| Author |
Message |
|---|
|
|
|
We are up and running now.
The search started from zero, i.e. even lower than the old PRPNet searches started. Thus we are verifying that no Wieferich or Wall-Sun-Sun primes were missed in this range.
Now, after a couple of hours, we are moving into the area where PRPNet started. So we will spend a lot of time redoing the ranges from then. The old PRPNet search used a version of the app where you could not double check the results (nothing to import from then, except for "near finds" that happened to be found).
Every work unit consists of two tasks that are run competitively by two different users (same as in many other subprojects). Each one consists of an interval of length one trillion (10^12 = 1e12). In the interval, all primes are located with a sieve, then each of them is checked for the Wall-Sun-Sun property and the Wieferich property. Note: There are billions of primes in each task, and all are checked.
In the "Stderr output" section of the web page of a completed task, you can see what interval belongs to the task. On the Subproject status page, you can see "Min remaining bound", i.e. the lower endpoint of the search interval belonging to the oldest unfinished work unit. We have proof that all Wall-Sun-Sun and Wieferich primes up to this number are known!
If a prime is not Wall-Sun-Sun (Wieferich), it can still be "near-Wall-Sun-Sun" ("near-Wieferich"), as explained in the Welcome-thread. If a find or a near-find is considered new (i.e. it was not known from previous searches), it will show up on the WW stats page.
According to numbers I heard from Mike Goetz, when we reach 2.63691e17 (after 263'691 work units), we pass the point the old Wall-Sun-Sun search reached on PRPNet. From then, we are in "new" territory. For Wieferich, the corresponding number is 5.97077e17 (after 597'077 work units).
When we reach 2^62 (after 4'611'686 work units), we hit the limit for what the current version of the software can handle. It should take a couple of years, at least, depending on how poupular this subproject is going to be.
There exist a tiny chance we will find a real Wall-Sun-Sun prime or a new Wieferich prime. It is certain that we will find a bunch of near-Wall-Sun-Suns and near-Wieferichs.
Enjoy.
/JeppeSN (feel free to point out any mistakes in the above description) |
|
|
|
|
|
I wistfully recall running the search on PRPNet...my erroneous Wieferich find is still listed, even!
It's been so long, what was the interval on the old units? 10e9? 10e10?
And in regards to "near finds," it wasn't quite clear to me in the welcome post, but are our near finds are going to be listed on our account pages? If so, will those include previously-found near finds while we re-cover the old PRPNet work even if they aren't listed on the overall PG stats page?
Edit: If you read the WUx2 part, ignore it. I am always mixing up WU vs. task.
____________
Eating more cheese on Thursdays. |
|
|
|
|
I wistfully recall running the search on PRPNet...my erroneous Wieferich find is still listed, even!
It's been so long, what was the interval on the old units? 10e9? 10e10?
Forgot to write about that. In PRPNet, the interval was 1e10 for Wall-Sun-Sun search (WSS), but 1e11 for Wieferich search (WFS). That means that one "new" BOINC task corresponds to 100 old WSS jobs plus 10 old WFS jobs.
And in regards to "near finds," it wasn't quite clear to me in the welcome post, but are our near finds are going to be listed on our account pages? If so, will those include previously-found near finds while we re-cover the old PRPNet work even if they aren't listed on the overall PG stats page?
Not sure about that. I think some of the presentation code is work in progress. I cannot say anything authoritative.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
Reggie Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
                   
|
|
There's currently ~7k near finds in the database. However, all of these were either imported directly into the database or considered too insignificant to even record the first time. These are not shown on any stat pages. Here's some pseudocode I wrote earlier to show when a find will be credited to a user:
if not_in_table():
if p<1e9 && |A|>10:
record_as_imported()
elseif p<1e15 && isWSS() && |A|>100:
record_as_imported()
elseif p<3e15 && isWFS() && |A|>100:
record_as_imported()
else:
record_as_new()
Anything that's "recorded as new" will be credited to a finder/DCer pair and show up various places. As soon as one is found, I'll post here so it can be seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Reggie !
And also a big "thank you" to all other guys who have worked/are working behind the scenes to make this project come to life !
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see any CPU ONLY task listing on the sub-project selection pages yet the check box is there and clickable.
Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun Prime Search https://www.primegrid.com/prefs_edit.php ...
Supported platforms:
Windows: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Linux: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Mac: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
However, I do see CPU ONLY apps on the Applications page
Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun -- "ww"
Platform Version Installation time
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:19 UTC
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:56 UTC
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:45 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:18 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:57 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:48 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:20 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:14 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:16 UTC
____________
 |
|
|
 BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
           
|
|
What does "min remaining bound" on the status page mean? Just the size of the smallest untested number? Currently it's 0.02P so that would mean everything up to 2E13 has been tested?
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
|
|
What does "min remaining bound" on the status page mean? Just the size of the smallest untested number? Currently it's 0.02P so that would mean everything up to 2E13 has been tested?
It's the range being tested by the oldest remaining task. For me it shows 0.01P and Scott's and walli's task.
____________
SHSID Electronics Group
SHSIDElectronicsGroup@outlook.com
GFN-14: 50103906^16384+1
Proth "SoB": 44243*2^440969+1
 |
|
|
|
|
|
For anyone thinking of running this on CPU, it might not be the best idea. Two Intel cores at 4 GHz is estimating just over 24h for a task. A 1080Ti at 75% power limit takes around 21 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see any CPU ONLY task listing on the sub-project selection pages yet the check box is there and clickable.
Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun Prime Search https://www.primegrid.com/prefs_edit.php ...
