you can now do double checks with normal accounts

[kugano]

Due to extreme popular demand I've now made it possible to do second-pass tests using a normal user account. So you can get personal user and team credit for your rusting old crunch buckets.

All you have to do is set your username to "usernameQQQsecondpass". Replace username with... your username, of course. In Linux, this is as simple as editing sclient.conf. On Windows it's a bit trickier. The problem is that, unfortunately, there's a length limit on the username field in the GUI. So you'll have to edit the registry manually and change your username there.

Note that the 'QQQ' delimiter is case sensitive. Make sure you enter it right. Normal username, followed by three capital Q's, followed by "secondpass".

Please don't try this unless you know what you're doing. If you mess up the registry and kill your Windows box, it's not our fault!

[kugano]

Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!

[Mystwalker]

Thanks a lot, Dave! :cheers:

I guess DC tests will skyrocket in the next days. ;)

[vjs]

Thanks big grin from ear to ear.

Go to your resistry in windows

start --> Run type regedit you wil get a registry screen be carefull here, only changes those values relevant to Sb.

Now navigate to the following folder

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE-->SOFTWARE-->LhDn-->sob-->

--------------------

You want to modify the "keyword" that shows your username mine is vjs so simply change your user name to the following.

vjsQQQsecondpass

[MikeH]

Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences! Great job Dave. Quick and dirty is all that's required right now, and experience shows that sometimes they turn out to be the best. :D

[olaright]

Thanks for this kugano!! :cheers:

I am sorry to ask, but with this change, can you tell me which
test exactly are a assigned to supersecret, secret and garbage? I figure these accounts wont get any second pass tests? Is that correct?

with kind regards,

Ola

[Nuri]

I guess they will still be able to get those tests as before. But probably everybody currently using secret and supersecret now will prefer switching to their usenameQQQsecondpass stuff, thus not much work being done by secret / supersecret anymore.. :D

[Sceptic]

Just curious:

Let's say that I have configured the service handler to run 4 clients.
Now, if I change my username to 'xxxxxxQQQsecondpass', would all 4 clients run double checks, or is it a way to configure them to do 2 normal and 2 dc?

If there is any need for it, I can add options to run 'secret', 'supersecret', 'garbage' or 'usernameQQQsecondpass" in my registry-changer tool.

Sceptic

[Nuri]

As far as the need is concerned, I do not think there is really much need for significant computing power there. The power coming from the users who are specifically willing to contribute to DC will probably suffice. Still, if one or more of your machines are significantly slow, I think you might consider running that one as second pass cruncher.

How to configure the service handler for that? Sorry, no idea. :(

[vjs]

We will just have to see what happens, I'm most interested in having people on my team still using P3-500's to prp switching to doublechecks permanently.

Major reason, if that P3 has a k/n pair which is prime... how much longer does it take for that computer to finish it or until it's reassigned to garbage etc? 1 month, etc. During that 1 month 1/10th of the work being done by the total project is sort of wasted due to unnessary k tests... This was my major concern before since we were close to a prime at the time of the gauntlet.

I like the idea of raising the double check floor and determining an actual error rate.

Hopefully once the dust settles we can determine the most efficient double check n compared to main effort. I'm still very curious about the 3M area, I'd both love and hate to find a prime there.

Another thing to consider is by slowing down the advance of the main effort, some time is actually regained by non-prping k/n's eliminated by the sieved and p-1'ed efforts.

[Booj]

Because I'll forget about when I need to switch (and other people might like to know this in the near future).

:bouncy:

[zwilnik]

Originally posted by kugano
Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!

That must have been a really, really, "damn dirty hack" to have to use such a long clunky username. Like "usernameQQQsecondpass" instead of a simpler "usernameQ2P". Thanks for finding a way to make it work.

It is nice having a DC that the owners don't ignore you, like so many of the others do. Keep up the good work! :drums:

[wirthi]

Originally posted by zwilnik
That must have been a really, really, "damn dirty hack" to have to use such a long clunky username. Like "usernameQQQsecondpass" instead of a simpler "usernameQ2P". Thanks for finding a way to make it work.

It is nice having a DC that the owners don't ignore you, like so many of the others do. Keep up the good work! :drums:
Well, it's too likely that someone has a username in the shortform. What if a Mr. "HQ2P" signed up (whatever that could mean) - he could be mistaken as the user "H" who wants to do double checks (if such a user existed). The longer the added phase, the smaller the change gets that such a thing will happen.

You only have to input that username once (for each computer). Guess it was more work to write that message ;)

[zwilnik]

Originally posted by wirthi
Well, it's too likely that someone has a username in the shortform. What if a Mr. "HQ2P" signed up (whatever that could mean) - he could be mistaken as the user "H" who wants to do double checks (if such a user existed). The longer the added phase, the smaller the change gets that such a thing will happen.

You only have to input that username once (for each computer). Guess it was more work to write that message ;)

No, I bet I am right. Just because the change sounds simple, doesn't make it true. I think to change the code; the long username was required. Otherwise it would have been done long before now. It was just the fastest, easiest way to get it working without risking breaking it. :bang:

[kugano]

Actually the code change was pretty trivial (about ten minutes of work and an extra ~20 lines of Java code on the server). The "length" was both to reduce the risk of a conflict with a real username and also to allow extensibility in the future.

