Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 58

Thread: How many "secret" tests are left?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    123

    How many "secret" tests are left?

    Does anyone know how many "secret" tests are left, and
    whether "secret" checks for all n to 3M or only the n that the
    previous prime searchers covered?

  2. #2
    17099 left

    and those are only ones done by previous searchers so some of the k's already have full coverage now. Since there are only a couple people doing it, it's only at 430,000 right now.

    -Louie

  3. #3
    Moderator Joe O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West Milford, NJ
    Posts
    643
    Does that count include these 21 tests?

    Originally posted by jjjjL
    all numbers added.

    only changes I made before adding the numbers was to remove tests with n < 1000 from the files (SB sometimes crashes with extremely low tests) and I removed these tests for k=4847

    2000487
    2000607
    2000631
    2000727
    2000943
    2001327
    2001471
    2001543
    2001831
    2002071
    2002143
    2002407
    2002503
    2002767
    2003151
    2003463
    2003727
    2004951
    2005551
    2005647
    2005671

    because each of these tests would have been assigned to regular users and not "secret" the way the server is setup right now. it is only 21 tests so there's a good chance I could just slip them in and they would finish before most users even noticed they had them but regular users may not be interested in doing double-check work now so i won't make them.

    if secret actually burns though all the work it has now, which i think will take at least a few weeks, then i'll manually assign the above tests to myself (or someone who's interested) and do them just to patch any holes in the ranges. also, i highly doubt that those are prime... they were checked the first time by Samidoost and he posted residues for all of them. He'd be the last person i'd expect to miss a prime.

    anyway, you can submit factors for the double-check again now. and have fun doing a few dozen proth tests an hour for the next few days if you decide to join in on the "secret".

    -Louie
    Joe O

  4. #4
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    Originally posted by jjjjL
    17099 left

    and those are only ones done by previous searchers so some of the k's already have full coverage now. Since there are only a couple people doing it, it's only at 430,000 right now.

    -Louie
    It seems to me that, with the current speed, it will take almost (and perhaps more than) a year to finish those 17099 tests.

    So, I decided to switch to secret account for the next couple of weeks to help speed up secret for the next couple of 100,000s.

  5. #5
    what aer the chances of gettign a # of secret tests left tally in the stats menu? could be fun to watch the number drop and it might get more people to involve themselves in these tests so we could finish them off quickly

  6. #6
    also, i highly doubt that those are prime... they were checked the first time by Samidoost and he posted residues for all of them. He'd be the last person i'd expect to miss a prime.
    This brings me to the question if results from the client are tested against other programs?

    I think that it wouldn't hurt to test a few exponents of each K with another program to see if residues match. Especially exponents neer FFT crossovers.

  7. #7
    i don't plan on adding a countdown of the "secret" tests since only a few people would understand it.

    i also place almost no emphisis on completing them in a timely manner. i don't want people to spend their cpu time on it. i really, really doubt there's a prime in them. it's more an excercise in completeness & a way to help the DC siever's reduce their workload by trimming out the lowest n ranges. don't confuse that with the regular sieve. i don't think that file should ever have it's n-range trimmed. it will speed up as primes are found.

    -Louie

  8. #8
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    Originally posted by jjjjL
    i don't plan on adding a countdown of the "secret" tests since only a few people would understand it.
    I agree, adding a countdown to the project page might mislead and confuse regular users. Updating the 17099 test figure on this thread from time to time (like once every couple of weeks) would probably be fine though.
    i also place almost no emphisis on completing them in a timely manner. i don't want people to spend their cpu time on it.
    Louie, I just wanted to run secret up to 500K or 600K for a few weeks. I hope you don't mind.
    i really, really doubt there's a prime in them.
    I agree that too. Still, I'd feel more comfortable when they're finished.
    it's more an excercise in completeness & a way to help the DC siever's reduce their workload by trimming out the lowest n ranges.
    In fact, since the last algorithm change in the sieve client and Mike's alternative sob.dat file, I guess trimming out the lowest n ranges will not be an issue any more. All we have to do is to patch the holes on lower ranges at DC sieve (especilally those for p<10T). And for ranges p>20T, I really doubt we need to push DC only sieve that further.
    don't confuse that with the regular sieve. i don't think that file should ever have it's n-range trimmed. it will speed up as primes are found.
    As a previous defender of n range trimming, I would have objected such a line a couple of weeks ago. Thanks to Mikael's idea, we now have a client that pushed the optimum level of range trimming to much higher p values so that we will not have to worry about it at least for the next several months.

  9. #9
    Hey louie I was wondering if we coudl get an update on how many secret tests are left, just a progress report nothing more. Thanks

  10. #10
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    9 days have passed, each day the "secret" account completes ~70 tests - so there should be around 16,500 tests left...

