculations, are not major issues either.
Also, I see that my questions 4 and 5 have been answered on the updated SOB home page. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
|
Talking about durations, this task came with a 72 hour estimate (3 days) and it looks like it will actually take 10 days crunching full time. It has a 21 day deadline. I reset the project prior to downloading this WU, so the DCF is 1.000.
It's running on a Core2 CPU. While that's no longer that fastest CPU, it's far from the slowest. Any Intel chip prior to Core2 is a lot slower, as are all but the most recent AMD processors.
21 days may be too short a deadline. A Pentium 4 or slower computer and/or any computer not crunching one of these 24/7 will likely miss the deadline.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 858
ID: 18447
Credit: 850,649,286
RAC: 483,980
|
3. Will traditional BOINC credits apply? If so, how will credit be calculated? I expect the first badges will be a while in coming!
Can someone please confirm:
a) roughly what credit one of these WUs will give?
b) what the maximum limit for credit per WU that is configured in the boinc server? (don't want this to be too low!)
c) that this uses the usual badge targets for an LLR project?
My guess is that we should be plausibly >5k credits per WU, and therefore it should be feasible to get bronze in just a couple of weeks or so :-)
____________
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="320" height="345"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1807" height="119"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
Can someone please confirm:
a) roughly what credit one of these WUs will give?
b) what the maximum limit for credit per WU that is configured in the boinc server? (don't want this to be too low!)
Unknown at this time. We'll wait for actual completion times.
c) that this uses the usual badge targets for an LLR project?
Yes, they will remain the same. There's no reason to change targets.
____________
|
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
1. We use LLR, whereas SOB have adopted the Prime95 (originally developed for GIMPS). Are the relative speeds similar?
I'm not aware of any comparisons.
2. Will there be some trickle method of reporting (similar to CPDN)? If not, I expect a lot of computation errors and frustration.
No, not at this time.
3. Will traditional BOINC credits apply? If so, how will credit be calculated? I expect the first badges will be a while in coming!
Yes, traditional BOINC credits apply and they'll be calculated the same as other LLR projects.
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
My guess is that we should be plausibly >5k credits per WU, and therefore it should be feasible to get bronze in just a couple of weeks or so :-)
5K looks like a good guestimate given what I'm seeing, if credit is granted using the same formulas as the PPS LLR. So two of these tasks (at most 3) should get the bronze badge. 5 days on a fast i7, using only a fraction of the cores.
The biggest problem might be pending credit waiting for wingmen -- a lot of whom might potentially miss the deadline. I'm not sure I've crunched recently for any project with tasks this big that require validating against wingmen. I'm guessing a fair amount of patience will be required on our part waiting for credit to be granted. Especially if it's decided that the deadlines need to be increased, which I'm guessing will happen at some point.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
21 days may be too short a deadline. A Pentium 4 or slower computer and/or any computer not crunching one of these 24/7 will likely miss the deadline.
Just downloaded one WU for my Pentium 4. It hasn't started yet, but the estimate to completion is 1267 hours which is almost 53 days. I'm going to run it a bit and then form my own estimate.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core2 Duo @2.4, MacOS 10.6
0,492% in an hour (~8.5 days to 100%) |
|
|
LumiukkoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 08
Posts: 165
ID: 25183
Credit: 898,489,537
RAC: 153,113
|
|
Core2Quad Q9550@2.83GHz, WinXP32
6.05% in 11:00 hours (~7.6 days total)
--
Lumiukko
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just like to say welcome to the 'fight'. My credit on PG has been lacking because I've been crunching on SoB. :-x
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
|
Yesterday I downloaded one SoB WU. It's prefix is psp_sub_, it came with a deadline of 21 days, an estimate of 72 hours and actual run time appears to be about 200 hours.
Today, the other work on the quad core is clearing out, so I enabled new tasks and downloaded 3 more WUs. These are different.
The prefix is llr_sob_, the estimate is 290 hours, but the deadline is still the same 21 days. Is this just a change in the estimation, or can I expect this to actually run 4 times as long as yesterday's psp_sob_? If it really runs four times as long, I'll miss the deadline by at least 10 days. That's on a Core2Quad Q6600 @2.4 GHz.
I don't have any progress bar information yet so I don't have an estimate on the real runtime.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
I don't have any progress bar information yet so I don't have an estimate on the real runtime.
Now I do.
Actual run time seems to be the same. It should take about 200 CPU hours (which is probably closer to 10 days in real time on my system). Same as the earlier WU.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
i7 Extreme 975 @3.33 - Win 7
Boinc wit 4 cores and 2 GPU in use:
0,650% after 62 min (~ 6.6 days total)
With 6 cores the total time is ~ 8.3 days
StefanoD |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
Yesterday I downloaded one SoB WU. It's prefix is psp_sob_, it came with a deadline of 21 days, an estimate of 72 hours and actual run time appears to be about 200 hours.
WU's are the same, just the name was corrected. The first WU's went out with a minor copy/paste error. :)
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Pentium 4 has been running the WU for 12 hours and 1.969% is completed. At that rate the WU will finish in 25 days. Would I get credit after returning the WU four days after the deadline? I would be betting the average person can't return it within four days after my WU will expire.
____________
|
|
|
RytisVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 05
Posts: 2653
ID: 1
Credit: 108,533,406
RAC: 12,776
|
|
Credit will be granted for WUs past deadline, unless there are two matching results returned before. In that case you have a limited time window to return late work (at the moment, 5 days).
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
i7 Extreme 975 @3.33 - Overclocked to 4.06 on linux
with 4 cores (Hyperthread off) after 20hrs 20.875%
Should be Just Under 4 days total
Running around the clock on this one!
Maybe I will be the first to finish one of these guys!
____________
May your addiction to Boinc be greater than mine!
End Transmission!
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="320" height="273"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
|
|
1. We use LLR, whereas SOB have adopted the Prime95 (originally developed for GIMPS). Are the relative speeds similar?
From what I understand, the speeds should be pretty much the same, I've asked around in different forums, and the general answer is "they're about the same". If I understand correctly, they're based on the same libraries aswell.
Only major difference I've heard is: Proth tests (what LLR does) gives a conclusive primality proof, whereas a PRP tests (what Prime95 does) does not.
Hope this helps! :) |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay time to throw my results so far into the mix:
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz Vista HP 64
Current results: 6.21% at 11:17 hours in
Estimated time to completion at current speed ~ 182 hours (aka ~7.6 days)
Running concurrently with other boinc projects, but no other Primegrid LLR workunits
____________
~It only takes one bottle cap moving at 23,000 mph to ruin your whole day~
 |
|
|
KevinVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 09
Posts: 61
ID: 44488
Credit: 5,675,896
RAC: 0
|
|
OK, so I'm running a Core2 Duo P8600 at 2.40GHz on Ubuntu Linux, both cores running Seventeen or Bust.
Both jobs are 46 hours in with 22.832% complete. Prediction: 8.39 days total.
My sister (who has a comparable computer, same OS) is estimating 8.0 days, but is running 1 SoB, 1Woodal. My guess is I'm running a hare slower because both of my cores are on Seventeen or Bust?
____________
May the Force be with you always.
 |
|
|
|
|
i7 Extreme 975 @3.33 - Overclocked to 4.06 on linux
with 4 cores (Hyperthread off) after 20hrs 20.875%
Should be Just Under 4 days total
Running around the clock on this one!
Maybe I will be the first to finish one of these guys!
Completed my first 4 SoBs in 10 to 15 minutes under 4 days!
____________
May your addiction to Boinc be greater than mine!
End Transmission!
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Completed my first 4 SoBs in 10 to 15 minutes under 4 days!
I am SO jealous. I'm at 34.5% on the WU that's furthest along.
Not only is your machine a whole lot faster than mine, but I'm seeing about a 30% slowdown because I'm running 4 at once (but then, so were you), and there's about a 15% difference between CPU time and elapsed time due to other stuff running on the computer. When I was running just one, I was looking at about 10 days -- now it's looking more like 12.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 858
ID: 18447
Credit: 850,649,286
RAC: 483,980
|
|
That is fast - I've only got 2 @ 57.5% done in 97 hours.
A key point here is that there should shortly be some real SoB data for Bok (and possibly others) to work with for the subproject stats - subject to the wingman lottery :-)
____________
|
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
i7 Extreme 975 @3.33 - Overclocked to 4.06 on linux
with 4 cores (Hyperthread off) after 20hrs 20.875%
Should be Just Under 4 days total
Running around the clock on this one!
Maybe I will be the first to finish one of these guys!
Completed my first 4 SoBs in 10 to 15 minutes under 4 days!