The server will actually accept any username of the form usernameQQQdirectiveQQQdirectiveQQQdirective... the code to parse this and keep track of all the "directives" is already written. It's just that, right now, the only direcive that has any meaning at all is "secondpass." So the "hack" is kind of a poor man's way of allowing arbitrary information / preferences to be passed in via the username field.

[vjs]

Question about editing registry etc.

BTW nice format for QQQdirective looks like it could be easily implemted in Verion3, check this box and QQQdirective added to username. I wouldn't say it's that dirty I actually think its neat.

Here is the Scenario,

A user is half way through their test, and they decide to start doublechecking with their slow machine. Rather than waiting for the current test to end they simply edit the username "usernameQQQsecondapss" and restart the old n=7+M test.
They should pick-up a secondpasstest for their next k/n pair, correct!?!

The old block will continue processing from where it left off but will it lead to problems for that test...

I know the server will not assign credit if the block is transfered between user names not assigned etc. But since this is really just a tag, and the username doesn't change... will there be any problem you can think of... user losing credit, result being ignored, the m=7+M test being considered a double-check, etc.

Thanks in advance...

[kugano]

BTW nice format for QQQdirective looks like it could be easily implemted in Verion3, check this box and QQQdirective added to username. I wouldn't say it's that dirty I actually think its neat.
Nooo!!! It may be clever, but it's dirty and evil and must not be kept in version 3. The proper way to do this to have an entirely separate mechanism which the client can use to send "drectives" to the server. There is no excuse for piling this stuff onto the username field in a well-designed system.


I know the server will not assign credit if the block is transfered between user names not assigned etc. But since this is really just a tag, and the username doesn't change... will there be any problem you can think of... user losing credit, result being ignored, the m=7+M test being considered a double-check, etc.
No, there's no problem. As far as the server is concerned, "someoneQQQsecondpass" and "someone" are the exact same user in every way. One is expressing a preference for second-pass tests and the other is not. Your scenario is correct -- if you tack on "QQQsecondpass" in the middle of a test, the current test will finish normally (no stats will be lost) and the next test retrieved will be a double check.

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by kugano
Your scenario is correct -- if you tack on "QQQsecondpass" in the middle of a test, the current test will finish normally (no stats will be lost) and the next test retrieved will be a double check.

In case one doesn't empty the cache during the name change, that is. ;)

[Death]

I use supersecretQQQsecondpass as username...

[vjs]

Originally posted by Mystwalker
In case one doesn't empty the cache during the name change, that is. ;)

Actually I think it was brought up (for windozes only) that you can't change your username to usernameQQQsecondpass using the client window. I havn't verified this but I'm pretty sure it's a registry only "hack".

[MikeH]

Is there an artificially shorted server timeout on these double check tests?

I remember something like a 24-hour timeout being applied some time ago, but that was when n was very low. I suspect this is still in place, since I have a slow PC that was turned off for a day or so, and the test disappeared from my pending test list.

I suspect that such a quick timeout doesn't make sense any more, especially since we are trying to encourage 'old rust buckets' to come on board.

[kugano]

Yeah, the timeout is still set at 24 hours for n < 3,000,000 and 30 days for n >= 3,000,000. You're probably right, 24 hours seems too short. I'll check with Louie and maybe raise it to something like a week. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Mystwalker]

Originally posted by vjs
Actually I think it was brought up (for windozes only) that you can't change your username to usernameQQQsecondpass using the client window. I havn't verified this but I'm pretty sure it's a registry only "hack".

Ah, you're right!
I forgot about this (after having changed the name via registry...). :bang:

Thanks for pointing out!

[zwilnik]

Originally posted by kugano
Yeah, the timeout is still set at 24 hours for n < 3,000,000 and 30 days for n >= 3,000,000. You're probably right, 24 hours seems too short. I'll check with Louie and maybe raise it to something like a week. Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, that is very short. I am surprised your cutoff point is so high, 3000000, around that point even middle of the road PCs could not be able to finish a Wu in a day.

[vjs]

You also may investigate changing the time out for the first pass que once an error rate has been determined.

On your large color graph it looks like alot of tests are reassigned after 30 days but it's difficult to tell how many... I suppose you've already looked at how many tests correctly finish after 30days and have already based the 30 days accordingly.

I suppose queing programs are not helping this issue.

[Joe O]

Originally posted by zwilnik
Yes, that is very short. I am surprised your cutoff point is so high, 3000000, around that point even middle of the road PCs could not be able to finish a Wu in a day.
AFAIK they don't have to finish the test before the timeout, just report in with an intermediate block.

[allio]

What sort of n value should these double check tests have?

allio@zinger:~/sob $ ./sb
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] client process [v2.3.0] invoked
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] priority set to idle
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] connecting to server
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] logging into server
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] requesting a block
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] got proth test from server (k=10223, n=7984709)
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] server packet cached to disk
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] Intel Pentium II or Pentium II Xeon processor detected. Enabling cpu specific optimizations.

Am I crazy or is that a normal test? My username is set to exactly 'allioQQQsecondpass'.

EDIT: I'm stupid, I was editing the conf in the directory instead of /etc. All working fine now :p

[Mystwalker]

second-pass 95065 1280311 4999946 157 +-5367

Do dropped DC tests now get into the second-pass queue again?
Or is there another reason for this?