  11. #11
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    The actual figure might be "slightly" less than that. This is mainly because, DC sieving also kills some n values as well, and some (I guess roughly 17%) of the found factors fall within the range of secret's remaining tests.

  12. #12
    16169

    -Louie

  13. #13
    also, 3 of the k's are totally finished and others are close

    here is the breakdown by k

    k count
    4847 5831
    5359 1978
    10223 659
    19249 1334
    21181 1316
    22699 689
    24737 0
    27653 0
    28433 3282
    33661 699
    55459 381
    67607 0

    -Louie

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    123
    I know that this question is 5 letters off topic , but how many supersecret
    tests are left now?

  15. #15
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    Louie, could you please give an update on secret user progress?

    Thx in advance.

  16. #16
    14593 secret tests left.

    by k it is
    4847 5548
    5359 1734
    10223 469
    19249 1227
    21181 1144
    22699 613
    28433 3139
    33661 540
    55459 179

    there are 8 straggler tests left before secret finishes for all n < 500k.

    supersecret is still around n=170k and all 7000 residues match.

    -Louie

  17. #17
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    supersecret is still around n=170k
    reaching 180k now...
    It's not that easy to up that range when I have to work on it alone...

    Louie: could you chop the expire time for a supersecret test to maybe 1 day? That way, there won't be any straggler tests holding the Min n of the current test window low.
    Possibly a cron job that releases assignment?
    As an alternative, it is possible to assign supersecret's pending block management to me?

    btw. I don't have access to these supersecret machines on a regular base and only for short periods of time, so (super)secret tests are the only ones feasible...

    all 7000 residues match.
    Could still be an implementation error...

  18. #18
    Originally posted by Mystwalker
    Louie: could you chop the expire time for a supersecret test to maybe 1 day?
    all numbers n < 1M now have 1 day expiration time.

    -Louie

  19. #19
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    It's not a big issue anyway, but may be we can think about increasing the lower bound of Low n Sieve (and probably only that one, not dual) from 300K to 500K.

    Any comments?

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    479
    (and probably only that one, not dual)
    I'd suggest doing it for both.

    Another option is to track supersecret, and raise the limit at (say) 100K or 200K thresholds when supersecret is about to hit the current given threshold. I think we have to agree that once candidates have PRPs with matching residues (i.e. double check) there is then zero value in continuing to sieve those ranges.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    479
    Given that the questions here of "how many secret tests are remaining?", "how far through is supersecret?", "how many non-matching residues have you had?" will keep coming back every few weeks, might it be worth adding a couple of extra stats pages to keep everyone who is interested updated daily?

    Any stats surrounding the exercise being performed by secret will ultimately have a limited life since it's goal is known, but those of supersecret (and however that evolves) will probably remain of interest for the life of this project.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    123
    quote:
    _______________________________________________
    reaching 180k now...
    It's not that easy to up that range when I have to work on it alone
    _______________________________________________

    You're not working on it alone. I switched my PC to supersecret testing
    for a while.

  23. #23
    I have 2 pcs working on secret. I will switch to supersecret when secret is done. we are up to n=500000 in secret. by the time we get to 600000 then we will be finished with 2 more K, as I recall, and the progress should speed up.

  24. #24
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    I've also run ~200 secret tests from 434000 to 476000, and switched back to my account a couple of weeks ago. I'm planning another 200 test batch at secret soon.

    Anyway, the stats page was showing the figures below for lower n bounds back in february. I guess these are the numbers we originally started.
    So, it seems the first k to deplete next is 55459, to be followed with 10223.

    k Lower n bound
    4847 2006031
    5359 875350
    10223 610025
    19249 1307678
    21181 800204
    22699 900190
    24737 300127
    27653 340089
    28433 2000353
    33661 645696
    55459 540046
    67607 400091


    44131 690012
    46157 617063
    54767 1023127
    65567 981643
    69109 1125094

  25. #25
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    Originally posted by MikeH
    I'd suggest doing it for both.

    Another option is to track supersecret, and raise the limit at (say) 100K or 200K thresholds when supersecret is about to hit the current given threshold. I think we have to agree that once candidates have PRPs with matching residues (i.e. double check) there is then zero value in continuing to sieve those ranges.
    Mike et al,

    Sure, doing both is ok for me too. I just proposed doing only Lower n because of two reasons:

    - The marginal speed gain at Lower n would be much higher compared to Dual.
    - I thought that some people might oppose a changeover at dual, and did not want to sacrifice a changeover at DC sieve.

    But since we do not need factors for n<500K anymore, I guess there won't be many oppositions.

