| Author |
Message |
|---|
|
|
|
Application LLR (3*2^-1)5.07
is now doing work units on the progect 3*2^+1
Are you sure ???????
We could all be redoing old WU's
____________
From the High Desert in New Mexico
 |
|
|
|
|
|
i noticed that to...
thought is was just my manager playing silly beggars...
stands by for more info.....
b.
____________
Member of The UK BOINC Team.
Join us here
 http://www.tiny.cc/UBT
http://bobtonson.page-visit.com
 |
|
|
 pschoefer Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 685
ID: 845
Credit: 2,886,413,454
RAC: 139,386
                              
|
|
Input file says (for example):
600000000000000:P:1:2:257 3 726876
The application strictly follows these instructions, so it'll test 3*2^726876+1, even if it's named LLR (7*2^-89). ;)
Nevertheless, application and subproject name in the preferences should be renamed to avoid confusion. Maybe LLR (321) would be an unmistakable solution.
____________
  |
|
|
|
|
|
I also just got a WU listed as 32-1. Plus, the PG Preferences pages still list the project as 32-1 rather than 32+1. So, I did get what my prefs page listed, but I also wonder if it's old stuff.
____________
 . |
|
|
|
|
I also just got a WU listed as 32-1. Plus, the PG Preferences pages still list the project as 32-1 rather than 32+1. So, I did get what my prefs page listed, but I also wonder if it's old stuff.
The application is LLR !!!
(3*2^-1) Is only name on the project when we start using that app.
LLR reads the input file like pschoefer wrote.
600000000000000:P:1:2:257 3 726876
<sieve limit>:<mode character>:<chain len>:<base>:<mode bitmap as a decimal>
Mode character:
'P' +1
'M' -1
/Lennart |
|
|
JohnHonorary cruncher
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 06
Posts: 2875
ID: 2449
Credit: 2,681,934
RAC: 0
                
|
I also just got a WU listed as 32-1. Plus, the PG Preferences pages still list the project as 32-1 rather than 32+1. So, I did get what my prefs page listed, but I also wonder if it's old stuff.
Rest assured everyone that we are now testing 32+1 work. As Lennart and pschoefer pointed out and as mentioned in the News Post and forum post, we have switched to 32+1 work.
We are behind on making all the necessary name changes...thank you for pointing them out. We'll update them as soon as possible.
____________
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 841
ID: 18447
Credit: 643,919,501
RAC: 542,670
                   
|
|
Some things I noticed on name changes:
1) Certificate of Computation still refers to 3*2^n-1
2) I was lucky enough to process 3*2^709968+1, which is prime.
http://www.primegrid.com/primes/?section=primelist&userid=18447
lists this as 3*2^709968-1 and called the project 3*2^n-1
3) 321 Range Statistics under Server Status for the lowest range at
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_321_llr.php?detail=1&range_id=0
correctly shows 3*2^n+1 primes, but also lists some others which
look like Cullen primes, but are actually sign-swapped Woodall e.g.
667071*2^667071+1 is listed, but 667071*2^667071-1 is actually prime.
Probably related to this is the inverse at
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_woodall_llr.php?detail=1&range_id=0
which also lists 3*2^n+1 primes with the signs swapped.
Will post if I spot any more... |
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 841
ID: 18447
Credit: 643,919,501
RAC: 542,670
|
|
A change in one of the issues I posted earlier:
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_321_llr.php?detail=1&range_id=0
now correctly lists 321search primes as +1 (still some non-321search primes listed) but
http://www.primegrid.com/stats_321_llr.php?detail=1&range_id=4
now shows 3*2^4235414+1 as prime, where it should be 3*2^4235414-1
|
|
|
RytisVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 22 Jun 05
Posts: 2653
ID: 1
Credit: 95,006,394
RAC: 130,187
                  
|
|
OK, I think it's now fixed.
____________
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 841
ID: 18447
Credit: 643,919,501
RAC: 542,670
|
|
Looks perfect!
Thanks for fixing. |
|
|
|
|
|
This might have been answered somewhere and if so forgive me I was gone for a week break. But since we got it up to n=5m, will we be trying for 6m anytime soon here or did we just stop that one completely? To move to the sister 321 project?
____________
John M. Johnson "Novex" |
|
|
pschoeferVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 05
Posts: 685
ID: 845
Credit: 2,886,413,454
RAC: 139,386
|
This might have been answered somewhere and if so forgive me I was gone for a week break. But since we got it up to n=5m, will we be trying for 6m anytime soon here or did we just stop that one completely? To move to the sister 321 project?
AFAIK, the plan is to bring 32+1 and 32-1 to n=10M simultaneously, as soon as 32+1 reaches n=5M.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
This might have been answered somewhere and if so forgive me I was gone for a week break. But since we got it up to n=5m, will we be trying for 6m anytime soon here or did we just stop that one completely? To move to the sister 321 project?
AFAIK, the plan is to bring 32+1 and 32-1 to n=10M simultaneously, as soon as 32+1 reaches n=5M.
Thanks for the info. It's curious how when we were getting it up to N=5 it took 1 to 2 hours each WU. Now with the +1 its taking 3 and a half hours per WU. Kinda strange thats why I thought I would ask and see if we were doing 6m on the -1 which would explain why its taking a bit longer. Just curious you know :)
____________
John M. Johnson "Novex" |
|
|