[kugano]

Yes, they do. Dropped tests are now returned to the queue they came from rather than "dropped-tests."

[Keller]

Huh ?
I am using my standard nick (Bier) and I got a n value of 1296298


[Thu Jan 20 22:32:42 2005] connecting to server
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:43 2005] logging into server
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:43 2005] requesting a block
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:44 2005] got proth test from server (k=55459, n=1296298)

My mistake or servers mistake ? ;)

[kugano]

Probably a doubly-dropped test. The first drop would have set the source queue name to "dropped-tests." With the second drop, the new script would've put it right back into that queue.

[pixl97]

Hmm, the QQQsecondpass test are no longer showing up under pending test management for me at least, I noticed this after my work rate went from 5cems to around 1cems.

http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/users/user.mhtml?userID=5584

does QQQsecondpass no longer count the score towards my username?

pixl97

[kugano]

Nothing has changed. I show you having three first-pass tests, one second-pass test and one v2-retest checked out. You must be missing something?

[pixl97]

It showing correct now, but from what you saw totaled 5 tests, I currently have 8 tests running. 4 Second Pass and 4 First pass tests as I write this. Three of the second pass tests were not showing up at the time I wrote the first message.

[kugano]

I think you must be missing something. Seven of your eight pending tests were only assigned this morning, so they couldn't possibly have been "missing" yesterday. And I checked the server assignment logs (stored outside the database) -- nothing is missing from the database and nothing was missing yesterday.

Are you really positive you had 8 tests checked out yesterday? I bet a few of your clients weren't working, or maybe they were doing tests as "secret" or something rather than under your own username.

[MikeH]

I know I said this before, but there is definitely something wrong with the second pass n increase here (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/). This is the increase in n min in the last 24 hours? Right?


7:29 am EST, 30 Jan. 2005
second-pass 92241 1372893 4999946 239 +74421

For this +74421 to be correct, n min would have to have been 1298472 24 hours ago. My logs show it was at that sort of level on the 20th of Jan, so a little more than 24 hours ago :confused:

[Mystwalker]

Dropped DC tests now go into the second-pass queue again, so an increase of >30K is indeed possible. One can argue if the semantic of the "n increase" of this queue is a decend information, though...

[tqft]

Double check running - well crawling.

After having thoroughly borked my system I have finally got it working.

It is a bit odd looking at such a small test.

PS: any word on v3 ?

[pixl97]

second pass has overcome residue-recovery, is there a way to directly address that account, or will it get assigned to second pass clients automaticly?

pixl

[vjs]

It's either username holepatch or lowk I cant remember

[chris]

Should be holepatch

http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=8299

3rd post from the bottom up

BTW: In the Secret Statistics, there is an Overall Min n = 1028727 which is stuck for quite some time. What kind of number is it?

I guess it is an unfinished test from secondpass which did not make it back into the queue. If so, it would be nice if it would be put back into the queue so that we can see the Overall Min n grow as residue-recovery or secondpass makes progress (whichever is lower).

[vjs]

Secret Statistics?
there is an Overall Min n = 1028727 ?

Where do you see this???

[hhh]

In the 'Overall' line at the bottom.
I can see it, too.

[chris]

Hi vjs,

i see it here: http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/

Secret Statistics
Server's Assignment Queues 9 minutes old Last 24 Hours
Queue Name # Tests Min n Max n # Done n Increase
dropped-tests 5 7906988 13467677 61 +2433682
error-fix 551 3010186 7807623 0 +435963
first-pass 47792 8195026 9999967 181 +8712
garbage 1375 4207586 7594989 0 n/a
global 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a
largest-prime 14182 13467751 13999982 0 n/a
missing-test 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a
(not queued) n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a
residue-recovery 2480 1415472 2999769 0 n/a
second-pass 90875 1418937 4999946 248 +64194
Overall 163866 1028727 13999982 494 +-326016

Look closer:

Overall 163866 1028727 13999982 494 +-326016

Look even closer: 1028727

[MikeH]

Because of the great efforts of everyone that's double checking, we have now moved to a position where DC is running slightly faster than the main PRP effort.

This can be seen here (http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/scores_p.htm) in this line


: < 241( -273)>< 148( -115)> < 222( -5 )>< 67( -43)> < 19 1> To be more exact, over the last 14 days, the number of non-factored tests between the main and DC PRP waves has been decreasing at a rate of 5 per day. :)

[Keroberts1]

so sometim in the next 100 years the DC should be at an optimal point :D

[Joe O]

MikeH,
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Or it is not reflected on this page. (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/)

The gap between first-pass min n and second-pass min n has been increasing from 6743834 on January 22, 2005 to 6787178 just now. This is a 4334 increase.

At the current rate of tests done in 24 hours, first-pass will reach 10 million in 226 days. At that time second-pass will have 39240 tests (183 days) left to reach 5 million.
We definitely should have second-pass reach 5 million when first-pass reaches 10 million. This is not happening.
In fact some people think that second pass should be close to 5 million now, and at least at 6 million when first pass reaches 10 million. This definitely is not happening.
We need more effort on second-pass.