Supported platforms:
Windows: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Linux: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Mac: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
However, I do see CPU ONLY apps on the Applications page
Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun -- "ww"
Platform Version Installation time
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:19 UTC
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:56 UTC
Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:45 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:18 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:57 UTC
Linux running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU 1.02 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 22:44:48 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (cpu_WW_mt) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:20 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (OCL_cuda_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:14 UTC
Mac OS 10.5+ running on an Intel 64-bit CPU 1.01 (opencl_ati_WW) 28 Nov 2020 | 18:35:16 UTC
There is an app for GPU and a compatible app for CPU. It is the same subproject and the same badge. When you edit your PrimeGrid preferences, you can put a checkmark in the GPU boxes or the CPU box, or both places. It is identical to other projects than can run on either GPU or CPU. /JeppeSN |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
                         
|
I don't see any CPU ONLY task listing on the sub-project selection pages yet the check box is there and clickable.
Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun Prime Search https://www.primegrid.com/prefs_edit.php ...
Supported platforms:
Windows: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Linux: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, AMD/ATI GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Mac: Nvidia GPU (OpenCL): 64 bit, CPU: 64 bit
Is that what you’re looking for?
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
For anyone thinking of running this on CPU, it might not be the best idea. Two Intel cores at 4 GHz is estimating just over 24h for a task. A 1080Ti at 75% power limit takes around 21 minutes.
am running it both on cpu and gpu atm it says and getting 8 mins to 1 hour? will keep updated
|
|
|
|
|
For anyone thinking of running this on CPU, it might not be the best idea. Two Intel cores at 4 GHz is estimating just over 24h for a task. A 1080Ti at 75% power limit takes around 21 minutes.
That estimate may be quite a lot off.
____________
SHSID Electronics Group
SHSIDElectronicsGroup@outlook.com
GFN-14: 50103906^16384+1
Proth "SoB": 44243*2^440969+1
|
|
|
|
|
For anyone thinking of running this on CPU, it might not be the best idea. Two Intel cores at 4 GHz is estimating just over 24h for a task. A 1080Ti at 75% power limit takes around 21 minutes.
That estimate may be quite a lot off.
Seems pretty accurate so far. It is at 50% 12 hours in and estimating another 12 hours remaining. Also Michael mentioned on another thread his 3700X was taking around 4 hours a unit using 16 threads. Obviously not a controlled comparison, but with some possible contribution from Zen 2 higher IPC and SMT, that seems same ballpark.
If anyone is seeing much shorter effective CPU times, a link would be appreciated.
BTW Turing seems to give a good boost over Pascal on the GPU side. Both GPUs running at 75% power limit: 1080Ti is around 21 minutes, 2070 is around 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.primegrid.com/results.php?hostid=938607
here mine mack. some say gpu and some say cpu and gpu and some simple cpu.
on top of that i can
6 wu running and barly heating up cpu. |
|
|
|
|
http://www.primegrid.com/results.php?hostid=938607
here mine mack. some say gpu and some say cpu and gpu and some simple cpu.
on top of that i can
6 wu running and barly heating up cpu.
Your 2070 is faster than mine, at around 540s vs 620s, but mine is at 75% power limit so that's not unexpected.
I don't see any completed CPU tasks yet. I assume they're not going to be nearly as fast. |
|
|
SpearVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 09
Posts: 99
ID: 37675
Credit: 1,172,475,606
RAC: 0
           
|
|
Currently taking 240 to 250 seconds on an RTX 3090.
Looking like 5 hours for all 10 cores of an i9 7900x. |
|
|
|
|
|
4 minutes on my 3090
40+ minutes on 64 cores https://www.primegrid.com/result.php?resultid=1153558509
(yes crazy but wanted to see what'd happen) |
|
|
|
|
|
~4000 secs (1hr 7 mins) on a nvidia 1060 3gb card.
I don't think I'll run it on CPU tho :)
____________
 |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
            
|
|
1300s on GTX1650. 6400s on GT1050.
i7-2600K @ 3.4GHz 17h. i3-4130 CPU: don't ask. |
|
|
|
|
~4000 secs (1hr 7 mins) on a nvidia 1060 3gb card.
I am slightly better and consistently at around 3200-3400 seconds (sample size @ 24 units). |
|
|
|
|
|
WW GPU app crashed me with a bluescreen after pausing one of two running instances of it.
Moving back to pps sieve.
____________
  |
|
|
|
|
~4000 secs (1hr 7 mins) on a nvidia 1060 3gb card.
I am slightly better and consistently at around 3200-3400 seconds (sample size @ 24 units).
Could be the other stuff running on the computer that is slowing me down aka my regular browsing / watching last nights UFC
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Around 1050s on GTX1650 Super, eating almost 95% o GPU resources.
____________
 |
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
|
One time ~24 hour update:
34332 tasks have been sent out.
2 results are inconclusive.
6 results are invalid.
938 results have some sort of computation error (most due to some sort of incompatibility)
12283 workunits have been successfully validated.
Highest workunit validated searched to 16.287P.
Nothing unexpected has been found (nothing recorded attributed to user as mentioned in my previous post).
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems it low priority for them on thread ripper. i had i think 5 running and was only using like 25 % cpu. which is really strange |
|
|
|
|
1300s on GTX1650. 6400s on GT1050.
i7-2600K @ 3.4GHz 17h. i3-4130 CPU: don't ask.
LOL Dave...I won't ask sounds scary |
|
|
BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
|
What does "min remaining bound" on the status page mean? Just the size of the smallest untested number? Currently it's 0.02P so that would mean everything up to 2E13 has been tested?
It's the range being tested by the oldest remaining task. For me it shows 0.01P and Scott's and walli's task.
That's strange, it's now 0.01P and WW12 WU, while at the time of posting it was 0.02P and WW15.
Could a "ranges complete" stat be added like most other subprojects have? "min remaining bound" could be stuck for weeks in the future.
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
|
Your numbers are off: it was at 0.002P (ww_4) and is now at 0.01P (ww_12). I'll probably add some way of viewing the leading edge later today or tomorrow. For now, I'll just say the highest end bound validated is 28.361P. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Your numbers are off: it was at 0.002P (ww_4) and is now at 0.01P (ww_12). I'll probably add some way of viewing the leading edge later today or tomorrow. For now, I'll just say the highest end bound validated is 28.361P.