Congratulations! Your 4 WU's are the first to come in. Now we must wait to see if they are valid. ;)
It's definitely worth investigating why the i7 Extreme 975 did not experience the "slowdown" on multiple cores.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
It's definitely worth investigating why the i7 Extreme 975 did not experience the "slowdown" on multiple cores.
A lot of memory stuff is redesigned on the i7, so my guess is that the bus is able to handle the demanding llr applications better than previous architectures. :) |
|
|
|
|
It's definitely worth investigating why the i7 Extreme 975 did not experience the "slowdown" on multiple cores.
A lot of memory stuff is redesigned on the i7, so my guess is that the bus is able to handle the demanding llr applications better than previous architectures. :)
I will see if running one SoB and some sieves increases the throughput for the SoB. May wait till after the challenge because my whole team is running SoBs and our team credit is getting low.
____________
May your addiction to Boinc be greater than mine!
End Transmission!
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it sounds like the speeds are comparable to Prime95/mprime, at least for the i7's. My non-overclocked i7 Extreme 975 is able to complete about 4 tests every 4 days (maybe a hair over 4 days) using Prime95.
Congrats on the first returns! |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a core 2 Duo T7700 running at 2.40GHz.
I am running two SoBs which are now at 27.7%, and I calculate a total time of 8.0 days.
Running one core, in the same amount of time,
I could earn 5197 credits if I ran Woodalls, which are the least efficient of any jobs,
and 6803 credits if I ran 321s, which are the most efficient of the LLRs.
If an SOB only earned 5000 credits, it would replace Woodals as the least efficient job for earning credit.
Since SOB's are long jobs, and it may be a long time before before credit is awarded, I suggest that 5000 credits may be a little low.
____________
 |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
|
fyi...for those comparing times, only Linux has the updated LLR client. Mac and Windows are still running 3.7.1c. We hope to have those updated soon.
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
fyi...for those comparing times, only Linux has the updated LLR client. Mac and Windows are still running 3.7.1c. We hope to have those updated soon.
What is the difference between the old and new clients?
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 858
ID: 18447
Credit: 850,649,286
RAC: 483,980
|
|
My linux box is still showing LLR is 3.7.1c under the 6.0.5 wrapper.
Is this really much different to the Windows app?
____________
|
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
|
Michael Goetz wrote: fyi...for those comparing times, only Linux has the updated LLR client. Mac and Windows are still running 3.7.1c. We hope to have those updated soon.
What is the difference between the old and new clients?
New one is faster. :) And it varies based on hardware. Documentation is not available right now. Once it is, I'll post it. Right now, we're just testing the new release in Linux.
Vato wrote: My linux box is still showing LLR is 3.7.1c under the 6.0.5 wrapper.
Is this really much different to the Windows app?
This is clerical. LLR under the 6.0.5 wrapper is the new one. Currently, only SoB and PPS have it for testing.
____________
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 858
ID: 18447
Credit: 850,649,286
RAC: 483,980
|
|
Ok - would have been nice to have known, since this is probably the cause of a problem i've recently started seeing. Orderly shutdown of boinc client under Linux -> next boot -> PPS LLR WUs start from the beginning, not from the save point. I'm certain that this wasn't the case previously (though 5.11 on windows does the same). I hope that isn't true of SoB as well, as that could be a tremendous amount of work lost.
____________
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 858
ID: 18447
Credit: 850,649,286
RAC: 483,980
|
|
my 2 are done and waiting for wingman in just under 7 days on a E5300@2.87GHz
http://www.primegrid.com/results.php?hostid=113117&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=13
____________
|
|
|
LumiukkoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 08
Posts: 165
ID: 25183
Credit: 898,489,537
RAC: 153,113
|
|
My 2 SoB's are also done (in ~7,5 days) on a
Core2 Quad Q9550@2.83GHz (WinXP32):
http://www.primegrid.com/results.php?hostid=85145&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=13
--
Lumiukko |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
|
Michael Goetz wrote: fyi...for those comparing times, only Linux has the updated LLR client. Mac and Windows are still running 3.7.1c. We hope to have those updated soon.
What is the difference between the old and new clients?
New one is faster. :) And it varies based on hardware. Documentation is not available right now. Once it is, I'll post it. Right now, we're just testing the new release in Linux.
LLR 3.8.0 has been officially released. http://jpenne.free.fr/index2.html
We hope to have all 3 builds (Linux, MacIntel, & Windows) updated and tested soon. :)
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
See this thread
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=205041
LLR3.8 does say that 2072644824759 * 2^33333+5 is not prime. Which it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
First two done in 146 hours and some change. One will be done within the hour and the last is at 140 hours and still says 39 hours to go..77% done.
Phenom II 955 stock clocks.
These are pretty long , any been validated yet?
Jack |
|
|
BokVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 133
ID: 60
Credit: 22,843,896
RAC: 0
|
|
I don't believe any are validated yet. I'm looking in the subproject xml feed and see no evidence of anyone having any credits as of yet.
I finished my first wu overnight and have 3 more which should finish today too..
Bok
____________
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="180" height="118"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
BokVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 133
ID: 60
Credit: 22,843,896
RAC: 0
|
|
2nd one finished and this one has a wingman... hopefully will be validated soon!
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=103653501
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
a) roughly what credit one of these WUs will give?
b) what the maximum limit for credit per WU that is configured in the boinc server? (don't want this to be too low!)
My guess is that we should be plausibly >5k credits per WU, and therefore it should be feasible to get bronze in just a couple of weeks or so :-)
If an SOB only earned 5000 credits, it would replace Woodals as the least efficient job for earning credit.
Since SOB's are long jobs, and it may be a long time before before credit is awarded, I suggest that 5000 credits may be a little low.
I've been fairly lucky with my wingmen and have received credit for three WUs so far, at approximately 5600, 6600, and 8600 credits. That averages out to a bit more than 6900 per WU.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
I have had two of my four SoBs clear with credits of 6500 and 8100.
____________
May your addiction to Boinc be greater than mine!
End Transmission!
|
|
|
RytisVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 05
Posts: 2653
ID: 1
Credit: 108,533,406
RAC: 12,776
|
|
Please note that we are adjusting granted credit levels, as a consequence you can't really compare the workunits granted until now (the credit amount has been raised from the first WUs validated).
____________
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that we are adjusting granted credit levels...
I came across the AQUA project and found this long running WU, but was shocked at the credit granted.
Comparing it with the runtime of my only completed SoB WU I feel robbed - what have I missed? There has to be a reason for such a massive difference. Perhaps the AQUA WU uses several cores at the same time to process it? Perhaps it's a special - like the manual sieve efforts at PrimeGrid? Whatever the answer, I'm feeling a little green with envy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your right Aqua use all the cores of your processor.
This explaining the granted credits, but the application is also highly optimized.
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=103402874
Finally finished the SoB WU on my P4. I have HT activated on it and ran Woodall WUs alongside the SoB WU. Took 2,065,246.69 CPU seconds or just under 24 days.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
On my Vista box that is an AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5400+,
I currently have two SoB LLR's running and they are currently reading:
1. 53:xx:xx hours 17%+ complete
2. 43:xx:xx hours 14%+ complete
So I hope they get done in decent time.
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's just under 13 days for two tests, or ~5.5 days per test. That's a pretty decent time for these large tests - just hang in there and be patient. Your two tests alone should net you a bronze badge once they are verified. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, just realized I should have said 6.5 days, not 5.5 - still a decent time though. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to need more computers... |
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity: what's the sieving ratio for SoB? I mean, at the start, for any k a 1M range for n contains 1M candidates. Which percentage was left after sieving? Or in other words, how many tests cover a 1M range for n on a given k?
____________
There are only 10 kinds of people - those who understand binary and those who don't
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="256" height="18"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
ltdSend message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 10
ID: 12893
Credit: 18,034,132
RAC: 0
|
|
Here some data from the PSP database. It is the range 10M-11M.
k=79309 992 tests
k=79817 2271 tests
k=152267 1411 tests
k=156511 917 tests
k=168451 1592 tests
k=222113 4196 tests
k=225931 1978 tests
k=237019 2438 tests |
|
|
|
|
Here some data from the PSP database. It is the range 10M-11M.
k=79309 992 tests
k=79817 2271 tests
k=152267 1411 tests
k=156511 917 tests
k=168451 1592 tests
k=222113 4196 tests
k=225931 1978 tests
k=237019 2438 tests
Good idea to look there, thanks!
BTW all tasks I get seem to be either n<19M or n>20M. What's up with 19M<n<20M?
____________
There are only 10 kinds of people - those who understand binary and those who don't
|
|
|
pschoeferVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 686
ID: 845
Credit: 2,992,076,987
RAC: 1,382,831
  
|
BTW all tasks I get seem to be either n<19M or n>20M. What's up with 19M<n<20M?