[Joh14vers6]

Originally posted by Joe O
MikeH,
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Or it is not reflected on this page. (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/)

The gap between first-pass min n and second-pass min n has been increasing from 6743834 on January 22, 2005 to 6787178 just now. This is a 4334 increase.

At the current rate of tests done in 24 hours, first-pass will reach 10 million in 226 days. At that time second-pass will have 39240 tests (183 days) left to reach 5 million.
We definitely should have second-pass reach 5 million when first-pass reaches 10 million. This is not happening.
In fact some people think that second pass should be close to 5 million now, and at least at 6 million when first pass reaches 10 million. This definitely is not happening.
We need more effort on second-pass.

Sorry. :blush:

Done. :spank:

[MikeH]

The gap between first-pass min n and second-pass min n has been increasing from 6743834 on January 22, 2005 to 6787178 just now. This is a 4334 increase. However, at the same time we continue to find factors for candidates in that zone. What I was eluding to was the net effort of moving PRP edges and factor finds. That -5 (it's 0 now) indicates that the number of candidates without a factor between the main and PRP edges is coming down (or at least is now static).

I agree that the edges are still moving apart, but that wasn't exactly what I said :D

In any case Joe, I agree that DC needs more effort. If main and DC resources remain the same, the gap will gap grow ever quicker, since for a given increase of n the tests become proportionately more difficult for smaller n (but then you already know that).
:cheers:

Edit: It's +4 now, so even by my rather dubious measure, numbers are increasing again...:rolleyes:

[vjs]

Perhaps it was that big dump of low n factors from double-check sieve was somehow upsetting the average????

[Death]

what happened when I use username QQQsecondpass?

I don't want to give it a try before admins says something.

and i'm doing my sieving right now... =))

[Keroberts1]

Kugano- the starter of this thread is one of the cheif people behind this project. Take his word for anything he says.

[MikeH]

Edit: It's +4 now, so even by my rather dubious measure, numbers are increasing again... And now, thanks to Joe's major sieving efforts it's back out to -41. :) :cheers:

But I guess in 14 days time that number will be positive again (particularly since DC is affected more by DNS/server issues, since the client is more likely to run out of work more quickly) :rolleyes:

[Death]

Originally posted by Keroberts1
Kugano- the starter of this thread is one of the cheif people behind this project. Take his word for anything he says.

my hands itch......

[vjs]

Mike,

In 14 days I'll have another massive dump, hopefully there will be more missed factors 1.5M<n<20M...

We will see

[Death]

please, satisfy my curiosity......


what happened if i try username QQQsecondpass. :Pokes:

or I'll try it at Moday. :cool:

[Keroberts1]

its a syste mdesigned and implemented by the amdins from server side alterations that results in users being assigned second pass test (tests areound 1.5 million N). However insteae of how it was in the past you will recieve credit for the tests complete and as has been recently stated you'll actually have a bette rchance of finding a prime here for the time being( not a record setting prime or even one of the top ten). This does however benefit the project in several ways, first it eliminates the chance of a missed prime, it helps determine the error rate of the tests that have been done which is used ot determine an opytimal level for the DC phase, it spreeds up the sieve, and if it finds a missed prime will offer he project a rapid boost in speed and it progresses through n values.

its safe aqnd effective. I do it some but am mostly a siever. for slow machines it is ideal because they can finish test ever day inst4ead if hikding a single current level test for months. (remember a test held for months that turns out ot be prime would result in vast amounts of resources being wasted on tests being assigned for that N value whe na faster compurter could have found the prime in days instead of months.)

[Death]

no single reply.

ok, here I go....

username = QQQsecondpass

[Keroberts1]

are you talking about adding qqqsecondpassafter your user name or simply using qqqsecondpass as your user name because i don't know what will happen if you do that. but adding QQQsecondpass to the end of your regular user name (you'll ave ot edit the registry to do this) you'll be assigned and get credit for second pass tests.

[Nuri]

Hmmm. I dunno what will happen, but my logic suggests whatever that is going to be will be the secondpass version of what would have happened if you were to use blank username, i.e. username =

[MikeH]

In 14 days I'll have another massive dump, hopefully there will be more missed factors 1.5M<n<20M... Looks like the effect of the previous lot has gone now.

Main PRP is pulling away from DC PRP at a rate of 49 tests per day. :(

[vjs]

I can pretty much answer this question:

adding QQQsecondpass to any user name asks the server to for go the normal que assignment and get secondpass tests in that users name.


IF you used user name secret and added qqqsecondpass...

Nothing would happen you would still only get second pass tests nothing special.

Since secret is an account that is designed to pull from secondpass que by default you would basically be asking.

Hey I don't want what would normally be assigned to my account (for secret this would be secondpass) but instead give me second pass tests.

Basically for secret you don't need to add QQQ secondpass.


2.

Now if you used blank i.e. nothing... as a username followed by QQQsecondpass.

You would get the same result as having no user name. The client or server would ask for a username. If it gave you a test it would probably be assigned to the the anaomous account.

[jaat]

Originally posted by MikeH
Looks like the effect of the previous lot has gone now.

Main PRP is pulling away from DC PRP at a rate of 49 tests per day. :(


I am not too sure whether this is the good enough reason but doing double check does not "pay off" in terms of points although it might in terms of primes. The cEMs are way too low for anybody with a competitive intent to go for DC PRP.

Also, it seems that lot of people still think that prob of finding a prime by DC is way way low than in the Main PRP. I saw a lot of figures in some posts analyzing the rate of error of PRP but couldn't conclude anything. Can somebody who crunched those numbers post the results in the following manner (if possible, i know it would need to be taken with a pinch of salt but still..)

A= Prob of Main PRP at 8.5m being a prime /Time taken for Main PRP at 8.5m
B=Prob of DC 1.5 m PRP being a prime /Time taken for DC PRP at 1.5m

One can think of A and B as estimates to number of expected primes found in unit time in main and DC prp.

If people see that the estimates of A are more than B(say 5 times) then
they will start shifting to B, if they are nearly same(within a factor of, say, 1.5)
then i dont think there should be worry that DC is lagging behind.

But, i still think that cEM resolution could be quick relief solution till good estimates to error rates and other such things are obtained.

Jaat

[vjs]

Jaat,

This has been done and discussed already so I'll jump straight to the conclusions.

When firstpass prp was n=8M secondpass prp was at roughtly n=1.2M.

At that time it was thought that lowest justifiable double check minimum should be at a n=2.5M so that mean any n<2.5M should have been doublechecked already.

The desired level for secondpass was approximately n=4M and no higher than n=5M.

It's much more complicated than time and probability, you also have to factor in, sieve, extra work from missing a prime, factoring, elimination of k speeding up others, increased errors in high n, newer faster clients possibly using different redisuals.

Read through some of the other posts.

Also the speed points etc will be udpated with the new points scheme which will also include scores from factoring and sieving. When this points ajustment will be made who knows... but it will certainly be before the end of the project.



IMHO, if anything more effort should be put into doublechecks, sieve and factoring. Especially since we just found a prime at n=8M.

[Frodo42]

I know this has been up before, but it seems there hasn't been anything done about it.

I am a bit anoyed that the secondpass que's expiry time is as low as it is (24 hour) ... I have had quite a few tests expired when my bunch of boxed missed a single day fo crunshing for some day.

I think somthing between a few days to a week would be appropriate ... 24 hours is to little and I think there is a bit (but not a lot) of effort lost by tests that are expired but which then report in later.

[vjs]

Frodo,

There are quite a few questions or suggestions for the project leaders out there currently.

Test expiration is one of them, perhaps now that we are at n=1.8M this 24-hour experation should be extended. I'd also like to get a comment or two on error rates n<1.8M.

[GP500]

i'm trying this too now but why do i test a number lower then "n ubber bound".

Those n numbers should be done completely or not ?

And another question that may fit with that.
why are there still testings on k numbers that have a prime:
28433 18673 tests, in the last week 2 test have been done here.
that looks like waste too me.

[vjs]

GP500,

Couple things....

First,


lower then "n upper bound"

The n upper bound is the lowest n which has not yet been fully tested. Alot of those are around 6M. Why... b/c people are working on them very slowly and havn't submitted a residue (completed test) yet.

This is also the reason why some k's (which are already prime) are still being tested. People have just not finished their test on that k yet. Once a k is proved to have a prime no additional tests (n's) are assigned for that k but results are still accepted for outstanding tests.

The "garbage" account actually tests these k/n pairs bringing up the lower bound.

see, http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/

as you can see the lower bound is actually n=4968607 currently.

As for why your getting tests around n=1.8M with secondpass is there is a possibility that the first test was done incorrectly and a false residue was reported. This does happen as you can see from the error-fix que on the http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret/ page.

So basically we are testing each k/n pair twice to get a matching residue. Assume the error rate is 1%, so as long as we can roughly test 100 secondpass tests in the time it take to complete 1 first pass we are better off testing secondpass.

(The above is a tremendous over simplification for secondpass an the error rate is only half of the calculation)

Second,

I don't see where your getting this info:

"still testings on k numbers that have a prime:
28433 18673 tests,"

<edit>

O.K. now is see it... no 18673 tests were done on that k in TOTAL not in the past two weeks. If you watch this number compared to the others it's not increasing.

A good example

5359 26602 prime 1206 n/a 5191846 4128870 4128870

k=5359 still has one test outstanding at n=4128870

but

k=28433
28433 18673 prime 2473 6376584 13467625 4681105 7866697

Has not had any new tests assigned since n=7866697

[Nuri]

5359 (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/kDistribution.mhtml?k=5359) has one outstanding test

28433 (http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/kDistribution.mhtml?k=28433) has 13 outstanding tests

[GP500]

oke that clears somethings(alot) up thnx.

i failed too say how i noticed test incresd for that k, sorry.

Are we only doing secondpass test below nr's under the n-upper ?

Are we too finishing jobs that have been abanded*? , like finishing from the last intermediate result xx% too 100%.

"as you can see the lower bound is actually n=4968607 currently."
this n is for all k's still running i guess.
So for comparing we shoudl use this nr en the n-upper in the stats too see how we are doing

I was hoping too increase the n-upper, just for the statistical-fun :jester: .
And getting the feeling of nearing the last 1 :machgun:.



Ps: soem questions are a bit dubble, because of secondary-twiddeling :looney:

[vjs]

Are we only doing secondpass test below n's under the n-upper ?

Yes, it's impossible to do a doublecheck above n-upper since we don't have a first check yet...

Are we too finishing jobs that have been abanded*?

Yes, on the http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret page you can see the dropped test que these are automatically reassigned. Unfortunately we have to start these tests again from 0% to avoid errors and a few other considerations.


So for comparing we shoudl use this nr en the n-upper in the stats too see how we are doing...

Yes

was hoping too increase the n-upper, just for the statistical-fun ...

Then you should login as garbage, change your username to garbage in the client, this account is intended to increase the upper bound.

And getting the feeling of nearing the last 1

Exactly my feeling as well, but I currently only have 1 P4 3.2G working in this account, come join the fun.

[vjs]

Nice catch Nuri I didn't think of that, looks like there are 13 tests outstanding for k=28433 (from the | in the steps).

Also 90-day old tests

http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/oldTests.mhtml

[Keroberts1]

i don't think garbage does tests that are above n-uper bound it does tests from the 90-day old tests que. many of these are tests that were abandoned and then started up again. therefore any work done on garbage is at least a double check and likely going ot be a triple check when the user who got it listed in garbage finishes. he n-upper bound is actually the lowest N-value for which we have no residues.

[vjs]

Keroberts1, are you sure about that?

From the que definitions:

garbage – tests that were assigned a really long time ago but which still aren't done due to a very slow client. We can assign numbers from this queue to tighten the bounds on the current "test window."

I don't think this supports either of our conclusions about the garbage que since "aren't done due to a very slow client" doesn't infer nor deny no residue submitted. I am going on the assumption that it does infer no residue reported.



he n-upper bound is actually the lowest N-value for which we have no residues.

I know this appeared to be true before the ques were updated a couple months ago at that time we also thought secondpass was at 1M... but secondpass went from ~1M down to 300K for a few tests and garbage did the same. (Do you remember exactly what garbage was at before the refresh?)



If I'm correct when the late user returns his result it will be a doublecheck if a garbage test was done, and if the user doesn't return his test before secondpass passes by his test will be a tripple when completed.

[GP500]

" he n-upper bound is actually the lowest N-value for which we have no residues."

i agree (but it that n is also a finished1)


http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats/oldTests.mhtml
Even better do this for the 30 days-time period.

maybe it is wise too state a warning in that persons stats page.
So that he can sort out why;
It could indicate that that pc is without sob or it's broke.

And also if he is on a team paste a warning in the team stats, so if that person doesn't notice it on his statspage, his team members can help him out.

"He why :spank: are 1 or several of pc's not finishing jobs"
"fixed, :cheers: , goodboy :bonk: "

Edit/i saw many are still, active but slow.
so maybe slowmachine or somethign is sukking up the cpu. :cry:



" Last 24 Hours"

I seethat we are doing less recover/secondpass then there are new one's.!

I tink i will ask some of my subteam-member too join.
There is even a bigger change of getting the primeo n your name :neener:

[maddog1]

Some of the tests in the 90-days queue are creepy to say the least!

Since I do not intend to point the finger to specific users, I will only show some actual assignment dates, approximate n and progress so far:

Jun 2 2003, 3.7 M, 13%, 123 cEM
Oct 4 2003, 4.7M, 8%, 10 cEM
May 20 2003, 3.7M, 52%, 458 cEM
May 19 2004, 6.1M, 0%, 60cEM

There are more like these, but they should suffice for now...
2003??? Damn, what do these run on? 8086??? I'll be dead before some of those even finish computing!
IMO, there should be another deadline imposed, say 6 or 8 months MAX for the completion of a test, regardless of intermediate blocks report.
These numbers probably show machines that are not only slow but don't get enough uptime/idle processor time too, or even have problems and keep restarting their tests (God forbid!)
I acknowledge that the users meant well when they put these machines on the project, but I feel this kind of "contribution" is harmful, as it holds the project back for long times and may even be fruitless if a factor shows up in the meantime as there's currently no server-side option to remove a running test from a client (or warn that the test is definitely not needed anymore)
And of course, what if a *prime* is hidden in one of these??? Years of wasted CPU time!

Instead of advancing first pass like there's no tomorrow, we should devote more time to cleaning up these "garbage" things and the project generally should be fine tuned to discourage this from happening.

[engracio]

maddog1,

I agree with you. I think we need a little cleaning up of all "sub-projects" going on in SOB and get back to a known baseline again. Knock off some of the way off the mark stats back to "normal range" and go from there.


e:)


http://www.clanhosts.com/dev/sobsig/sig.php?engracio

[GP500]

The change would be small for them too have the prime.

And i first of all as in my previouse post like too have a warning on the stats pages these persons are stated on.

they can check that machine if they can find it :scared:.
And freshen it up.

prevareble too an quad opteron for example :idea: :kiss:

[vjs]

O.K. I ooked this over last night,

First Keroberts,

I believe you are correct, Mike had asked the question of "what happens now with the old tests they could just get re-qued every 90-days even though they have been tested once already". There was a proposed server fix but I'm not sure if it has been implemented. So I'd have to agree with you the "garbage" account is probably doing double checks at this point until it reaches n-upper bounds.

So I would suggest at this point not to run the garbage account until this is issue is resolved.

The simple fix on the server side would be to change how the n's were qued for garbage. As opposed to queing the lowests n's still being tested, it should que based upon lowest n with no residue.

This would be similar to the way secondpass works, lowest test with only 1 residue.

I say simple (logically simple) but it may be difficult to implement server side.

I'm not sure if this is a pressing issue since there are only 4 tests out standing, so it's not like we are wasting alot of firepower here.

Also garbage is drawing from error-fix as well, those tests are of course useful.

I'll switch my garbage machine to another que next time I get to it.

Regardless the best que to run at this time is probably usernameQQQsecopndpass anyways


Now to Maddog1 and GP500,

The 90-day tests are not really that big on an issue, since the lower bound is probably correct alot of the k/n's being tested on those machine have already been done once. Besides would we want those machines picking up new tests? Second I don't think it's worth the effort of trying to contact the users, those machines are not producing anyways.

Second, I strongly suggest you go back to your hometeams and inform them about the doublecheck effort, sieve, and P-1. Just remember that P4's don't do well at sieve and are best suited in prp testing, firstpass (normal testing) or secondpass, followed by P-1 (which is a little difficult to setup and understand but do able).

[hhh]

BTW; am I mistaken or is DC significantly slowing down? Some weeks ago, we had 200 tests per day, now 70 (while firstpass is stable at about 200 tests per day).

Perhaps it's just that now, DC tests take much longer then some weeks ago; unfortunately, there is no graph for CEM/s as for every user for DC anymore.

Seems to me that the new possibility is not so popular as expected.

But anyway, we need much more DC.....I guess, as the new error rates are still not published (or did I miss them?)

A small :|ot|: : It would be perhaps be possible to make buttons in V3 for FIRSTPASS, DC, and BEST FOR THE PROJECT, where the server chooses what to assign.

Well, all this was not THAT important.... H.

[Matt]

I've switched over two more of my machines to second pass today from normal work.

[Nuri]

I also switched one of my machines to secondpass. It will start crunching those tiny tests as soon as it finishes it's current test.

[IronBits]

I switched 3 AMD64 to SecondPass today, and I'm letting them finish the JRC work they are on.
Questions:
1) When they finish normal work, will they get assigned SecondPass work automatically?

I noticed on another computer that I put on SecondPass on a fresh install,
the work level of cEM/s are way DOWN compared to JRC/1st Pass.
2) Will there be an adjustment of credit equal to 1st pass testing?

[Keroberts1]

the different readout is because cem/s are not a perfect unit. In version 3 this unit will be replaced by something else and all credit should be adjusted likewise.

[Nuri]

1) normally, they should be assigned SecondPass work automatically.

[vjs]

Just to let people know firstpass is pulling away from second-pass...

Here are the numbers from May2 to May9

que #tests n-value

May 2
secondpass, 78127, 1883165
firstpass, 26551, 8985046
May 9
secondpass, 77680, 1891166
firstpass, 25410, 9026614

So basically first pass n has increased from 8985046 to 9026614 by 41568
and the second pass n has increased from 1883165 to 1891166 by 8001

As for #tests, we did 1141 firstpass tests vs 447 secondpass tests.

Regardless the effort in secondpass is much better than the secondpass effort we had in the past. So I would say that we should pat ourselves on the back but still be concerned.

[GP500]

hehe.
:|party|: on the found prime.

now we also have less secondpass jobs i guess.


uhm, in talking about secondpas jobs within DPC.
someone said that the stats-credit for secondpass jobs is less. per x-CPUtime

How does this go, is it true.

[hhh]

well, it is true, you get less credits with secondpass because of the measure CEM/s which is inaccurate. BUT this problem is said to be solved with the release of Version 3, backwards (?) which means that the stats are recalculated, for the past, too. So will get you credit later, somehow.
If you need motivation, look at the number of performed tests. See it climb every day is fun too.
H.

[GP500]

Thx for the explaining.
It releaves me, i thought there had too be something behind it.

I would like a SOB-senior :o , too second this :p

[Mystwalker]

You can even have the creators to second this:
http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2361&highlight=FLOPS :D

I'd suggest you overlook that this posting is almost 2.5 years old. ;)

[GP500]

AHA oke when will this turning too flops happen.
Or equal all too certain credit-points

And will credit/flops increase only for the secondpass.

[ShoeLace]

i can answer this..

essentially at the moment each prp test is worth a certain number of CEM which is about n^3 (n*n*n) and CEMS are n^3/time taken between allocation and competion. (as known by the server)

but this is way over on the higher n values.

but as the server has a list of each prp test when it was allocated and returned.. when the new stats come aborad its a matter of assigning a new 'value' to each test. (which is closer to n*log n )

what will happen is higher n tests get reduced much more then the lower/second pass tests.. which will make second pass appear to be worth more then they were.. but its really the higher N that is worth less.

quick example?
3 tests n = 1000, n = 5000, n = 100000 (ignore k.. insignifica)

current cems:


n | CEM | time | cems
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1000 | 1000000000 (1G) | 600 (10 min) | 1.6M
5000 | 125000000000 (125G) | 6000 (100 min) | 20.8M
100000 | 1000000000000000 (1000T) | 60000 (17 hrs) | 16.6G


new scoring: (using n*log n ) (base 10 log)


n | CEM | time | newscore
----------------------------------------------------
1000 | 3000 | 600 | 5
5000 | 18500 | 6000 | 3
100000 | 500000 | 60000 | 8


a highly inaccurate senario but i hope you see how the scores get 'closer'.

this is then applied to all tests in teh system and everyones score gets recalculated.

