20210408, 21:17  #1 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
3^{3}·283 Posts 
First time LL is no more
The server no longer hands out firsttime LL assignments. I've noted the news on the main page as well as the Manual Assignments page. Requests are converted to doublecheck assignments.
Let me know if I broke anything. 
20210408, 21:32  #2 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
13^{2}×59 Posts 

20210408, 21:40  #3 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
2×7×227 Posts 
LucasLehmer tests have served us well for over 24 years. They can rest now, but will be hopefully be called upon again soon for the honor of verifying the next Mersenne Prime.

20210410, 16:52  #4 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
2×3^{2}×17×19 Posts 
Bravo!
Next in line:
Systems that haven't the OS compatible with current or near future prime95/mprime releases, probably are too old to be effective at first primality testing or DC wavefront, anyway and ought be switched to P1 factoring, or retired as primarily space heaters. It's been over a quarter century (early 1996 to early 2021). Time to move on from routine LL, to only PRP tests in production runs. We'll still need some code capable of redundantly performing LL tests to confirm any reported PRP is in fact a newly discovered Mersenne prime. At exponent ~100M, that's a <1ppm probability per prime exponent of a first LL test being useful. https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...4&postcount=16 Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20210410 at 17:35 
20210410, 17:52  #5 
"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017
1101100000_{2} Posts 
This is a big deal, there should be cake.

20210410, 18:35  #6  
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
37·271 Posts 
Quote:
3 is when the last LL's need need DC. 2 should be 'no time soon' in my estimation. 

20210410, 18:47  #7  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
2·3^{2}·17·19 Posts 
My point #2 was consistent with your own guidance posted earlier.
Quote:
The utility of a new LL first test is almost always less than zero. It uses time and resources at least the equal of a PRP/proof run. But the efficient way of verifying an exponent is composite is not LL & LLDC or LL & then PRP/proof, it is PRP/proof from the start. An LL first test has a 999,999.5+ ppm chance of no benefit. We don't give computing credit for repeated TF of the same bit level work done either, because it provides no benefit. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20210410 at 19:11 

20210410, 20:02  #8 
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
37·271 Posts 

20210410, 20:38  #9 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
3·13·23 Posts 
Do you think people will ask for PRP tests and then edit the worktodo changing them to LL?

20210410, 21:04  #10 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
2×3^{2}×17×19 Posts 
Run of the mill LL wavefront first tests had 2% error rate per test before the addition of the Jacobi check to some of the testing software. CUDALucas still lacks it. So average LL error rate will still be ~1% or more at the wavefront. (Or ~20.% error rate at 100Mdigit, or ~90% error rate at 1G without Jacobi check or dual runs with frequent manual interim residue comparisons.) The current DC wavefront is from several years before the introduction of the Jacobi check, so the 2% error probability applies.
That 12% is high enough that it is more efficient to PRP/GEC/proof/CERT, at ~1.01 effort, than to LLDC at 1.011.02 effort and lower reliability. The higher the exponent, the higher the error rate in LL, and the greater the savings by PRP/GEC/proof as DC. It would be good if the most popular client software supported a user's desire to use the more reliable and efficient algorithm with PrimeNet API assignment, like we can with manual assignments. George, please update prime95 to allow the end user to specify automatic PRP/GEC/Proof in place of LLDC on exponents that had an LL first test. 
20210411, 06:45  #11  
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
3^{4}×11^{2} Posts 
The truth is somewhere in the middle. No need to kill eachother for it. You are both right, each in his own way. LL credits will still have to be given, otherwise some people will stop participating. Most people will not care and many won't know the difference either. But 101 miles per hour are always better than 100 miles per hours, and credits are "free", I mean, George doesn't buy them from a bank or so. There will be always some guys trying to take advantage of the system, but that shouldn't impede the "honest" guys to work toward their goals. Also, in the past people used LLDC work to keep their computers "in check" (in fact, if you look in the Lifetime Top, some of the largest LLDC contributors are the largest because of that! Chris? Anybody?). Now, this "opportunity" is lost, and CERTs are few, never enough for continuous work (and they also don't stress the hardware so much, due to often interruptions). Also, some big contributors (like CurtisC) have an army of computers lost around the campuses or factories, which won't switch the work type (or upgrade to a PRP+CERTaware P95 version) soon.
Quote:
Of course, motivations may vary. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 20210411 at 06:54 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Time to End  davar55  Lounge  4  20130223 02:40 
P95 est time to go seems off  bcp19  Software  1  20120803 22:39 
New .dat time?  benjackson  Prime Sierpinski Project  16  20080729 07:26 
Time  Xyzzy  Science & Technology  26  20080119 03:28 
We'll be done in no time!!!!  petrw1  Hardware  6  20061130 08:49 