I think you'll be pretty close if you look at the workunit *name* (not the ID). Take the first number in the workunit name, add 12 zeroes to the end, and that's approximately where the leading edge is. For example, my GPU is currently crunching ww_27878_0.
That should put the leading edge somewhere around 27878000000000000, or 27.8P. In actuality, this task is checking 27876000000000000 to 27877000000000000, which is really close, at least for now. This isn't guaranteed to always be true.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
|
Your numbers are off: it was at 0.002P (ww_4) and is now at 0.01P (ww_12). I'll probably add some way of viewing the leading edge later today or tomorrow. For now, I'll just say the highest end bound validated is 28.361P. I'm quite sure it was 0.02P and ww15. 0.002 and 0.02 might be confused, but there was a ww_15.
Thanks Michael, that's a handy way of checking.
When we reach 2^62 (after 4'611'686 work units), we hit the limit for what the current version of the software can handle. Wiki says heuristically there can be log(log(x)) Wieferich primes expected below x, so we are already above the prediction and will be until somewhere around 10^350.
But whether we find anything or not, I like the idea that finally a reliable search to push the current boundary is conducted.
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
Yves GallotVolunteer developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 12
Posts: 644
ID: 164101
Credit: 305,010,093
RAC: 0
|
When we reach 2^62 (after 4'611'686 work units), we hit the limit for what the current version of the software can handle. Wiki says heuristically there can be log(log(x)) Wieferich primes expected below x, so we are already above the prediction and will be until somewhere around 10^350.
??? log(log(262)) = 3.76...
But what is done is done and we must consider the interval of the extended search. I did the computation here http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=9451&nowrap=true#145865 |
|
|
|
|
One time ~24 hour update:
34332 tasks have been sent out.
When we reach 2^62 (after 4'611'686 work units), we hit the limit for what the current version of the software can handle. It should take a couple of years, at least, depending on how poupular this subproject is going to be.
or a couple of months. |
|
|
Yves GallotVolunteer developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 12
Posts: 644
ID: 164101
Credit: 305,010,093
RAC: 0
|
When we reach 2^62 (after 4'611'686 work units), we hit the limit for what the current version of the software can handle. It should take a couple of years, at least, depending on how poupular this subproject is going to be.
or a couple of months.
or one challenge :)
|
|
|
|
|
One time ~24 hour update:
34332 tasks have been sent out.
2 results are inconclusive.
6 results are invalid.
938 results have some sort of computation error (most due to some sort of incompatibility)
12283 workunits have been successfully validated.
Highest workunit validated searched to 16.287P.
Nothing unexpected has been found (nothing recorded attributed to user as mentioned in my previous post).
or bluescreens.. when boinc requests the app to stop it needs to clean up properly....
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know you said a one time post but was just curious as to how many double checked near finds have been found - I know they are not going to show up so was just wondering. |
|
|
|
|
|
Me too.
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
Wiki says heuristically there can be log(log(x)) Wieferich primes expected below x, so we are already above the prediction and will be until somewhere around 10^350.
log is the natural log (log_e) here, not the "common" log (log_10). Years ago, I made a post with a graph showing this doubly logarithmic nature of the expected distribution. /JeppeSN
|
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
I know you said a one time post but was just curious as to how many double checked near finds have been found - I know they are not going to show up so was just wondering.
There's currently 7165 finds in the database. This includes imported data that hasn't been reached yet. There's not an easy way to filter that out (that I can think of). |
|
|
Yves GallotVolunteer developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 12
Posts: 644
ID: 164101
Credit: 305,010,093
RAC: 0
|
Years ago, I made a post with a graph showing this doubly logarithmic nature of the expected distribution. /JeppeSN
Note that I think that log log n where p is the nth prime is a better estimate than log log p.
We have log log p ~ log log(n log n) ~ log log n that's why the conjecture #{p ≤ X, q2(p) = 0} ∼ log log X + o((log log X)(1+eps)/2) is correct.
The Crandall-Dilcher-Pomerance model assumes that q2(p) is a “random†number in [0; p-1].
Then if we want to estimate the number of solutions, we have to sum on n the expression 1 / (n log n) and Integrate dx / (x log x) = log log x.
With p as the parameter, this is log log(p / log(p)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Yves. I had not thought about that. /JeppeSN |
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated. |
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
And we are now at 20% of the depth of the original Wall-Sun-Sun search and almost 10% of the way to the depth of the original Wieferich search. Making great progress! |
|
|
|
|
For anyone thinking of running this on CPU, it might not be the best idea. Two Intel cores at 4 GHz is estimating just over 24h for a task. A 1080Ti at 75% power limit takes around 21 minutes.
I got 15 single core tasks before I had a the brains to look that I had the mt setting still set at 1 (I did rest the value to 8). The tasks are taking 2 days and slightly over 1 hour on a Ryzen 3700X. The result is that my tasks are 400 to 500 times longer than my wingmen. o_O
____________
Werinbert is not prime... or PRPnet keeps telling me so.
Badge score: 1x1 + 12x3 + 1x4 + 1x5 + 1x6 + 2x7 + 1x8 + 1x10 = 84 |
|
|
|
|
|
i know. i had some wu take almost no times and other 2 days |
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Goetz wrote: (So very mysterious!)
Magic Mike or Mysterious Mike ? :)
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
Dear Mr. Administrator ...
Thank You for information ...
we are waiting !!!
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski
____________
|
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
Dear Mr. Administrator ...
Thank You for information ...
we are waiting !!!
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski
Hi Grzegorz,
If you would like to know how far along we are at any given time, you can determine this from your task names. For example, one of your computers returned task ww_87315_0 recently, and that number "87315" is approximately equal to the start of the range searched in units of 1012. If you want the exact start, subtract 2 from the task name, and to get that into units of "P" (1015) divide by 1000.
For the unit mentioned above, this corresponds to a start depth of 87.313P. The end of the search will be 4611.686P, so the task above is 1.89% of the way to the end of the project.