Cheers

[GP500]

thx for explaining.

What does prp stand for.
that n=5000 gets less credit seems a bit weird but i trust the calculations you did.

the cems figure is just a very aquared (spelled right ?) nr now and not corresponding anymore because of the changes in math. calculations made in the SOB-software.

I hope the changes will be made very soon because i can't confince people now too do secondpass test.


PS: I really appreciate the explaining, crisp clear helpfull

[ShoeLace]

unless i am mistaken

prp = PR-obably P-rime

that's what the SOB client does.. prp tests.

and before you ask, "why only probable". if its not a probable prime it cant be a prime.

the reasons to use this are basically speed.. and the change a "probable prime" actually ISNT is small. and a prime that isn't probable is impossible.

that is also why when primes ar ediscovered they are always 'prooved' using a diffrernt program. (often multiple times on different architectures.) and that usualy takes longer then the original prp test.

[vjs]

I hear you GP500,

It's tough to convice people to do secondpass testing, thankfully the current secondpass situation isn't that bad. IMHO the level is pretty close to where it should be so I personally havn't been pushing it lately.

I'd probably wait until we find another prime before we start another secondpass effort. Hopefully as soon as the next prime is found project wise we will switch to secondpass for a wekk or two while it's verified. The project wide secondpass effort really advanced the effort in no time.

I'd suggest that you attempt to convince people to sieve and P-1 factor. P-1 is starting to loose it's cushion and within a few months we may actually start firstpass testing unfactored ranges. Sieve is also very good and alot of canditates are still being eliminated there.

[Electrolyte]

I'm thinking of switching my laptop (that does approx 1.1m cEMs/s) to the secondpass due to how long it takes for the CPU to complete a firstpass test, but before I remember there being a "slow down" with the scoring (so it wouldn't show 1.1m cEMs/s being calculated, but something much lower). Has this problem been fixed?

[Death]

ok, now I got P4 3.2 and want to run two clients

can I start one client with secondpass and other with usual numbers?

I grab test's at home (dial-up) cuz there's some auth proxies and firewall here at work ((

[tqft]

Death - what OS are you running?
Windows - someone else will have to help - but to get a secondpass test the username has to be modified to have QQQsecondpass at the end.

For linux & probably BSDs/*nixes
The key is that the secondpass instance has the sclient.conf edited so that the
username has QQQsecondpass
ie:
Username tqftQQQsecondpass

I have created one directory for each instance, start the client - with modified Username - automatically gets a second pass test.
For the the first pass test the Username line in sclient.conf would be
Username tqft

[Death]

xp

okay, I just move info in reg file from cache to cache2 and add to registry

run service and voila!!

[Joe O]

The server will actually accept any username of the form usernameQQQdirectiveQQQdirectiveQQQdirective... the code to parse this and keep track of all the "directives" is already written. It's just that, right now, the only direcive that has any meaning at all is "secondpass." So the "hack" is kind of a poor man's way of allowing arbitrary information / preferences to be passed in via the username field.
Could we have 7 new directives?
k33661 etc
so that usernameQQQsecondpassQQQk33661 would select only second pass for k=33661.

[vjs]

This would be a fantastic addition and I hope quite simple.

I would also ask that the directive apply to firstpass tests as well. I know there are people out there that have a particular affection to a k.

[riptide]

Right. I've read most (but not all :) ) of the thread. Is there any progress on extending the second pass for more than 24 hours? Some rigs I have are offsite and don't connect everyday, but DO connect everyweek at least once.

Secondly... I didn't see any mention of points difference with running second pass, but I would assume that on the same machine, second pass would give more points per CPU run time.

EDIT: Ok second point was wrong... vice cersa in reality.

[vjs]

Riptide,

I believe the expire time on secondpass test is two weeks.. do you have reson to believe they are 24hours?

You could always send ALien a message asking him to extend the time to ... probably a month.

[engracio]

Riptide,

I believe the expire time on secondpass test is two weeks.. do you have reson to believe they are 24hours?

You could always send ALien a message asking him to extend the time to ... probably a month.


I thought that the secondpass was also extended for 30 days a while back? What exactly happen when it expires? Does the wu not count when finally completed or another client pick it up and start crunching it?

[riptide]

Riptide,

I believe the expire time on secondpass test is two weeks.. do you have reson to believe they are 24hours?

You could always send ALien a message asking him to extend the time to ... probably a month.
It would be ok at 2 weeks i suppose. But if I'm gonna get slaughtered on points I may give it a pass (Excuse the pun :) )


Its a hard thread to follow.. one has to mindful of the dates of the posts. Spans over 2 years. With posts replied to in 6 months on one occasion. Time warp for the win.

[Death]

QQQsecondpass now recieve 13M tests.

something changed?

[enderak]

Everybody's been running second pass test ever since the first-pass 15M tests ran out a few months ago, and that's where the secondpass queue is at now.