Looks like this range is done by the native SoB project right now: SoB Test Range Statistics.
____________
  |
|
|
|
|
|
I can give all Tasks back, the time is to slow, I need 70 Days, and I cant crunch it in 45 Days, thats crazy !!!
If I am "out of time" then no credits,
crazy, crazy,crazy !!!
cheers
____________
|
|
|
mfbabb2Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 10 Oct 08
Posts: 510
ID: 30360
Credit: 20,975,644
RAC: 3,355
|
I can give all Tasks back, the time is to slow, I need 70 Days, and I cant crunch it in 45 Days, thats crazy !!!
If I am "out of time" then no credits,
crazy, crazy,crazy !!!
cheers
What are you using for a CPU? Even my slow machines will do an SoB in about 3 weeks.
____________
Murphy (AtP)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="280" height="85"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="163" height="18"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
rroonnaallddVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 09
Posts: 1213
ID: 42893
Credit: 34,634,263
RAC: 0
|
What are you using for a CPU? Even my slow machines will do an SoB in about 3 weeks.
Either he uses an ATOM-cpu or he is doing calculations only on weekends...
Both would be possible with hidden hosts.
____________
Best wishes. Knowledge is power. by jjwhalen
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="307" height="18"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no atom CPU, I have i7 @ 1.8 Ghz. I've cleaned with a vacuum cleaner, poured new coolant, now he's running 12% on the day. That's crazy. Also. 0.5% on the day yesterday, today, cleaned, 12% on the day. Now ready in 7 Days, previously in 11 weeks.
I did not know that new coolant makes the machine 10 times faster. One coolant = 50 USD
I have 2 gamer lap-tops with 8 core, and one of the lap-top, I bring him tomorrow to my hardwhere dealer. He do inside the new coolant. The result is: 10 times faster. And not hot.
I think, 1:30 h. for one pps-sieve task is not normal, perhaps 0:15 or 0:30 but not 1:30, I must clean it.
please note:
I crunch 24h. every Day. 7 days @ week, every month, every Year. Not one minute without crunch. I´m a true Astra from Sicituradastra. A true Astra, crunch every minute of the life.
I open my Profile. please wait for the new/ next server update.
My first SoB, I see: CPU time is: 1:875:49 h.
Now: 549 h.
6 tasks I crunch now finish and to the end.
____________
|
|
|
mfbabb2Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 10 Oct 08
Posts: 510
ID: 30360
Credit: 20,975,644
RAC: 3,355
|
|
If a modern (Intel, at least) CPU gets too hot, it will cycle down the clock until it cools off. Your 1.8 GHz may have have been running MUCH slower than that.
____________
Murphy (AtP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
mfbabb2
Thanks for helping,
I wait of the first SoB, and then we can see it.
I know, 1,8 Ghz is nothing, but I`m looking for a better Desktop with NVIDIA Quadt SLI 590 grafic, and 4,2 Ghz, but I wait 3 Month, then I buy 4 times this big mashines, with watercolling system... and so on.
____________
|
|
|
rroonnaallddVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 09
Posts: 1213
ID: 42893
Credit: 34,634,263
RAC: 0
|
If a modern (Intel, at least) CPU gets too hot, it will cycle down the clock until it cools off.
It depends of why it was to hot or was the thermal throttling activated.
When the thermal throttling was activated, the cpu will stay below their nominal frequency until you reboot the host (seen on my Core2 Duo and Quad). In some cases you have to unplug the powercord (found in a german journal over energy measurements on modern Sandy Bridge CPUs and their Z68-chipset).
____________
Best wishes. Knowledge is power. by jjwhalen
|
|
|
|
|
|
rroonnaalldd,
I google at tem
Thanks
Armstrong*
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mow, 2 Days = 22 % in 48 hours
2 Tasks, I crunch with Turbo speed technology, thats the same, @2,8 Ghz. This Intel technology, tkes the power of 8 core in two processors, and is 2 times faster. SoB are ready in perhaps 4 Days ????
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silly question maybe, but I finished my first SoB WU a couple of days ago and got it confirmed today. It does not say "$number is not prime" like you normally get on other projects when a number is not prime. If this happens there it means it is prime. Could it possibly mean just that here too or is there no notification of non-primality?
Counter still says 0, so haven't gotten my hopes up just yet ;)
____________
PrimeGrid Challenge Overall standings --- Last update: From Pi to Paddy (2016)
 |
|
|
|
|
Silly question maybe, but I finished my first SoB WU a couple of days ago and got it confirmed today. It does not say "$number is not prime" like you normally get on other projects when a number is not prime. If this happens there it means it is prime. Could it possibly mean just that here too or is there no notification of non-primality?
Counter still says 0, so haven't gotten my hopes up just yet ;)
The SOB workunits do not seem to show the number once tested (from looking at a couple of examples on the stats pages). The Riesel LLR project is the same in this regard - there is no notification of the number being tested, once it is validated. It would be nice if this feature could be added of course...
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned by John in the opening post, this project started in April 2002 and therefore recently passed the 10-year mark.
I have also recently completed 10 years of on-off (mainly off) contribution to the project:
My Profile
____________
Warped
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could some of the moderators please remove k=90527 from the Prime Sierpinski Problem list of k's remaining. The k=90527 had a prime at n=9162167 (90527*2^9162167+1) and therefor this k is not searched anymore :)
Take care. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Could some of the moderators please remove k=90527 from the Prime Sierpinski Problem list of k's remaining. The k=90527 had a prime at n=9162167 (90527*2^9162167+1) and therefor this k is not searched anymore :)
Take care.
You mean in the first post in this thread, right? I'll take care of it. (Run of the mill moderators can't fix that since they don't have the ability to modify other people's posts.)
Does 90527 appear anywhere else?
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
Could some of the moderators please remove k=90527 from the Prime Sierpinski Problem list of k's remaining. The k=90527 had a prime at n=9162167 (90527*2^9162167+1) and therefor this k is not searched anymore :)
Take care.
You mean in the first post in this thread, right? I'll take care of it. (Run of the mill moderators can't fix that since they don't have the ability to modify other people's posts.)
Does 90527 appear anywhere else?
No it doesn't appear anywhere else, as far as I know :) |
|
|
|
|
|
Good Day,
It is interesting for me what is the lower bound of current search.
According to Statistics page, Primegrid is currently crunching 31 000 000.
"Seventeen or Bust" project is crunching 29 000 000
Also I know that "Seventeen or Bust" crunched 12 000 000 this winter.
Is it possible to post more detail about the status of this project?
Thank you. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Good Day,
It is interesting for me what is the lower bound of current search.
According to Statistics page, Primegrid is currently crunching 31 000 000.
"Seventeen or Bust" project is crunching 29 000 000
Also I know that "Seventeen or Bust" crunched 12 000 000 this winter.
Is it possible to post more detail about the status of this project?
Thank you.
It's complicated.
Until recently, SoB and PG were dividing up the work by 'n', which has some disadvantages. Earlier this year, we decided to divide the work by 'k' instead. Moving forward, PrimeGrid will be doing all the crunching on two of the six remaining 'k's, and SoB will work on the other 4.
But before we do that, we're first cleaning up the work we had previously agreed to do.
Here's the details of PrimeGrid's work on SoB:
17.0M to 17.2M: all 6 k's completed
18.0M to 18.5M: all 6 k's completed
20.0M to 22.0M: all 6 k's completed
27.0M to 28.0M: all 6 k's completed or in progress
~29.1M to 31.0M: k=10223 and k=67607 in progress
31.0M to 32.0M: all 6k's in progress
32.0M to 50.0M: k=10223 and k=67607 will be done next
The reason we switched from dividing the work by 'n' to dividing the work by 'k' is that when you divide the work by 'n', if either group finds a prime, there's a 50/50 chance that the other group would have been crunching that 'k' at a higher 'n' level, and all of their work above the prime would have been wasted effort. By dividing the work by 'k' that won't happen.
Also, it should be noted that everything PrimeGrid has done was double checked at the beginning, while SoB only does single tests initially and does the double checks later. All of PrimeGrid's work can therefore be considered "complete", but that's not the case with all of SoB's work. There are errors, and the double checking does sometimes turn up primes that were missed the first time around. It's rare, but not unheard of.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any plans to do some double-check for SoB for lower n's?
First few Ms can be done quickly.
AFAIK one prime in SoB was from double check.
____________
wbr, Me. Dead J. Dona
 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Is there any plans to do some double-check for SoB for lower n's?
First few Ms can be done quickly.
AFAIK one prime in SoB was from double check.