    Tracking supersecret is a good idea too. But it really takes not much time prp testing for n<1m. So, what I'd propose is, tracking secret up to n=1m with 100K tresholds, and sticking with that lowerbound until supersecret reaches 1m. We can decide what to do next, looking at the sieve level we're at when supersecret hits 1m.

    Any other suggestions?

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    123
    Louie, since we're at n>500 K now for secret, could you please give us an update on "secret" user progress?

  27. #27
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    Before Louie updates, as far as I can see, not much effort is being put on secret for the last couple of days. So, it's highly likely that not much has changed (i.e. only 100-200 tests finished since last update).

    BTW, Louie, would you consider putting the remaining tests stat to the web site under a normally not seen folder (like the one for the sieve). Something like, http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret? This way, regular SoB users wouldn't be confused, and we'd see progress as frequent as we want to.

  28. #28
    yeah, that would be great.

  29. #29
    I agree it would be a really good idea

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    U.S
    Posts
    123
    I agree too.

  31. #31

  32. #32
    Senior Member Frodo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jutland, Denmark
    Posts
    299
    Thats neat.
    Perhaps I'm just slow but it seems that the (super)secret tests have been removed from some of the other stats so they again are somewhat more reliable, which for my point of view would be the best about it all, to gett the secret-stuff seperated from the "real" stats
    The lower n-bound seems to be OK again in the first stats page (even though the explained stats page still seems pretty messed up ...), now I don't know for sure but completed tests today seem pretty high still so I guess (super)secret have not been removed from there, that would be nice (perhaps they will disappear during the next 24 hours?).

  33. #33
    Frodo42 wrote:
    now I don't know for sure but completed tests today seem pretty high still so I guess (super)secret have not been removed from there,
    I would suppose that the reason for the higher number of completed tests lately would be due to Ars Technicas SoB gauntlet from 9th of June to 9th of July.

    larsivi

  34. #34
    Moderator Joe O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West Milford, NJ
    Posts
    643
    Louie, Thank you for this stats page. It's nice to know how things are going. Again, thanks!
    Joe O

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    479
    Since there are quite a few people running 'secret' right now. Just a reminder that 'secret' stats can be found at http://www.seventeenorbust.com/secret .

    Somehow I'd missed this originally. Only found it searching for something else

  36. #36
    We should be able to inish before the end of the month if we get a few more people to help out. I will be switching a couple CPUs over to it in a few days when i sieving range is finished

  37. #37
    this has probably been asked before, but when we are done with secret, when all the secret tests are done, is secret going to switch to doing supersecret tests? I mean, will the secret "user" switch to supersecret tests?

    I would think that it would be a good idea to do that, the double checks should be done, but the 20 or so people that are doing the secret tests are more than enough, and that number will drop when the 1.1.2 client comes out.
    Last edited by OberonBob; 12-17-2003 at 06:26 PM.

  38. #38
    The number of people running the secret account may no actually be enough although the double check is only 1/100th as likely to find a prime as was mentioned before adn may not be so this depth but there was a much better chance of finding a prime in the first place at this level and since these tests ca ne finished alot faster it may be that the optimal level to keep the double check at is far beyond our current level. If anyone has more info on the error % and how it depends on size of N value. Also what is the likelyhood of a number of a certain N value being prime. I believe it is omehow related to the inverse of the natural log but it is differnt because of proth numbers attributes. The final figure i would need is the amount of time required to do a test at different N values. I heard it stated o nthe forum before that doubleing the N value would quadruple the time required is this true or is it more complicated?

  39. #39
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    The number of people running the secret account may no actually be enough although the double check is only 1/100th as likely to find a prime as was mentioned before adn may not be so this depth but there was a much better chance of finding a prime in the first place at this level and since these tests ca ne finished alot faster it may be that the optimal level to keep the double check at is far beyond our current level. If anyone has more info on the error % and how it depends on size of N value. Also what is the likelyhood of a number of a certain N value being prime. I believe it is omehow related to the inverse of the natural log but it is differnt because of proth numbers attributes. The final figure i would need is the amount of time required to do a test at different N values. I heard it stated o nthe forum before that doubleing the N value would quadruple the time required is this true or is it more complicated?
    You'll find answers to these questions in the thread on a Resource Allocation Model. The best estimates of error rates at that time were extremely low - we were experiencing much lower error rates than GIMPS, perhaps because we haven't -attracted as many aggressive overclockers. If error rates have remained low, double checking is a poor use of resources until we get much higher.

    William

  40. #40
    mostly what i was expecting ot hear but there probably is a certain level that would be optimal and it would probably be easy to have tests at that level handed out with regular tests. It would probably not even get noticed because at this point the tests would finish in about a half hour. Of course we'd need to wait until some more information is gathered about error rates at different levels and such.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •