Mersenne Digest Saturday, June 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 568
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 23:36:24 -0400
From: Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
However, one thing to note is that SETI @Home doesn't seem to be as "idle
priority" as Prime95 is. I ran it for a while, and I felt I could notice a
slowdown, and when it wasn't minimized, there was a VERY noticeable
slowdown. I think SETI @Home actually steals more than just idle cycles,
and gets a few more.
- --Peter
At 22:45 06/04/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>The message of the day on the Sun machines here at the University of
>Michigan included the following today:
>
> * * * * *
>Please do not run the Seti At Home program on the Login Servers. Although
>it is for a good cause, the Login Servers do not have any spare CPU cycles
>to donate. Running Seti At Home interferes with other users getting their
>work done.
> * * * * *
>
>This illustrates the importance of getting permission before running
>processor-intensive programs on machines that are not entirely your own.
>There are only about thirty people logged in on the machine that I'm using
>right now, and as usual almost all of them are running Pine; even with
>this comparatively light load the slowdown was apparently bad enough to be
>a problem. I suspect that people trying to run Seti on these machines at a
>peak time of year would create a big performance drag, and force the
>administrators to monitor individual users' processor usage more closely
>to prevent such abuses. It is easy to forget about such consequences in
>the quest for CPU time.
>
>I'd like to think that GIMPS members, on the whole, do not deserve
>warnings like the one above. Let's keep it that way.
>
>
>David A. Miller
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
>
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:46:37 -0700
From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
> The message of the day on the Sun machines here at the University of
> Michigan included the following today:
>
> * * * * *
> Please do not run the Seti At Home program on the Login Servers. Although
> it is for a good cause, the Login Servers do not have any spare CPU cycles
> to donate. Running Seti At Home interferes with other users getting their
> work done.
> * * * * *
....
>
> I'd like to think that GIMPS members, on the whole, do not deserve
> warnings like the one above. Let's keep it that way.
ah, from what I'm hearing, the SETI@home software is a real dog. My boss was
running it on his home 128MB pentium--2 400 as a screen saver, he said after
it had run even for a few seconds, his entire computer was worthless til he
rebooted. It apparently consumes gobs of system resources and isn't real good
at releasing them.
prime95/NT on the other hand is virtually invisible on my systems.
- -jrp
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 21:23:49 -0700
From: Kevin Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
You will notice that seti@home runs at normal application priority(4).
It also uses a large amount of memory for it's processing.
I have not noticed any problems with it not releasing memory, was it set up to run
constantly?
That would definitely cause problems, unless you have an incredibly overpowered
system -- i.e.. you never hit 100% usage without seti@home or prime95, etc.
It would be best on systems that are otherwise not used most of the time and have
plenty of memory.
It would be nice if they offered an option to set the priority, but running it
while doing other things would cause a lot of swap file usage unless you have
extra memory.
Kevin Sexton
37% done with 5315483 after nearly finishing on v.17
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:28:29 -0400
From: Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:45:45PM -0400, "David A. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This illustrates the importance of getting permission before running
> processor-intensive programs on machines that are not entirely your own.
> There are only about thirty people logged in on the machine that I'm using
> right now, and as usual almost all of them are running Pine; even with
> this comparatively light load the slowdown was apparently bad enough to be
> a problem. I suspect that people trying to run Seti on these machines at a
> peak time of year would create a big performance drag, and force the
> administrators to monitor individual users' processor usage more closely
> to prevent such abuses. It is easy to forget about such consequences in
> the quest for CPU time.
Each instance of setiathome (or any other process which tries to get all of
the CPU) will add 1 to the load average. Sendmail and other mail systems
generally have a default load at which they will stop processing incoming
email - if the system is processing incoming email, this could be an issue.
Other server apps may behave similarly, or additional load may just be setting
off system monitors that warn about high load, even though there's no actual
degredation of performance.
Regardless, running anything on any machine you're not responible for without
consent is asking for trouble.
Bryan
- --
Bryan Fullerton http://www.samurai.com/
Core Competency
Samurai Consulting
"No, we don't do seppuku." Can you feel the Ohmu call?
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 08:34:05 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
On 4 Jun 99, at 23:36, Peter Doherty wrote:
> However, one thing to note is that SETI @Home doesn't seem to be as "idle
> priority" as Prime95 is. I ran it for a while, and I felt I could notice a
> slowdown, and when it wasn't minimized, there was a VERY noticeable
> slowdown. I think SETI @Home actually steals more than just idle cycles,
> and gets a few more.
I believe the screensaver version (for Wintel) runs at priority 4,
which is normal for screensavers, but the "detatched" version runs
at normal application priority on all hosts. (Unless modified by
"nice" on Unix systems)
>
> >The message of the day on the Sun machines here at the University of
> >Michigan included the following today:
> >
> > * * * * *
> >Please do not run the Seti At Home program on the Login Servers. Although
> >it is for a good cause, the Login Servers do not have any spare CPU cycles
> >to donate. Running Seti At Home interferes with other users getting their
> >work done.