The Wall-Sun-Sun search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 264.383P, so that task is 33.03% of the way to new Wall-Sun-Sun territory, and the Wiferich search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 607.132P, so that task is 14.38% of the way to new Wieferich territory.
You can get the task number either by looking at one of your computers and looking at the highest task number you have, or by checking your WW task summary on the tasks summary page. They are arranged in descending order of workunit number, so the highest ones will be at the top. You might not have the highest task issued at any given time, but it will be so close that the error is nearly zero.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kellen |
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
Dear Mr. Administrator ...
Thank You for information ...
we are waiting !!!
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski
Hi Grzegorz,
If you would like to know how far along we are at any given time, you can determine this from your task names. For example, one of your computers returned task ww_87315_0 recently, and that number "87315" is approximately equal to the start of the range searched in units of 1012. If you want the exact start, subtract 2 from the task name, and to get that into units of "P" (1015) divide by 1000.
For the unit mentioned above, this corresponds to a start depth of 87.313P. The end of the search will be 4611.686P, so the task above is 1.89% of the way to the end of the project.
The Wall-Sun-Sun search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 264.383P, so that task is 33.03% of the way to new Wall-Sun-Sun territory, and the Wiferich search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 607.132P, so that task is 14.38% of the way to new Wieferich territory.
You can get the task number either by looking at one of your computers and looking at the highest task number you have, or by checking your WW task summary on the tasks summary page. They are arranged in descending order of workunit number, so the highest ones will be at the top. You might not have the highest task issued at any given time, but it will be so close that the error is nearly zero.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kellen
it helps, Thank You ...
I have a question, why there is ... difference between finds and primes ... ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
____________
|
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
Dear Mr. Administrator ...
Thank You for information ...
we are waiting !!!
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski
Hi Grzegorz,
If you would like to know how far along we are at any given time, you can determine this from your task names. For example, one of your computers returned task ww_87315_0 recently, and that number "87315" is approximately equal to the start of the range searched in units of 1012. If you want the exact start, subtract 2 from the task name, and to get that into units of "P" (1015) divide by 1000.
For the unit mentioned above, this corresponds to a start depth of 87.313P. The end of the search will be 4611.686P, so the task above is 1.89% of the way to the end of the project.
The Wall-Sun-Sun search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 264.383P, so that task is 33.03% of the way to new Wall-Sun-Sun territory, and the Wiferich search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 607.132P, so that task is 14.38% of the way to new Wieferich territory.
You can get the task number either by looking at one of your computers and looking at the highest task number you have, or by checking your WW task summary on the tasks summary page. They are arranged in descending order of workunit number, so the highest ones will be at the top. You might not have the highest task issued at any given time, but it will be so close that the error is nearly zero.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kellen
it helps, Thank You ...
I have a question, why there is ... difference between finds and primes ... ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
Primes are primes, as defined in the dictionary.
Finds (at PG, at least) include near-Wieferich and near-Wall-Sun-Sun primes.
____________
SHSID Electronics Group
SHSIDElectronicsGroup@outlook.com
GFN-14: 50103906^16384+1
Proth "SoB": 44243*2^440969+1
|
|
|
|
|
it helps, Thank You ...
I have a question, why there is ... difference between finds and primes ... ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
Hi Grzegorz,
Every prime number in the test range for each task is tested to see if it is a Wieferich and/or Wall-Sun-Sun prime. For each prime there is a calculation performed which results in a remainder in almost all cases. In the cases where the remainder is equal to zero then we have found a Wieferich or a Wall-Sun-Sun prime, but sometimes the remainder will be very close to zero, and those cases are interesting as well, so those will be counted as "finds". The find in this case is still a prime number, but the prime number itself is fairly small and not interesting; it is the property of that prime that is interesting.
On average, the remainder will be half of the prime being tested (so in the case of a test at 88P, the average remainder will be 4.4 x 1016, and the chances of a prime being a Wieferich or a Wall-Sun-Sun prime is 1/p, so 1 in 8.8 x 1016 at 88P depth. They are extremely rare, which is why it is interesting when the remainder is small. The probability of the remainder being within 10 of zero is still only 1 in 4.4 x 1015 at 88P depth.
Earlier I wrote an example of the math performed for the Wieferich search that may help understand it a bit more. The Wieferich search is looking for prime numbers that, when squared, divide evenly into 2p-1-1. The smallest know example of this is 1093. 10932 divides 21092-1 evenly, leaving no remainder.
These numbers are pretty big, so I have a better example with a different base, but same concept.
In this case the base is 3 instead of 2, and the prime is 11 instead of 1093.
310-1 = 59048
112 = 121
59048 divided by 121 is 488 and there is no remainder, so 3 and 11 make a Wieferich pair in base 3.
Wall-Sun-Sun is more complex than this, but a lot of the same probabilities apply :)
Regards,
Kellen |
|
|
|
|
it helps, Thank You ...
I have a question, why there is ... difference between finds and primes ... ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
Hi Grzegorz,
Every prime number in the test range for each task is tested to see if it is a Wieferich and/or Wall-Sun-Sun prime. For each prime there is a calculation performed which results in a remainder in almost all cases. In the cases where the remainder is equal to zero then we have found a Wieferich or a Wall-Sun-Sun prime, but sometimes the remainder will be very close to zero, and those cases are interesting as well, so those will be counted as "finds". The find in this case is still a prime number, but the prime number itself is fairly small and not interesting; it is the property of that prime that is interesting.
On average, the remainder will be half of the prime being tested (so in the case of a test at 88P, the average remainder will be 4.4 x 1016, and the chances of a prime being a Wieferich or a Wall-Sun-Sun prime is 1/p, so 1 in 8.8 x 1016 at 88P depth. They are extremely rare, which is why it is interesting when the remainder is small. The probability of the remainder being within 10 of zero is still only 1 in 4.4 x 1015 at 88P depth.