Yes, but it's a ways off, and definitive plans have not been established. Also, we'll only be double checking 2 of the 6 k's.
As soon as we finish the current n=31M range, our agreement with the SoB project will change. Instead of dividing up the work by n-range, each group will work only on specific K values. PrimeGrid will work on two k's while SoB will work on the other 4.
Once we reach that point, we're going to devise a plan to double check the early work on our two k's.
Please see this thread for details.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 917
ID: 370496
Credit: 593,422,236
RAC: 543,979
|
Yes, but it's a ways off, and definitive plans have not been established. Also, we'll only be double checking 2 of the 6 k's.
As soon as we finish the current n=31M range, our agreement with the SoB project will change. Instead of dividing up the work by n-range, each group will work only on specific K values. PrimeGrid will work on two k's while SoB will work on the other 4.
Once we reach that point, we're going to devise a plan to double check the early work on our two k's.
Please see this thread for details.
Out of curiosity, any particular reason for a 2/4 k split, instead of an even 3/3?
Also, if a double check has potential to find primes missed, and thus waste effort on the upper n, shouldn't that be a top priority? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Yes, but it's a ways off, and definitive plans have not been established. Also, we'll only be double checking 2 of the 6 k's.
As soon as we finish the current n=31M range, our agreement with the SoB project will change. Instead of dividing up the work by n-range, each group will work only on specific K values. PrimeGrid will work on two k's while SoB will work on the other 4.
Once we reach that point, we're going to devise a plan to double check the early work on our two k's.
Please see this thread for details.
Out of curiosity, any particular reason for a 2/4 k split, instead of an even 3/3?
Also, if a double check has potential to find primes missed, and thus waste effort on the upper n, shouldn't that be a top priority?
The choice of K's was SoB's decision, so you'll need to ask them. Yes, the double check is important, but it's also difficult to do because we don't run the same software as SoB. That's why we don't have a plan for it yet.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 917
ID: 370496
Credit: 593,422,236
RAC: 543,979
|
we don't run the same software as SoB
And ours is faster / slower in general, or does it depend on particular k's and n's? Or pretty much the same speed? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
we don't run the same software as SoB
And ours is faster / slower in general, or does it depend on particular k's and n's? Or pretty much the same speed?
Just different. We use LLR. They've used at least two other programs over the years. There's many programs than can be used to test the primality of Proth numbers. I don't recall the details of what they run; I last looked at this in January. I don't plan at looking at it again until at least 2016, possibly 2017. The current n=31M range will take a while.
EDIT: We have almost 2 years worth of SoB work remaining at n=31M, so the post-31M plans are very low priority at this time.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting is it known a difficulty of the algorithm of finding those promes? |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting is it known a difficulty of the algorithm of finding those promes?
Vitaly,
The "LLR" program we use tests numbers in the Sierpinski Problem much the same way, although it adjusts for the size of the numbers by picking an appropriate FFT size, and also understands things like hardware (e.g. AVX vs. non-AVX). But the basic algorithm is the same. The main issue with finding primes in the Seventeen or Bust project is just that the numbers being tested are so huge, primes are very rare. I hope that addresses your query.
--Gary |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 917
ID: 370496
Credit: 593,422,236
RAC: 543,979
|
It is interesting is it known a difficulty of the algorithm of finding those promes?
Vitaly,
The "LLR" program we use tests numbers in the Sierpinski Problem much the same way, although it adjusts for the size of the numbers by picking an appropriate FFT size, and also understands things like hardware (e.g. AVX vs. non-AVX). But the basic algorithm is the same. The main issue with finding primes in the Seventeen or Bust project is just that the numbers being tested are so huge, primes are very rare. I hope that addresses your query.
--Gary
And there's less people running SoB tasks (again, due to the huuuuge numbers / run times).
Though my intuition tells me we'll get a prime in 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ))
Also it would be cool if Google Super Computer helped to resolve this problem.
Recently, he helped in solving one mathematical problem "Rubik's cube mystery":
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-08/11/rubiks-cube-solved-puzzle-google |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting is it known a difficulty of the algorithm of finding those promes?
Vitaly,
The "LLR" program we use tests numbers in the Sierpinski Problem much the same way, although it adjusts for the size of the numbers by picking an appropriate FFT size, and also understands things like hardware (e.g. AVX vs. non-AVX). But the basic algorithm is the same. The main issue with finding primes in the Seventeen or Bust project is just that the numbers being tested are so huge, primes are very rare. I hope that addresses your query.
--Gary
And there's less people running SoB tasks (again, due to the huuuuge numbers / run times).
Though my intuition tells me we'll get a prime in 2016.
It is interesting,
Is it possible to split the calculation of particular number among several users.
In this case, for example, particular user will calculate 2 million of iterations rather than 30 millions? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Is it possible to split the calculation of particular number among several users.
In this case, for example, particular user will calculate 2 million of iterations rather than 30 millions?
This topic has come up before, and I've put some thought into what would be needed to make it work.
Is it technically possible? Yes.
But it's not practical. It would involve transferring very large files back and forth between your host computers and our servers. That would be a problem for many users, and it would most definitely be a problem for PrimeGrid both in terms of disk storage and network bandwidth. It's not going to happen.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Michael,
the link http://www.prothsearch.net/sierp.html is broken.
Greets
Chris |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Hi Michael,
the link http://www.prothsearch.net/sierp.html is broken.
Greets
Chris
We know. The link is actually fine; it's the website that's down. The site administrator of that website is working on getting the site back online. (Unlike the saga with SoB's server earlier this year, I fully expect this one to be resolved successfully. I don't, however, have any idea how long it will take.)
Until then, if you need information from prothsearch.net you can access their webpages on the wayback machine.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks a lot. I did read the wiki article regarding the sierpinski problem. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Hi Michael,
the link http://www.prothsearch.net/sierp.html is broken.
Greets
Chris
We know. The link is actually fine; it's the website that's down. The site administrator of that website is working on getting the site back online. (Unlike the saga with SoB's server earlier this year, I fully expect this one to be resolved successfully. I don't, however, have any idea how long it will take.)
Until then, if you need information from prothsearch.net you can access their webpages on the wayback machine.
That page, and the root page http://www.prothsearch.net/, now show a message, ProThSearch.net is coming soon. Pro Th? What would Monsieur François Proth say? Mersenneforum.org has the thread Why is Prothsearch Gone? but it does not give much information. /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
That page, and the root page http://www.prothsearch.net/, now show a message, ProThSearch.net is coming soon.
Today I saw a new site at that address. It did not (yet?) have all the subpages the old website had. Does anyone know if the new site is made by Wilfrid Keller or some other reliable person? /JeppeSN |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
That page, and the root page http://www.prothsearch.net/, now show a message, ProThSearch.net is coming soon.
Today I saw a new site at that address. It did not (yet?) have all the subpages the old website had. Does anyone know if the new site is made by Wilfrid Keller or some other reliable person? /JeppeSN
I don't know.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
I think domain prothsearch.net was expired and re-registered by another person.
Update: prothsearch.com is the right place now. |
|
|
|
|
Update: prothsearch.com is the right place now.
You are right; great find!
EDIT: Also, the page sierp.html is there and contains a short notice on this project's elimination of k=10223.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
axnVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 07
Posts: 285
ID: 16874
Credit: 28,027,106
RAC: 0
|
|
Must be some kind of auto-generated code
Prothsearch Official Business Website
eCommerce Made Easy With Proth Search
WTF?! |
|
|
|
|
Must be some kind of auto-generated code
Prothsearch Official Business Website
eCommerce Made Easy With Proth Search
WTF?!
The domain has been poached by a cyber-squatter. They are actually quite clever, in that they have uploaded a lot of content from the old site that looks quite relevant, but inserted links to their "new eCommerce search tool". I'll see if I can get in touch with Wilfrid.
Cheers
- Iain
____________
Twitter: IainBethune
Proud member of team "Aggie The Pew". Go Aggie!
3073428256125*2^1290000-1 is Prime! |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
|
Long sad story, but Iain was correct: a cyber squatter got the domain name, so it should be ignored.
http://www.prothsearch.com/ is the new URL (".com" instead of ".net")
It will take a little while for Wilfrid to create all the pages, but the site IS coming back.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
|
FYI -- except for the posts in this thread where we're talking about the change from prothsearch.net to prothsearch.com, I'm going to globally change the URL from .net to .com in every post in the forums, regardless of who the author of the post is. I don't want anyone following links to the fake website. I have no idea what their intentions are, and there's certainly a possibility that they're malicious.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
compositeVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 10
Posts: 1169
ID: 55391
Credit: 1,183,243,563
RAC: 905,695
|
Must be some kind of auto-generated code
Prothsearch Official Business Website
eCommerce Made Easy With Proth Search
WTF?!
