| Author |
Message |
|---|
Michael Goetz Volunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
                  
|
|
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 of 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, 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 ans 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. 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. 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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we expecting a 64bit application?
____________
|
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
                 
|
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
  |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
 VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 653
ID: 18447
Credit: 50,135,012
RAC: 23,197
            
|
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 :-)
____________
   |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
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: 142
ID: 25183
Credit: 392,618,620
RAC: 247,161
           
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
|
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. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
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: 2616
ID: 1
Credit: 6,426,540
RAC: 3,535
             
|
|
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!
 |
|
|
|
|
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~
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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.
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 653
ID: 18447
Credit: 50,135,012
RAC: 23,197
|
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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? |
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 653
ID: 18447
Credit: 50,135,012
RAC: 23,197
|
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
|
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: 653
ID: 18447
Credit: 50,135,012
RAC: 23,197
|
|
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: 653
ID: 18447
Credit: 50,135,012
RAC: 23,197
|
|
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: 142
ID: 25183
Credit: 392,618,620
RAC: 247,161
|
|
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: 2877
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 18
|
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: 113
ID: 60
Credit: 20,972,294
RAC: 3,617
     
|
|
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
____________
   |
|
|
BokVolunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 113
ID: 60
Credit: 20,972,294
RAC: 3,617
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
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: 2616
ID: 1
Credit: 6,426,540
RAC: 3,535
|
|
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
 |
|
|
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
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 611
ID: 845
Credit: 1,277,443,615
RAC: 4,253,755
        
|
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
____________
 
Have a nice day today |
|
|
mfbabb2Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 10 Oct 08
Posts: 510
ID: 30360
Credit: 1,895,358
RAC: 5,974
|
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)
 |
|
|
rroonnaallddVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 09
Posts: 1215
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
 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
____________
Have a nice day today |
|
|
mfbabb2Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 10 Oct 08
Posts: 510
ID: 30360
Credit: 1,895,358
RAC: 5,974
|
|
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.
____________
Have a nice day today |
|
|
rroonnaallddVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 09
Posts: 1215
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*
____________
Have a nice day today |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ????
____________
Have a nice day today |
|
|
[DPC]CharleyVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 15 Apr 11
Posts: 803
ID: 95137
Credit: 94,979,517
RAC: 0
  
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 554
ID: 370496
Credit: 119,116,229
RAC: 1,008,001
        
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
RafaelVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Oct 14
Posts: 554
ID: 370496
Credit: 119,116,229
RAC: 1,008,001
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
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: 554
ID: 370496
Credit: 119,116,229
RAC: 1,008,001
|
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 scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Michael,
the link http://www.prothsearch.net/sierp.html is broken.
Greets
Chris |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 8048
ID: 53948
Credit: 76,790,919
RAC: 62,848
|
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 75898^524288+1
Please do not PM me with support questions. They will usually go unanswered. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks a lot. I did read the wiki article regarding the sierpinski problem. :-) |
|
|