Earlier I wrote an example of the math performed for the Wieferich search that may help understand it a bit more. The Wieferich search is looking for prime numbers that, when squared, divide evenly into 2p-1-1. The smallest know example of this is 1093. 10932 divides 21092-1 evenly, leaving no remainder.
These numbers are pretty big, so I have a better example with a different base, but same concept.
In this case the base is 3 instead of 2, and the prime is 11 instead of 1093.
310-1 = 59048
112 = 121
59048 divided by 121 is 488 and there is no remainder, so 3 and 11 make a Wieferich pair in base 3.
Wall-Sun-Sun is more complex than this, but a lot of the same probabilities apply :)
Regards,
Kellen
Kellen, thank you, that's very helpful to a non-mathematical brain like mine. As long as I count my cows I'm pretty happy LoL.
However I very much enjoy the team spirited search and competition in the PG projects. Excellent stuff!
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also remember what I said in the first post above: There are billions of primes in each task, and all are checked
It is certain that the range of numbers that makes up your task, will contain billions of primes. Each prime is checked to see if it has the Wieferich property, or the Wall-Sun-Sun property, or "nearly" has one of those property.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
|
Kellen, thank you, that's very helpful to a non-mathematical brain like mine. As long as I count my cows I'm pretty happy LoL. Quite so. And I wrote this before, but I really enjoy how well users here explain math in terms "normal" persons can understand. Many people don't feel like explaining or cannot do the explaining in simple terms (often a sign they didn't fully understood it themselves). So, it's a nice thing. Thanks once more.
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
|
|
|
what i think post really means is...
wants to find a magic mick........ |
|
|
|
|
The first 1% of work has been generated.
and how far we've gone today ???
regards. Grzegorz Roman Granowski
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
(So very mysterious!)
Dear Mr. Administrator ...
Thank You for information ...
we are waiting !!!
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski
Hi Grzegorz,
If you would like to know how far along we are at any given time, you can determine this from your task names. For example, one of your computers returned task ww_87315_0 recently, and that number "87315" is approximately equal to the start of the range searched in units of 1012. If you want the exact start, subtract 2 from the task name, and to get that into units of "P" (1015) divide by 1000.
For the unit mentioned above, this corresponds to a start depth of 87.313P. The end of the search will be 4611.686P, so the task above is 1.89% of the way to the end of the project.
The Wall-Sun-Sun search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 264.383P, so that task is 33.03% of the way to new Wall-Sun-Sun territory, and the Wiferich search will start searching new ranges (never tested on PRPNet) at 607.132P, so that task is 14.38% of the way to new Wieferich territory.
You can get the task number either by looking at one of your computers and looking at the highest task number you have, or by checking your WW task summary on the tasks summary page. They are arranged in descending order of workunit number, so the highest ones will be at the top. You might not have the highest task issued at any given time, but it will be so close that the error is nearly zero.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Kellen
it helps, Thank You ...
I have a question, why there is ... difference between finds and primes ... ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
Primes that fit into the top 5000 database are registered in your name is the only difference between the two, the rest just get slotted into the list wherever they fit. A prime number is a prime number no matter how big or small it is. |
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings ...
Thank You for explenations !!!
should we expect ... rather finds than primes in Wieferich subproject ???
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
____________
|
|
|
|
|
should we expect ... rather finds than primes in Wieferich subproject ???
I can explain it once more.
In most (not all) other PrimeGrid subprojects, one taks consists of a single colossally huge number. The computation on your computer then determines whether that particular number is prime or not prime.
A discovery in these subprojects is when such a number is prime.
In the WW project, one task consists of a range of numbers, like "from 12345000000000000 to 12346000000000000". The numbers are big compared to everyday life, but really tiny compared to primes you know from the Top 5000. The computation on your computer then runs through the many billion primes that exist between 12345000000000000 and 12346000000000000. For each of those billions of primes, it is checked if it has the Wieferich property or the Wall-Sun-Sun property.
A discovery in WW consists of a prime that has the Wieferich property or the Wall-Sun-Sun property. This is quite rare (up to now, only two are known of the first type, and zero of the second type); so to keep up the spirit (and check that everything is still working correctly), we also record primes that "nearly" have the property. See Welcome to the Wieferich and Wall-Sun-Sun Prime Search for a difficult explanation of what "near" means here.
/JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank You ...
everything is clear ...
best regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
____________
|
|
|
|
|
WW GPU app crashed me with a bluescreen after pausing one of two running instances of it.
Moving back to pps sieve.
I see this too - pause or exit boinc, video driver crashes, fortunately no bluescreens so far. |
|
|
|
|
WW GPU app crashed me with a bluescreen after pausing one of two running instances of it.
Moving back to pps sieve.
I see this too - pause or exit boinc, video driver crashes, fortunately no bluescreens so far.
thankful i not had that happen yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Warm welcome !!!
will there be an upadate ... how far we are in the Wieferich subropject ???
in one of posts, Administrator ... stated that there is going to be daily ... update !
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
____________
|
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
Warm welcome !!!
will there be an upadate ... how far we are in the Wieferich subropject ???
in one of posts, Administrator ... stated that there is going to be daily ... update !
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
I stated previously that the update I gave was a ONE TIME update. I will likely post an update once we hit some significant spots from the PRPNet searches, but that's it. |
|
|
|
|
One time ~24 hour update:
OK. I get it now ... I thought ... the update will be given daily ...
best reagards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
____________
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Warm welcome !!!
will there be an upadate ... how far we are in the Wieferich subropject ???
in one of posts, Administrator ... stated that there is going to be daily ... update !
regards, Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
You asked this exact question four days ago, and this is the answer I gave you:
We are re-evaluating that information and won’t have anything more to say on that topic until we have completed our analysis.
Having to repeat myself makes me grumpy.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not be offended ...
It is a new project and ... and I am just very courious how Crunchers help in solving ...
The Wieferich and Wall Sun - Sun numbers ...
I've set ... almost all my GPU power ...
Once more, it was not my intention ... to offend Dear PG Administrators ...
and let me apologise ...
best regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Grzegorz,
I just reported a unit named "ww_145723_2" and which translates to 145.721P. The planned depth is 4611.686P and which puts my unit at 3.16% completed.
I am at about 1.564% of my target goal which means I am processing at a pace about 50% of the subproject as a whole.
I hope that helps. |
|
|
|
|
|
the clock timer for remaing on nvidia are way off. on rad gpu not sure seeing am using gcn cards and not rnda cards.
turing and above cards love ww gpu units. anything under that no so much |
|
|
|
|
Grzegorz,
I just reported a unit named "ww_145723_2" and which translates to 145.721P. The planned depth is 4611.686P and which puts my unit at 3.16% completed.
I am at about 1.564% of my target goal which means I am processing at a pace about 50% of the subproject as a whole.
I hope that helps.
Is there any reason why you bother converting to "p"? Could you not just say we've done 145721 of 4611686 work units? and if you're really lazy 145723/4611686 gives a close enough answer. |
|
|
|
|
Grzegorz,
I just reported a unit named "ww_145723_2" and which translates to 145.721P. The planned depth is 4611.686P and which puts my unit at 3.16% completed.
I am at about 1.564% of my target goal which means I am processing at a pace about 50% of the subproject as a whole.
I hope that helps.
Is there any reason why you bother converting to "p"? Could you not just say we've done 145721 of 4611686 work units? and if you're really lazy 145723/4611686 gives a close enough answer.
Both approaches are the same aside from the units (P or wu) being used and which cancel out anyway.
I prefer using P since this is a metric which comes up often with the various PG projects. |
|
|
BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
|
|
Also the P makes the number identical to the actual numbers range being searched. More commonly used would be e15 maybe.
We already progressed more than 3%, which seems like a lot for just one week of crunching. I expect run times will increase strongly with increasing size of the numbers? I think I remember having read somewhere before that computation time is approximately propertional to n², is that so?
And a question I asked myself before, how would an average be calculated for such exponential functions? This would be interesting in regard to sieving. Assuming the largest number in a sieve takes 10 hours to compute, the smallest 1 hour. What is the average? Should be less than 5.5 hours, but how much?
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
I expect run times will increase strongly with increasing size of the numbers? I think I remember having read somewhere before that computation time is approximately propertional to n², is that so?
Run times are approximately constant throughout the whole project. Primes take longer to check, but there's fewer of them. There is a slight increase, but <5% from beginning to end. This is why credit is a constant 4k per task.
And a question I asked myself before, how would an average be calculated for such exponential functions? This would be interesting in regard to sieving. Assuming the largest number in a sieve takes 10 hours to compute, the smallest 1 hour. What is the average? Should be less than 5.5 hours, but how much?
Sieving is irrelevant for this project due to the size of these primes. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
I expect run times will increase strongly with increasing size of the numbers?
No. Task times will increase slightly, but it will hardly be noticeable.
I think I remember having read somewhere before that computation time is approximately propertional to n², is that so?
Yes and no. What you're missing is that in this search, N is constant and B is increasing. While the size of the number being tested is porportional to N, it's only proportional to log(B), so the numbers grow very slowly. The size of the numbers won't grow a lot, so the task speed won't change much.
And a question I asked myself before, how would an average be calculated for such exponential functions? This would be interesting in regard to sieving. Assuming the largest number in a sieve takes 10 hours to compute, the smallest 1 hour. What is the average? Should be less than 5.5 hours, but how much?
WW, AP27, and sieves work similarly. At the *very* start they are somewhat faster and produce lots more hits. But by "start" I'm referring to only the very beginning of the very first workunit. (Which, by the way, I ran personally to make sure it didn't cause any problems.) After the beginning, they're pretty much the same speed going forward. That's why this kind of task is going to be constant speed and constant credit.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
Progress update.
We've been refraining from discussing the progress because it appeared early on that the project was going to last only about 200 days, and we wanted to make sure that was correct before everyone started making a mad dash for whatever badge they set their sights on.
While completing WW in 200 days might conceivably happen, it's very unlikely. To start with, the initial enthusiasm for WW has waned. We're currently doing less than 75% of what we were doing at the beginning. The newness is wearing off. Furthermore, most people are going to shift their GPUs to GFN for 10 days later this month, and for the entire month of February, so that's 38 days where WW participation is going to be very low. On the other hand, we'll probably have a WW challenge in March, so we'll gain some of that back.
But the important news is that we're looking into software changes that might let us quadruple the search limit from 2^62 to 2^64. There's reason to be optimistic, but it's not certain.
So, there's the facts. We're searching up to 2^62 and hopefully 2^64, and you don't need us to tell you what the progress is. All you have to do is look at the WW task name, as described previously in this thread.
Now you know as much as we do.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
|
Awesome, ty boss. |
|
|
robishVolunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 12
Posts: 1774
ID: 126266
Credit: 5,066,569,935
RAC: 0
           
|
Progress update.
ðŸ‘
____________
My lucky numbers 10590941048576+1 and 224584605939537911+81292139*23#*n for n=0..26 |
|
|
|
|
To start with, the initial enthusiasm for WW has waned. We're currently doing less than 75% of what we were doing at the beginning. The newness is wearing off.
I was computing the latest progress just last night and noticed the same. A number of folks reached their desired badge and simply quit. Ruby was one popular level. |
|
|
|
|
To start with, the initial enthusiasm for WW has waned. We're currently doing less than 75% of what we were doing at the beginning. The newness is wearing off.
I was computing the latest progress just last night and noticed the same. A number of folks reached their desired badge and simply quit. Ruby was one popular level.
For me it was getting barely any 1sts on a 1080. Wish these would run as our own double checkers like the other projects. |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
A number of folks reached their desired badge and simply quit. Ruby was one popular level.
Bear in mind there is a challenge coming up + ppl now want to test. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
To start with, the initial enthusiasm for WW has waned. We're currently doing less than 75% of what we were doing at the beginning. The newness is wearing off.
I was computing the latest progress just last night and noticed the same. A number of folks reached their desired badge and simply quit. Ruby was one popular level.
For me it was getting barely any 1sts on a 1080. Wish these would run as our own double checkers like the other projects.
It’s not possible. Sorry. It can’t be used on WW, AP27, Primorial, or Factorial. It can work, in theory, on all of our other current primality testing projects, and the plan is to eventually do just that. But those 4 aren’t compatible.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for adding the leading edge to the status page!
This goes for all projects too, not just WW. This is great information. Looks like we are almost at new territory for Wall-Sun-Sun. Just a few more days :) |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Thanks for adding the leading edge to the status page!
This goes for all projects too, not just WW. This is great information. Looks like we are almost at new territory for Wall-Sun-Sun. Just a few more days :)
You're welcome.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
To start with, the initial enthusiasm for WW has waned. We're currently doing less than 75% of what we were doing at the beginning. The newness is wearing off.
I was computing the latest progress just last night and noticed the same. A number of folks reached their desired badge and simply quit. Ruby was one popular level.
For me it was getting barely any 1sts on a 1080. Wish these would run as our own double checkers like the other projects.
It’s not possible. Sorry. It can’t be used on WW, AP27, Primorial, or Factorial. It can work, in theory, on all of our other current primality testing projects, and the plan is to eventually do just that. But those 4 aren’t compatible.
Well, I'm trying to find a newer Nvidia card :) |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for adding the leading edge to the status page!
This goes for all projects too, not just WW. This is great information. Looks like we are almost at new territory for Wall-Sun-Sun. Just a few more days :)
The GCW leading edge has some issues due to different bases...
____________
SHSID Electronics Group
SHSIDElectronicsGroup@outlook.com
GFN-14: 50103906^16384+1
Proth "SoB": 44243*2^440969+1
|
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
Thanks for adding the leading edge to the status page!
This goes for all projects too, not just WW. This is great information. Looks like we are almost at new territory for Wall-Sun-Sun. Just a few more days :)
The GCW leading edge has some issues due to different bases...
GCW now shows only the number of digits.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
The leading edge of WW has passed where we stopped WSS on PRPNet, so we may be seeing new special instances soon.
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
The leading edge of WW has passed where we stopped WSS on PRPNet, so we may be seeing new special instances soon.
That was rather quick. No unusual notices on previous work which also seems to be a good thing.
Cheers |
|
|
|
|
The leading edge of WW has passed where we stopped WSS on PRPNet, so we may be seeing new special instances soon.
Nice !
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
Michael GoetzVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 10
Posts: 13513
ID: 53948
Credit: 237,712,514
RAC: 0
|
|
PrimeGrid's discoveries can be found here: https://www.primegrid.com/stats_ww.php
The menus link to the page, as does the WW portion of the subproject status page.
Your own personal discoveries are linked to in the same place as other primes and AP27s. Example: http://www.primegrid.com/show_user.php?userid=56804
And congratulations, Grzegorz!
____________
My lucky number is 75898524288+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats to Grzegorz Roman Granowski !
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
PrimeGrid's discoveries can be found here: https://www.primegrid.com/stats_ww.php
The menus link to the page, as does the WW portion of the subproject status page.
Your own personal discoveries are linked to in the same place as other primes and AP27s. Example: http://www.primegrid.com/show_user.php?userid=56804
And congratulations, Grzegorz!
Yes congrats and thanks Mike for the update! |
|
|
|
|
And congratulations, Grzegorz!
Thank You ... I've made 50.000 wu's ... counted ... towards ... This Great find ...
regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski ... |
|
|
|
|
And congratulations, Grzegorz!
Thank You ... I've made 50.000 wu's ... counted ... towards ... This Great find ...
regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski ...
If treasure was easy to find everyone would be rich...CONGRATULATIONS on your find!!! |
|
|
|
|
... I've made 50.000 wu's ... counted ... towards ... This Great find ...
And remember we were doing double check work so most of those units were from PRPNet but congrats are still in order.
Cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
And we got more https://www.primegrid.com/stats_ww.php.
Congrats to Grzegorz Roman Granowski (again) and to Scott Brown !
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
And we got more https://www.primegrid.com/stats_ww.php.
Congrats to Grzegorz Roman Granowski (again) and to Scott Brown !
Thank You ...
regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski ... |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand credit is a very wild thing to talk about, but it seems WW is awfully low in amount of credit to crunch hour. Since several times in this thread it was compared to how AP works, well AP crunches at a lot faster rate (my machine nearly double), but WW gets less than an AP. I also know this project is knew and subject to changes in several aspects as it rolls forward, and I suspect credit is always on the table of those discussions.
Just an observation and I am happy to be back after the long hiatus I did have. I just wish I would get into my permanent place so I can fire up the several (now older) machines sitting in storage.
____________
My lucky numbers are 121*2^4553899-1 and 3756801695685*2^666669±1 |
|
|
ReggieVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Volunteer tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 10 May 14
Posts: 162
ID: 311759
Credit: 115,534,067
RAC: 0
|
I understand credit is a very wild thing to talk about, but it seems WW is awfully low in amount of credit to crunch hour. Since several times in this thread it was compared to how AP works, well AP crunches at a lot faster rate (my machine nearly double), but WW gets less than an AP. I also know this project is knew and subject to changes in several aspects as it rolls forward, and I suspect credit is always on the table of those discussions.
Just an observation and I am happy to be back after the long hiatus I did have. I just wish I would get into my permanent place so I can fire up the several (now older) machines sitting in storage.
In our testing, GTX 10xx cards will make more credit/second on AP, RTX 2xxx cards will make more per second on WW, and 3xxx cards are about equal. So, older machines and GPUs will be at more of a disadvantage on WW than AP. |
|
|
|
|
In our testing, GTX 10xx cards will make more credit/second on AP, RTX 2xxx cards will make more per second on WW, and 3xxx cards are about equal. So, older machines and GPUs will be at more of a disadvantage on WW than AP.
My RTX2060 does around 30% more WW tasks per day than AP27 ones.
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
I understand credit is a very wild thing to talk about, but it seems WW is awfully low in amount of credit to crunch hour. Since several times in this thread it was compared to how AP works, well AP crunches at a lot faster rate (my machine nearly double), but WW gets less than an AP. I also know this project is knew and subject to changes in several aspects as it rolls forward, and I suspect credit is always on the table of those discussions.
Just an observation and I am happy to be back after the long hiatus I did have. I just wish I would get into my permanent place so I can fire up the several (now older) machines sitting in storage.
In our testing, GTX 10xx cards will make more credit/second on AP, RTX 2xxx cards will make more per second on WW, and 3xxx cards are about equal. So, older machines and GPUs will be at more of a disadvantage on WW than AP.
I can confirm the part about the GTX 10xx cards. |
|
|
|
|
I understand credit is a very wild thing to talk about, but it seems WW is awfully low in amount of credit to crunch hour. Since several times in this thread it was compared to how AP works, well AP crunches at a lot faster rate (my machine nearly double), but WW gets less than an AP. I also know this project is knew and subject to changes in several aspects as it rolls forward, and I suspect credit is always on the table of those discussions.
Just an observation and I am happy to be back after the long hiatus I did have. I just wish I would get into my permanent place so I can fire up the several (now older) machines sitting in storage.
In our testing, GTX 10xx cards will make more credit/second on AP, RTX 2xxx cards will make more per second on WW, and 3xxx cards are about equal. So, older machines and GPUs will be at more of a disadvantage on WW than AP.
I can confirm the part about the GTX 10xx cards.
20xx includes all Turing arch cards, right? Like 1660&1650?
____________
SHSID Electronics Group
SHSIDElectronicsGroup@outlook.com
GFN-14: 50103906^16384+1
Proth "SoB": 44243*2^440969+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, based off GPU. CPU is much slower than the AP CPU app.
____________
My lucky numbers are 121*2^4553899-1 and 3756801695685*2^666669±1 |
|
|
BurVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 20
Posts: 332
ID: 1241833
Credit: 22,611,276
RAC: 0
|
|
On GPU it actually yields a lot of credit. My 1660 super finishes approximately 4 tasks per hour, so in just 3 days I get the gold badge with this medium power card. I can see how CPU crunchers might see it differently though but I'd say WW is predominantly a GPU project and PG shouldn't go too wild on credit.
____________
Primes: 1281979 & 12+8+1979 & 1+2+8+1+9+7+9 & 1^2+2^2+8^2+1^2+9^2+7^2+9^2 & 12*8+19*79 & 12^8-1979 & 1281979 + 4 (cousin prime) |
|
|
mfl0pProject administrator
Volunteer developer
Send message
Joined: 5 Apr 09
Posts: 224
ID: 38042
Credit: 860,159,741
RAC: 0
            
|
|
I'll give my developer input on the CPU credit discussion.
The WW program was designed for GPUs. The CPU program is an adaption of the GPU algorithm so people can crunch on their CPUs if they don't have access to a GPU. At PrimeGrid, this a has been the tradition to allow as many people to participate as possible.
The CPU app can be made much faster with a different algorithm, however, in order for the checksums to match for workunit validation, it must process the workunit like the GPU program. This results in what seems like "low" CPU credits for WW. |
|
|
|
|
I'll give my developer input on the CPU credit discussion.
The WW program was designed for GPUs. The CPU program is an adaption of the GPU algorithm so people can crunch on their CPUs if they don't have access to a GPU. At PrimeGrid, this a has been the tradition to allow as many people to participate as possible.
The CPU app can be made much faster with a different algorithm, however, in order for the checksums to match for workunit validation, it must process the workunit like the GPU program. This results in what seems like "low" CPU credits for WW.
Is there a way to artificially raise the credits on a reliable basis? By that I mean a cpu task gets variable, or fixed, extra credits every time to match the target gpu credit for the same amount of work completed? And I guess the follow-up would be would it be fairly simple to do? I guess if the answer to either is no then it just is what it is. |
|
|
Dave
Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 12
Posts: 2829
ID: 130544
Credit: 954,793,678
RAC: 0
|
Is there a way to artificially raise the credits on a reliable basis? By that I mean a cpu task gets variable, or fixed, extra credits every time to match the target gpu credit for the same amount of work completed? And I guess the follow-up would be would it be fairly simple to do? I guess if the answer to either is no then it just is what it is.
Sounds too complicated to me. Use CPUs for low GFN or LLR(2). |
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to artificially raise the credits on a reliable basis? By that I mean a cpu task gets variable, or fixed, extra credits every time to match the target gpu credit for the same amount of work completed? And I guess the follow-up would be would it be fairly simple to do? I guess if the answer to either is no then it just is what it is.
I do not think we should "reward" people for using their hardware in a way that is not "rational"/"optimal". /JeppeSN |
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings and warm welcome ...
I must admit ... I am very proud to have two finds in wall-sun-sun ... and one as a doublechecker ...
my longterm plan is to comply with wieferich and wall-sun-sun with almost all my Gpu power ...
until Project ... will be ... out of workunits ...
best regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're doing a great job !
( Including making it hard for me to get a finding :) )
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings ...
I've made a milestone of counting 100.000 tasks for WW...
7 finds so far ... 5 as initial ...
regards,
Grzegorz Roman Granowski
____________
|
|
|
VatoVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 08
Posts: 785
ID: 18447
Credit: 263,436,450
RAC: 0
    
|
|
Well played, Sir, well played.
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
now slow down and give the rest of us a chance :-)
ps great job! |
|
|
|
|
now slow down and give the rest of us a chance :-)
ps great job!
Well said :)
____________
"Accidit in puncto, quod non contingit in anno."
Something that does not occur in a year may, perchance, happen in a moment. |
|
|