The domain has been poached by a cyber-squatter. They are actually quite clever, in that they have uploaded a lot of content from the old site that looks quite relevant, but inserted links to their "new eCommerce search tool".
*** off-topic ***
Quite right. Domain squatting is now really about exploiting high search engine rankings from expired domains, with residual earnings by selling domains in the after-market. These "entrepreneurs" are always on the lookout for freshly expired domains with good "link juice" that can drive significant traffic to their "money site" by building a "private blog network" using expired domains. http://nichesiteproject.com/private-blog-networks That's an instructive and perhaps lucrative read.
Squatters can subscribe to domain search services, some of which offer archived copies of web sites for sale so that squatted domains continue to look legitimate to search engines. If you run a web site and regularly check IP addresses from your web server logs, you will eventually discover when your domain name has been catalogued and your web content copied by these services. That's how I found out about this cyber-squatting industry.
The value of expired domains shot up after Google deflated the ranking of "public blog networks". Domain registrars jumped on this profitable bandwagon and facilitated it by charging exorbitant fees to recover domain names during the grace period past their expiry date. Let this be a warning, if your web site has good ranking, you will pay dearly for not renewing the name before the deadline. If you have no desire to continue the site, you can at least sell it in the aftermarket before it expires, maybe for more than you paid to register the name. Most people don't realize this. However I expect that will change in a few years when Google's AI will be able to distinguish squatted domains from good ones as it indexes the web.
Currently, cyber-squatters devalue search engine results by turning part of the web into garbage for specific enough search terms. It harms legitimate buinesses who compete for search engine ranking, particularly in industries where businesses have significant turnover and can't maintain their domain names. I've seen it personally, where a few of my competitors have gone out of business and their domains have been taken over like this. Heck, the domain of the former occupant of our current physical location is still alive years later, but the web site content has changed to something in Japanese. This is insane because that business and domain name were named for the street we are located on, it still has good ranking, and I could use that domain to redirect traffic to my web site. People still know that former business by name. And although not squatting, the business strategy of occupying a particular "space" also works with physical locations, and even with phone numbers - I once called a supplier in a high-value niche industry that I hadn't yet realized went out of business, and one of his competitors had grabbed that phone number. Smart move.
Our business is a local service not driven by ecommerce, so the firewall categorically blocks IP address not from this continent. I'm not apologizing to overseas folks that can't see the web site because the chance that I'll get any business from them is nil. We are not an international destination, despite exhortations via email from "magazines" offering us "awards" (for a price). The real benefit of keeping it local is that it saves the web server's CPU and bandwidth for customers that really use it, and we function perfectly with a $4/month VPS serving content from the ramdisk. The only pain in the ass are people that use proxy servers in the cloud to circumvent firewall rules. The access log suggests that they are usually up to no good. It also amazes me how many accesses from retail ISPs are declaring the user agent to be "Googlebot" and friends - you can be certain that Googlebot and Bingbot are not using IP services from Time-Warner or Comcast. The real tricky ones are those running in Google's cloud and Microsoft's Azure cloud. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
|
I will let composite's post about cybersquatting stay because it's relevant and informative, but anyone who wishes to to continue or comment on the general topic of cybersquatting please create a new thread in the General discussions forum.
As it is, I may end up moving this whole discussion about prothsearch elsewhere, but I do want to point out one fact here: Wilfrid Keller didn't accidently let the domain expire. The original owner of the site (and the domain name) is deceased, and Wilfrid was unable to get control of the domain name. The registrar was not very helpful, and thanks to composite's information, it's clear why.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like clean up for 10223 is finished:
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_sob_llr.php |
|
|
|
|
It looks like clean up for 10223 is finished:
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_sob_llr.php
Quite old news. See The "Top Ten" Record Primes and Official Announcement and so on. /JeppeSN |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
It looks like clean up for 10223 is finished:
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_sob_llr.php
Quite old news. See The "Top Ten" Record Primes and Official Announcement and so on. /JeppeSN
Nope. That's brand new news. The very last k=10223 SOB work unit completed today. (It started back in September.)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
It looks like clean up for 10223 is finished:
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_sob_llr.php
Quite old news. See The "Top Ten" Record Primes and Official Announcement and so on. /JeppeSN
Nope. That's brand new news. The very last k=10223 SOB work unit completed today. (It started back in September.)
You are right, of course! Thanks. I do not know why I misread Vitaly's post and thought he was referring to the prime find. I even discussed the 10223 clean up with you in the other thread ... /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
for following k, n will be
k = 21 181 n = 0 mod 4
k = 22 699 n = 2 mod 4
k = 24 737 n = 3 mod 4
k = 55 459 n = 2 mod 4
k = 67 607 n = 3 mod 4 |
|
|
|
|
for following k, n will be
k = 21 181 n = 0 mod 4
k = 22 699 n = 2 mod 4
k = 24 737 n = 3 mod 4
k = 55 459 n = 2 mod 4
k = 67 607 n = 3 mod 4
Yes. This can be seen by sieving to the prime 5. /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting "Min in progress" is reduced to 7 000 000.
Does it mean that you start checking tasks of SoB project that was closed last year?
As I remember just before closed it was tested about 1 million tasks.
Thanks. |
|
|
JimBHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 11
Posts: 920
ID: 107307
Credit: 989,290,184
RAC: 192
|
It is interesting "Min in progress" is reduced to 7 000 000.
Does it mean that you start checking tasks of SoB project that was closed last year?
http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=6780
Any candidate where SB didn't seem to have a pair of matching residues from two different users is being retested. There were candidates much smaller than n=7M, but we eliminated them internally. If you check the link above, you can see how many candidates need to be tested per n range. |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting "Min in progress" is reduced to 7 000 000.
Does it mean that you start checking tasks of SoB project that was closed last year?
http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=6780
Any candidate where SB didn't seem to have a pair of matching residues from two different users is being retested. There were candidates much smaller than n=7M, but we eliminated them internally. If you check the link above, you can see how many candidates need to be tested per n range.
OK,
but I do not see "how many candidates need to be tested per n range" in that link.
Thanks. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
It is interesting "Min in progress" is reduced to 7 000 000.
Does it mean that you start checking tasks of SoB project that was closed last year?
http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=6780
Any candidate where SB didn't seem to have a pair of matching residues from two different users is being retested. There were candidates much smaller than n=7M, but we eliminated them internally. If you check the link above, you can see how many candidates need to be tested per n range.
OK,
but I do not see "how many candidates need to be tested per n range" in that link.
Thanks.
The first post in the thread about the double check is what you're looking for: http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7356&nowrap=true#106184
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
when i want to make an app_config.xml, whats the app name? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
when i want to make an app_config.xml, whats the app name?
You can find the list here: http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=7299&nowrap=true#105133
For Seventeen or Bust it's llrSOB.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
thank you very much |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this App still in Double Check Mode? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Is this App still in Double Check Mode?
Yes.
If we're really, really, lucky, the double check will finish near the end of 2019. I think it's more likely that it will finish in early to mid 2020.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
JaySend message
Joined: 27 Feb 10
Posts: 134
ID: 56067
Credit: 65,445,782
RAC: 12,934
|
If we're really, really, lucky, the double check will finish near the end of 2019. I think it's more likely that it will finish in early to mid 2020.
If we're really, really, really lucky, the next 5 results returned will be primes and the conjecture will be put to bed. |
|
|
|
|
If we're really, really, lucky, the double check will finish near the end of 2019. I think it's more likely that it will finish in early to mid 2020.
If we're really, really, really lucky, the next 5 results returned will be primes and the conjecture will be put to bed.
Provided that the next five results are for five different k, of course. /JeppeSN |
|
|
xii5kuSend message
Joined: 17 Dec 16
Posts: 96
ID: 476505
Credit: 1,586,218,774
RAC: 1,945,819
|
|
Question (or complaint):
At the PrimeGrid preferences page, I see SoB-LLR marked as "Focus project". And even as the sole one.
Why do you want your contributors to focus on a project which most current CPUs do not support effectively? I am referring to the extraordinary cache requirements, which only a few server CPUs are able to satisfy. All other CPUs run into a memory bandwidth wall with this project.
Why doesn't PrimeGrid go with the times and point their contributors to those projects which are more efficiently supported by current popular computer hardware? |
|
|
JaySend message
Joined: 27 Feb 10
Posts: 134
ID: 56067
Credit: 65,445,782
RAC: 12,934
|
Question (or complaint):
Why do you want your contributors to focus on a project which most current CPUs do not support effectively?
...
Why doesn't PrimeGrid go with the times and point their contributors to those projects which are more efficiently supported by current popular computer hardware?
I've got to disagree with the effectiveness of older cpu's. I have an i7-950, as the only cpu I have used on this project. That processor was introduced in the 2nd quarter of 2009 according to Intel. I have earned, with that single cpu, over 20 million credit on SOB. It currently takes approximately 4.5 days to return a task. I'm usually the first to return a workunit.
|
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 3242
ID: 130544
Credit: 2,341,555,808
RAC: 584,289
|
|
Doesn't matte what the CPU is (within reason e.g don't use a PII) - if it can reliably compete a SoB & within the extended deadline it all helps. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Question (or complaint):
At the PrimeGrid preferences page, I see SoB-LLR marked as "Focus project".
"Focus project" is the project (or projects) that we would most like people to work on. SoB is currently the focus project because we want to get the double check completed as quickly as possible.
Hardware changes over time, and different people have very different hardware, so how efficient certain hardware might be doesn't really play a role in choosing the "Focus project".
If you wish to run something that's more efficient on your computer, by all means do so. "Focus project" is merely a suggestion, not a requirement. If it was mandatory, PrimeGrid wouldn't give a choice.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
xii5kuSend message
Joined: 17 Dec 16
Posts: 96
ID: 476505
Credit: 1,586,218,774
RAC: 1,945,819
|
|
As a post scriptum, most of my own CPUs are actually very well suited to these tasks. My question came from a macroeconomic angle, so to speak, not a personal one. |
|
|
xii5kuSend message
Joined: 17 Dec 16
Posts: 96
ID: 476505
Credit: 1,586,218,774
RAC: 1,945,819
|
|
xii5ku wrote: Why do you want your contributors to focus on a project which most current CPUs do not support effectively? I am referring to the extraordinary cache requirements, which only a few server CPUs are able to satisfy. All other CPUs run into a memory bandwidth wall with this project.
Michael,
I have to take this back partially. I made more tests with SoB-LLR since I posted. (My last systematic SoB-LLR testing was 2 years ago with v7, I only now took the time to test v8 more thoroughly.) While it is true that Xeons greatly benefit from having ample cache, performance on desktop CPUs with fast RAM is actually quite close when normalized to core count and clock speed. (My current testing is limited to BDW-EP and KBL-S though.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me for being new to this science. However, how can we "prove" the thesis numerically? It seems that for k*2^n+1 and a given k, "all" n must be tested. |
|
|
Crun-chiVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 09
Posts: 3242
ID: 50683
Credit: 151,735,680
RAC: 563
|
Excuse me for being new to this science. However, how can we "prove" the thesis numerically? It seems that for k*2^n+1 and a given k, "all" n must be tested.
Not all , it just need to find prime for remain k
When prime is found , then is removed from conjuncture.
____________
92*10^1585996-1 NEAR-REPDIGIT PRIME :) :) :)
4 * 650^498101-1 CRUS PRIME
2022202116^131072+1 GENERALIZED FERMAT
Proud member of team Aggie The Pew. Go Aggie! |
|
|
compositeVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 10
Posts: 1169
ID: 55391
Credit: 1,183,243,563
RAC: 905,695
|
Excuse me for being new to this science. However, how can we "prove" the thesis numerically? It seems that for k*2^n+1 and a given k, "all" n must be tested.
Not all , it just need to find prime for remain k
When prime is found , then is removed from conjuncture.
The project would necessarily test n to infinity for a given k if the conjecture is false. We just don't know that it is false, so we prefer to think that it is true and try to prove it. By all means, go ahead and mathematically prove the conjecture to be false. It would save us all a lot of computer time.
EDIT: we prefer to think the conjecture is true because that's the only result we can test and prove numerically. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Excuse me for being new to this science. However, how can we "prove" the thesis numerically? It seems that for k*2^n+1 and a given k, "all" n must be tested.
Yes and no, literally.
We can prove the conjecture true by finding just a single prime for each of the remaining 5 k's. We don't need to test "every" n to prove the conjecture true. On the other hand...
Since there's an infinite number of n's, it's not possible to prove the conjecture false using this method, as that would involve testing an infinite number of n's.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
WayneKFord wrote: Excuse me for being new to this science. However, how can we "prove" the thesis numerically? It seems that for k*2^n+1 and a given k, "all" n must be tested.
You see, a Sierpinski number is an odd k such that k*2n+1 is composite for all n.
If you give me one k and ask me if it is a Sierpinski number, I could:
- prove k is not a Sierpinski number, by showing you one value of n that makes k*2n+1 a prime number
- prove k is a Sierpinski number using some fancy mathematical proof
- prove k is a Sierpinski number, making you wait for ever, while I test all values of n to get composite numbers for k*2n+1
I can give you a Sierpinski number: 78557
In 1962, John Selfridge proved that 78,557 is a Sierpinski number...meaning he showed that for all n, 78557*2^n+1 was not prime.
John Selfridge was a smart guy. He must have used option 2 above :)
So, we know 78557 is a Sierpinski number: 78557*2n+1 is composite for all n.
Isn't there any other odd number, smaller than 78557, that is also a Sierpinski number ?
This is the conjecture (Sierpinski Problem): 78557 is the smallest Sierpinski number.
Edit: In other words, according to the conjecture, if you pick any k<78557 then k*2n+1 will be prime for at least one value of n.
Most number theorists believe that 78,557 is the smallest Sierpinski number, but it hasn't yet been proven. In order to prove it, it has to be shown that every single k less than 78,557 is not a Sierpinski number, and to do that, some n must be found that makes k*2^n+1 prime.
Almost all odd numbers k below 78557 have been tested and one n was found that made k*2n+1 a prime number.
Currently, only 5 odd numbers below 77857 have yet to be tested to show they are not Sierpinski numbers: 21181, 22699, 24737, 55459 and 67607.
We're using option 1 above.
We have to show that:
21181*2n+1 is prime for some n
22699*2n+1 is prime for some n
24737*2n+1 is prime for some n
55459*2n+1 is prime for some n
67607*2n+1 is prime for some n
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. I was checking the first invalid work unit I have gotten in months, and see that my compute speed is really poor. Could someone explain this workunit page:
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=591705832
My TR1950x OC to 3.7GHZ is taking 30 days for a test that the client says should take two days. I was assuming this was a guess by the client (since the PPSeive times are also always wrong). But I see two intel chips with basically the same integer and floating numbers actually doing the tests in two days in the above workunit.
My rig is as rock solid as I can make it. Tested it for a month before starting BOINC with all the usual tests like PRIME95, etc. I only use it for 4 hours a day. The rest of the time is all BOINC.
If someone else is running a TR1950x and is getting two day tests on the reissued numbers, please let me know and i'll start pulling more hair trying to figure this out.
For my 3.7GHZ speed, I get the same scores as others. IE Cinebench15 scores around (3000-3100), etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other two hosts have multithreading enabled.
You need something like this:
<app_config>
<app>
<name>llrSOB</name>
<fraction_done_exact/>
<report_results_immediately/>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>llrSOB</app_name>
<cmdline>-t 32</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>32</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>
</app_config>
____________
My DC mathematical side :)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="859" height="98"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>) |
|
|
dukebgVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 17
Posts: 242
ID: 950482
Credit: 23,670,125
RAC: 0
|
My TR1950x OC to 3.7GHZ is taking 30 days for a test that the client says should take two days. I was assuming this was a guess by the client (since the PPSeive times are also always wrong). But I see two intel chips with basically the same integer and floating numbers actually doing the tests in two days in the above workunit.
They are multithreading, i.e. running the same workunit on multiple cores, while you're running a separate unit on every core at the same time. You probably have a lot of progress on every of ~32 units running in parallel by the time one of them finishes. Eventually you'll finish all 32 units and if you'll divide the total time you'll see that you have about the same throughput.
About the same, except worse. Running multithreading gives a better throuhgput.
See Luigi R.'s post above mine for what you should have in your app_config for setting up multithreading. Or more instructions for example, in first post here, under Multi-threading optimisation instructions. |
|
|
|
|
The other two hosts have multithreading enabled.
You need something like this:
<app_config>
<app>
<name>llrSOB</name>
<fraction_done_exact/>
<report_results_immediately/>
</app>
<app_version>
<app_name>llrSOB</app_name>
<cmdline>-t 32</cmdline>
<avg_ncpus>32</avg_ncpus>
</app_version>
</app_config>
I'll try this. I don't exactly know what you mean by the "other two hosts". This is a single machine with a single TR1950x and a single GTX1080 (no VMs either). Will this fix BOINC displaying that LLR shows as running for 14+ days (in the tasks tab) before completing, but that also show as 30 days in the workunit URL I posted? |
|
|
|
|
I'll try this. I don't exactly know what you mean by the "other two hosts".
I meant your wingmen, the 'two intel chips'.
This is a single machine with a single TR1950x and a single GTX1080 (no VMs either). Will this fix BOINC displaying that LLR shows as running for 14+ days (in the tasks tab) before completing, but that also show as 30 days in the workunit URL I posted?
Workunit page shows both of them.
Your machine downloaded that task on December 29th and reported it 30 days later. There is nothing wrong, unless the task has been sitting for 14 days as completed before being reported. You should reduce your BOINC queue if you want your work to be processed immediately after the download.
Your runtime is 1,392,480.87 seconds, i.e. 16days 2hours 48minutes.
____________
My DC mathematical side :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have? |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have?
It's better to think in terms of candidates (workunits) rather than tasks for this sort of question.
At this moment, there are 223 candidates still in progress in the 31M range. There's 12185 completed candidates, one of which is prime.
In the 32M range, there's 1405 candidates in progress and 8329 as yet unstarted candidates. 1546 are done.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, the double check is completed, but this task is still unfinished:
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=621076596
It has n = 243724568
Is it okay? |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, the double check is completed, but this task is still unfinished:
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=621076596
It has n = 243724568
Is it okay?
No, it is not completed. It is currently the "Min remaining n" on https://www.primegrid.com/server_status_subprojects.php, and the n is not what you say. As the oldest SOB work unit, it is visible even to people who did not process a task from it, even if it is still unfinished. In the name llrSOB_243724568, the last part has nothing to do with the n.
A new task was sent out just 10 hours ago. Addition: The computer that got the task now seems to have way too many tasks, so it could still take a long time before the work unit is complete :-(
The work unit will be OK once two tasks are "completed" and agree on the residue (result).
/JeppeSN |
|
|
Ravi FernandoProject administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 19
Posts: 211
ID: 1108183
Credit: 14,347,624
RAC: 4,635
|
It is interesting, the double check is completed, but this task is still unfinished:
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=621076596
It has n = 243724568
Is it okay?
As JeppeSN pointed out, that's not the n value. In fact this is currently the minimum remaining n as well as the oldest unfinished WU, so you can see here that it is for n = 31,811,338--a few hundred thousand past where the double-check ended. Note that the number 243,724,568 appearing in the WU's name is much larger than the n's we're testing. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
It is interesting, the double check is completed, but this task is still unfinished:
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=621076596
It has n = 243724568
Is it okay?
The double check is indeed complete, and all candidates below 31.8 million are done.
That number you're quoting is an index into a database table. It's not "n".
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=621076596
Looks like JimB gave himself an additional task for that candidate now and confirmed (validated) Pavel Atnashev's result from August. One of the timed out tasks woke up (trickled) and is alive, so there are theoretically two more people who can gain credit if they confirm the result of Pavel and Jim. /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have? |
|
|
streamVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 14
Posts: 1049
ID: 301928
Credit: 563,858,640
RAC: 11,978
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have?
Only 2.
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have?
Only 2.
Only 1 left ) |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have?
Only 2.
Only 1 left )
Still 1. Was looking thru each subproject's range when I noticed this one ;)
____________
My lucky number is 6219*2^3374198+1
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, how many 31M tasks still we have?
Only 2.
Only 1 left )
Still 1. Was looking thru each subproject's range when I noticed this one ;)
Yes. That is, on /server_status_subprojects.php, you can see "Min remaining n". That links to a WU that is actually "unlocked" so that anyone can see it even though it is unfinished. Right now that is llrSOB_243729026 (wuid=622163821). Two people (Pavel Atnashev (2 Sep 2019) and Malcolm Beeson (11 Dec 2019)) have returned residues, but they do not match, so one of them must be invalid. The task is currently with msct256 where the deadline will be reached in 4.5 days unless msct256's computer sends "trickles" to extend the deadline.
Everything is working as expected.
The WU currently has 10 tasks of which 2 (as mentioned) have led to a (maybe wrong) result. The maximum is 15 resp. 5.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
JimBHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 4 Aug 11
Posts: 920
ID: 107307
Credit: 989,290,184
RAC: 192
|
The WU currently has 10 tasks of which 2 (as mentioned) have led to a (maybe wrong) result. The maximum is 15 resp. 5.
Except that if it hits 15 it will be changed to some much higher number, I believe 99.
|
|
|
|
|
The WU currently has 10 tasks of which 2 (as mentioned) have led to a (maybe wrong) result. The maximum is 15 resp. 5.
Except that if it hits 15 it will be changed to some much higher number, I believe 99.
Yes, I do not know what else we could do. I thought the limit of 15 was meant to catch situations where something is wrong (like a WU that is impossible for any user to do, because of some subtle error somewhere). When nothing is wrong, and the WU is just "unlucky" with the hosts it gets sent to, there is nothing else we can do but to keep sending it forever. /JeppeSN |
|
|
Chooka
Send message
Joined: 15 May 18
Posts: 331
ID: 1014486
Credit: 1,200,518,174
RAC: 3,620,403
|
|
I actually just messaged Pavel Atnashev. I'm curious to know how his 2600K & even his Q9400 finish SoB w/u's in LESS than half the time of my 4770 & 1790 CPU's! It's amazing...and I've no idea how it's possible.
I'm running mt (4 cores) and 1 w/u at a time...but less than HALF the time to finish a SOB!
I thought it might be the power of Linux but he's using Win7.
http://www.primegrid.com/results.php?hostid=905514&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=13
____________
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="320" height="297"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="847" height="110"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Слава Україні! |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
I actually just messaged Pavel Atnashev. I'm curious to know how his 2600K & even his Q9400 finish SoB w/u's in LESS than half the time of my 4770 & 1790 CPU's! It's amazing...and I've no idea how it's possible.
Those computers are running BOINC, but they're not running the calculations. They're just gateways to the real computers.
Behind each gateway is a bunch of servers that do the actual computations. To PrimeGrid's server it may look like a ancient Core2Quad, but it's actually a stack of Xeon servers with hundreds of modern cores.
Also, he picked the Xeon CPUs very carefully so that the CPUs cache is large enough to hold the entire computation, thus avoiding the need to access the much slower main memory. This gives it a huge advantage over your Haswell.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Chooka
Send message
Joined: 15 May 18
Posts: 331
ID: 1014486
Credit: 1,200,518,174
RAC: 3,620,403
|
|
Ohhhhhhhh right. Wow... I've never heard of that being done before!
Gee...so I could look at anyone's stats but the PC i see may not ACTUALLY be what's crunching.
Wow. There you go.
Thank you Michael. I can now rest easy :D
____________
Слава Україні! |
|
|
Nick
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 11
Posts: 2300
ID: 105020
Credit: 9,448,682,004
RAC: 11,393,567
|
so I could look at anyone's stats but the PC i see may not ACTUALLY be what's crunching.
It's only Pavel's computers that are set up this way.
The times for SOB that I get on my two 99xx-X computers are usually around 36,000 sec running one SOB at a time with most cores and 4 cores for GPU, etc. Very occasionally the times are about 55,000 sec which I guess is due to the fastest cores being assigned to the GPU tasks - and happening due to poor timing of new SOB task and new GPU task. I noticed this happen on only one computer and when it happened it would take some tasks before it would return to the quicker time. |
|
|
|
|
so I could look at anyone's stats but the PC i see may not ACTUALLY be what's crunching.
Absolutely yes. There are other ways to fake what we see on the stat pages too. But I am not sure if any others are doing it at this time. Perhaps there are others doing it with other projects. No way to easily tell.
____________
Reno, NV
|
|
|
Chooka
Send message
Joined: 15 May 18
Posts: 331
ID: 1014486
Credit: 1,200,518,174
RAC: 3,620,403
|
so I could look at anyone's stats but the PC i see may not ACTUALLY be what's crunching.
It's only Pavel's computers that are set up this way.
The times for SOB that I get on my two 99xx-X computers are usually around 36,000 sec running one SOB at a time with most cores and 4 cores for GPU, etc. Very occasionally the times are about 55,000 sec which I guess is due to the fastest cores being assigned to the GPU tasks - and happening due to poor timing of new SOB task and new GPU task. I noticed this happen on only one computer and when it happened it would take some tasks before it would return to the quicker time.
So you must be chasing 1st over throughput then right Nick?
I would have thought running 14-18 cores / 1 task won't be best for throughput?
I think with my Threadripper, I was planned on doing 2 tasks across 16 cores and see how that goes.
____________
Слава Україні! |
|
|
Nick
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 11
Posts: 2300
ID: 105020
Credit: 9,448,682,004
RAC: 11,393,567
|
So you must be chasing 1st over throughput then right Nick?
I would have thought running 14-18 cores / 1 task won't be best for throughput?
I think with my Threadripper, I was planned on doing 2 tasks across 16 cores and see how that goes.
I go entirely by FFT size and amount of L2 + L3 cache for my 99xx-X computers - If I ran two SOB tasks it would go beyond cache into RAM. I do not use my 9900K for SOB as it only has 16 Mb L3 cache.
Right now I am running 321:
9900K - 2 x 3 core tasks (2 cores for GPU) - 8.6 tasks / day
99660X - 5 x 3 core tasks (1 core for GPU) - 20.8 tasks / day
9980XE - 4 x 4 core tasks (2 cores for GPU) - 21.7 tasks / day |
|
|
|
|
I think with my Threadripper, I was planned on doing 2 tasks across 16 cores and see how that goes.
The best strategy for Zen2 Threadripper is to keep each MT task within each chiplet. For zen2, that is at most 8. Greater than 8, then the tasks have to swap cache over the bridge, which slows things down. You may get better total performance running two 4-thread tasks vs. one 8-thread task depending on the sub-project. But going over 8 will slow things down. This is with SMT (hyper-thread) turned off.
More info in this thread: http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9063&nowrap=true#139603
____________
Reno, NV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally the last 31M task is done!
____________
|
|
|
Nick
Send message
Joined: 11 Jul 11
Posts: 2300
ID: 105020
Credit: 9,448,682,004
RAC: 11,393,567
|
|
Hi Chooka,
I just want to add that when I was doing SOB recently I noticed on one of my work units, a W Zeon computer with 28 cores that looked like it was running 2 HT threads per SOB task with times of 1.6 million seconds. If the CPU was entirely running SOB, then I worked out that per physical core, it was managing twice the work than my 99xx-X computers. I understand that this W Zeon CPU is very similar to 99xx-X except it has 6 channel memory instead of 4 channel (and different number of cores). So I may be chasing firsts above quantity but also I think it would be very boring to wait 1.6 million seconds to find out if it is worth trying, or trying something in between.
On most LLR, and with my 3 computers, I am usually able to achieve a million credit in 3 days or better depending on bonuses by using FFT size times 8 to fit in cache. L3 for 9900K and L2 + L3 for 99xx-X
Cheers,
Nick
Edit: I am now doubting that the W CPU was out performing my Xs - I don't know - I no longer have that workunit in my list of tasks to see how I came up with that number.
1,600,000 / 36,000 ~ 44 tasks while it was doing 28? |
|
|
|
|
Finally the last 31M task is done!
Yes, if you follow the second link I had in my Message 140765 above, you see that Rytis took a taks from that WU and completed it. Its result matched one of the two existing results. User msct256 still has his task and can still get full credit if he finishes correctly. /JeppeSN |
|
|
Chooka
Send message
Joined: 15 May 18
Posts: 331
ID: 1014486
Credit: 1,200,518,174
RAC: 3,620,403
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to reply guys! I appreciate it :)
____________
Слава Україні! |
|
|
|
|
|
What happened with that 32M task?
____________
|
|
|
streamVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 14
Posts: 1049
ID: 301928
Credit: 563,858,640
RAC: 11,978
|
What happened with that 32M task?
You mean last unfinished task? Somebody crunching it since September, the host is alive and reporting but his last report was only 2% completed... The final deadline is February 06, hopefully next person will be faster.
|
|
|
|
|
What happened with that 32M task?
You mean last unfinished task? Somebody crunching it since September, the host is alive and reporting but his last report was only 2% completed... The final deadline is February 06, hopefully next person will be faster.
Maybe someone with powerful computer will take that last 32M task
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=659680632 |
|
|
|
|
What happened with that 32M task?
You mean last unfinished task? Somebody crunching it since September, the host is alive and reporting but his last report was only 2% completed... The final deadline is February 06, hopefully next person will be faster.
Maybe someone with powerful computer will take that last 32M task
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=659680632
i5-9500T with only 4k credit.. I'd not count on it.
____________
My lucky number is 6219*2^3374198+1
|
|
|
streamVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 14
Posts: 1049
ID: 301928
Credit: 563,858,640
RAC: 11,978
|
Maybe someone with powerful computer will take that last 32M task
http://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=659680632
That host had a quite stable progress but disappeared from radars on 19th, having 68% completed and about 10 days left to finish the task.
If it doesn't report back until 26th, the task will be sent to somebody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recently a post was written in main page of GIMPS project:
https://www.mersenne.org/
The title of it is:
BIG Changes Are Here! Prime95 version 30.3 released
They say that now it is no need in double checking for them.
This feature was duscivered by Krzysztof Pietrzak.
Maybe the same approach can be applied to Seventeen or Bust as well? |
|
|
|
|
Recently a post was written in main page of GIMPS project:
https://www.mersenne.org/
The title of it is:
BIG Changes Are Here! Prime95 version 30.3 released
They say that now it is no need in double checking for them.
This feature was duscivered by Krzysztof Pietrzak.
Maybe the same approach can be applied to Seventeen or Bust as well?
The post mentions Pavel, so I assume it is a version of what we are already doing for SoB applied to GIMPs.
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, these new times have been here at PrimeGrid for a while, when it comes to CPU tasks for larger primes (which includes Seventeen or Bust). See the thread LLR2 installed on all big LLR projects.
For an overview, also check the front page where the mark F in the App Types column indicates that Fast proof tasks are used (which means no double checker, only a separate and very short certificate validation task).
/JeppeSN |
|
|
dukebgVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 17
Posts: 242
ID: 950482
Credit: 23,670,125
RAC: 0
|
|
I'm a bit surprised the GIMPS news item has only appeared now. It was implemented there in fall last year already (see the dates for the last assignments here for an example). I guess the most important point of writing about this in the news was to prompt users to update to the new version because the old one will no longer be used for first time tests from some point.
But yeah, all of this started by Pavel on PrimeGrid developing a general certification scheme, then Preda (mentioned in the news) from GIMPS forums suggested the Pietrzak's function, Pavel (together with stream and other PG admins) deployed the final implementation here (called LLR2), George was working on implementing it in GIMPS and Pavel helped there by described the scheme, what nuances and pitfalls there are (in regards to preventing cheating, etc). And then it was out in GIMPS too. |
|
|
robishVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 12
Posts: 2222
ID: 126266
Credit: 7,813,212,970
RAC: 3,532,797
|
I'm a bit surprised the GIMPS news item has only appeared now. It was implemented there in fall last year already (see the dates for the last assignments here for an example). I guess the most important point of writing about this in the news was to prompt users to update to the new version because the old one will no longer be used for first time tests from some point.
But yeah, all of this started by Pavel on PrimeGrid developing a general certification scheme, then Preda (mentioned in the news) from GIMPS forums suggested the Pietrzak's function, Pavel (together with stream and other PG admins) deployed the final implementation here (called LLR2), George was working on implementing it in GIMPS and Pavel helped there by described the scheme, what nuances and pitfalls there are (in regards to preventing cheating, etc). And then it was out in GIMPS too.
Well that's kinda cool! Happy to be in the midst of it all :D as a spectator ;)
____________
My lucky number 10590941048576+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting, why Waiting tasks are always 1 487 and In progress tasks are slowly decreased and now 1 418 in SoB project. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can anybody write FFT table?
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
Can anybody write FFT table?
There are two FFT sizes currently being used by SoB:
3200K
3456K
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
robishVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 12
Posts: 2222
ID: 126266
Credit: 7,813,212,970
RAC: 3,532,797
|
|
I've unfortunately had a machine die that was running a SOB
https://www.primegrid.com/result.php?resultid=1316606873
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=751014300
It's unlikely that I'll get the machine fixed before the expiry so if you want to manually abort it that's ok.
____________
My lucky number 10590941048576+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
And what is the next FFT size?
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 14014
ID: 53948
Credit: 468,507,646
RAC: 683,945
|
And what is the next FFT size?
We won't know that until we load them.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like the next range is 3840K skipping the 3584K.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, looked at some old hard drives from around 2000ish, and they have Louis' client from my older computers.
I know this is a stupid question, but is there any math at all to predict when the next SOB might hit?
It was so much fun back in 2000ish when we'd get a hit once or twice a year.
I don't even want to know the power bill for all the computers I've had SOB/BOINC running on (sigh)
Maybe BOINC can give everyone a 20 year badge :) |
|
|
|
|
|
The math says "any moment with a very very low probability". |
|
|
![Report as offensive](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="9" height="9"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg> "Report this post as offensive"){kind=small}