> > * * * * *
This says a lot. Presumably lots of people with accounts on the
server are all trying to run Seti@Home. Though one instance might
go unnoticed, a lot of instances certainly will use up memory (and
other critical system resources e.g. process slots), as well as
interfering with each other - and with whatever job the servers were
installed to do.
> >This illustrates the importance of getting permission before running
> >processor-intensive programs on machines that are not entirely your own.
Agreed. Applies to mprime/NTPrime/Prime95 as well, even if they
do have "better manners" wrt using system resources on multi-user
hosts & servers.
> >There are only about thirty people logged in on the machine that I'm using
> >right now, and as usual almost all of them are running Pine; even with
> >this comparatively light load the slowdown was apparently bad enough to be
> >a problem. I suspect that people trying to run Seti on these machines at a
> >peak time of year would create a big performance drag, and force the
> >administrators to monitor individual users' processor usage more closely
> >to prevent such abuses. It is easy to forget about such consequences in
> >the quest for CPU time.
Probably the memory was getting used up, causing swapping,
which really knocks the apparent performance of the system back.
Or, if there were a lot of instances of the "offending" program, just
having to wait in a long queue to get at the CPU can make things
appear to be unacceptably slow. On a multi-user system, as the
load rises, the response time rises about linearly initially, but
steepens until eventually becoming essentially vertical. The "elbow"
in the response time/load curve is very sharp, this is not a simple
polynominal or exponential growth curve.
Actually it's very easy for system admins to "find" programs like
this that are "abusing" the system & take suitable action (in line
with local site regulations) to stop the abuse. But it obviously
makes sense to ask the users not to be an unneccessary
nuisance in the first place.
Another thing; it's sometimes incredible to users just how limited
the CPU resources on central server systems can be. e.g. at the
University of Ulster, all the staff (academic & non-academic) e-mail
goes through one server running Novell Netware on one Pentium
133. That's well over 1000 users ... It's (just about) adequate but
there really _isn't_ a lot of horsepower to spare. And it would be
impossible to justify an upgrade or replacement on the grounds of
"insufficient CPU power" if "unneccessary" CPU-intensive tasks
were found to be running on the system.
But the really crucial point is that there is absolutely no point in
running more "CPU soak" programs on a system than the system
has processors - if nothing else, the extra task switching between
"CPU soakers" wastes CPU cycles!
> >I'd like to think that GIMPS members, on the whole, do not deserve
> >warnings like the one above. Let's keep it that way.
Some will not need the warning, some (especially those who may
not appreciate the complexities inherent in multiuser systems)
almost certainly do. It's very easy, these days, to assume the only
resources you're using are those of the box you're physically
connected to via your fingertips.
Incidentally Seti@Home is a moderately heavy user of network
resources, too. (Unlike the GIMPS programs, which are very light
on network resources.) At University of Ulster we find this isn't a
problem (though we most definitely do see signs of a shift in usage
pattern since Seti@Home came on line). However it might possibly
be at some sites.
Regards
Brian Beesley
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 99 08:23:11 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
> useless.
Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
errors could be corrected?
If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
Hopefully, realization of the impact on GIMPS is punishment enough to make
sure this won't happen again...
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 09:40:43 -0500
From: Ken Kriesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: New Mersenne Prime found!! Not yet verified
At 06:49 PM 1999/06/03 -0700, Paul Burnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 08:47 PM 6/2/99 Ken Kriesel wrote:
>
>>The EFF requires that they approve the specific publication and referee
>>process
>
>...otherwise the newly discovered Mersenne Prime isn't "officially" a
>Mersenne Prime? Fascinating! (Or is this just for the prize?)
Just for the prize award. As someone said, "It's their money, so they get
to make the rules." That's pretty standard.
Ken
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 99 08:45:43 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: Worm warning -- this is NOT a HOAX.
To everyone on all of these mailing lists. DO NOT open unsolicited or
otherwise suspicious attachments. Not Word files or executables, or Excel
files. If you must, scan them first with antivirus software. Update your
antivirus software so it recognizes "Pretty Park".
This one spreads much like the Happy99 worm or Melissa. Worse, once installed
it allows unauthorized access to one's computer like Netbus or Back Orifice,
by talking to the virus author on IRC.
I felt it prudent to warn you guys, since two of the lists got dinged with
Happy99...
Read about it from the source.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/276805.asp
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 10:56:10 -0400
From: "St. Dee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
At 08:23 6/5/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
>> useless.
>
>Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
>errors could be corrected?
This is a known bug the consequences of which were hashed and rehashed at
least one month ago. V18.1 was designed to take appropriate action with
"work in progress." Your work to date on that exponent was disgarded
(though you might still get credit for time spent--Scott?) because it was
invalid.
>If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
>completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
>testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
>GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
Ummmmmm, this is a volunteer effort on the part of George, Scott, and
others. Programming of this type is difficult, and bugs are a part of
life. Let's save phrases such as "completely unconscionably" for more
important things in life. GIMPS, while real science, is supposed to be fun.
>Hopefully, realization of the impact on GIMPS is punishment enough to make
>sure this won't happen again...
Is the phrase "Lighten up" too strong?
Kel <--hoping that one of the 6,000,000s I'm checking is a Mersenne prime
as per the island theory :-)
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 09:59:52 -0500
From: Ken Kriesel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
At 08:23 AM 1999/06/05 MDT, Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
>> useless.
>
>Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
>errors could be corrected?
>
>If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
>completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
>testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
>GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
>
As I recall, there were times when new versions of primenet or prime95 were
needed by a certain date to prevent exhaustion of all exponents below the
usable limit.
Remember that all code development is by volunteers, primarily George
Woltman for prime95, and Scott Kurowski for primenet.
I do not have you on my list of QA testers or code reviewers.
Would you like to participate in helping V19 meet the code quality
you desire in this free software?
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:14:09 +0100 (BST)
From: Chris Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18
>
> If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
> completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
> testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
> GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
>
> Hopefully, realization of the impact on GIMPS is punishment enough to make
> sure this won't happen again...
>
On the other hand, it is often difficult to find out when trying to
squeeze speed out of programs if you've gone too far, and the only way to
test the program is the do entire LL tests in both this and another
program we are sure works.. Doing it for more than a couple of exponents
is VERY slow...
Although I do agree, I hope that it doesn't happen again..
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 11:47:26 -0400
From: Paul Cuni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: seti@home fraud!
500,000 users working on 115
work units?
Bob_Kanefsky
(M/California)
Jun
5 1999
2:28AM EDT
I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that SETI@home's half million
participants are currently being
assigned the same 115 work units over and over again, all from three
different sky locations collected
on January 7 and 8. If anyone has seen any other work units recently --
especially from January 9 or
later -- please speak up.
After seeing a few duplications of work units a machine at work had
already processed (same headers,
same content), I ran a test. I instructed my computer to repeatedly
start the SETI@home client and
download a work unit, but then just kill it, record the name, and start
again. The result: Out of 2500
work units, the same 115 kept showing up.
Two of the 115 work units are slices of different coordinates and have
the following names (as shown
on the fourth line of the work_unit.txt file):
name=07ja99aa.10912.26555.213914.156 [got this one 6 times out of 2500]
name=08ja99aa.16286.4081.917340.30 [got this one 4 times out of 2500]
The others are all subband slices from one location (but only 113 of them).
They all say
name=08ja99aa.12769.4418.68748.*
where * is one of these subband numbers:
0 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31
32 33 35 36 37 38 39 41 43 44
45 47 50 52 54 55 56 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 70 72 74 76 78 79 80 85 86 87
88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97
98 99 100 102 103 104 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 122 123
124 125 127 131 132 133 134
135 138 139 140 142 143 145 148 149 150 151 152 154 158 160 161 163
The only other data unit I've seen was one I downloaded on May 27 and
then had to release the
machine that was working on it.
I hope the SETI@home project will fix this problem soon, or at least
acknowledge it and promise that
they're working on it.
P.S. Kris, you may be right about the cause, but I doubt it. Web browser
clients may be configured to
use caching proxies, but there's no reason that the SETI@home
client/server connection would be built
only anything that complicated when a direct connection is easier to do.
But not having seen the
implementation, anything is possible.
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 99 16:02:39 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mersenne: FFT's, NTT's, FGT's, etc...
I apologize if this message appears twice; I sent it from another email
account and it hasn't appeared on the list in 12 hours.
- -------
Hi everyone:
I am very interested in learning about FFT's, NTT's, DWT's, FGT's, any any
other kind of transforms that would be of use for doing computational number
theory. I've read through the FFT sections in "Numerical Recipes in C" but
I found there to be very little mathematics shown... only results for the
most part. Also, the source code seemed to be very ugly and difficult to
understand. I even found a couple of mistakes. Can anyone suggest to me a
better resource, and somewhere that I might find information about the more
advanced transforms? Thanks in advance for your help.
- - Clayton
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:16:17 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mersenne: CPU Time
<<I'd like to think that GIMPS members, on the whole, do not deserve
warnings like the one above. Let's keep it that way.>>
I don't know much about the SETI program, but from what I know, the program
is highly resource-intensive, and it also sends huge amounts of data through
the Internet. Presumably it is also not as well-behaved as Prime95 is, which
cannot slow down anything that has an adequate amount of RAM. (In your face,
USWest. :-D)
STL
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 15:50:12 -0700
From: "Gilmore, John (AZ75)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: seti@home fraud!
This is acknowleged on the Seti@Home web site as a "temporary problem" due
to their "data pipeline" not flowing at top speed. I'm not quite sure what
that means, but at least they _are_ acknowleging it.
Time to put my SGI back on DoubleChecking.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Cuni [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 1999 8:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mersenne: seti@home fraud!
>
> 500,000 users working on 115 work units?
> Bob_Kanefsky
> (M/California)
> Jun
> 5 1999 2:28AM EDT
>
> I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that SETI@home's half million
> participants are currently being assigned the same 115 work units over and
> over again, all from three different sky locations collected on January 7
> and 8. If anyone has seen any other work units recently -- especially from
> January 9 or later -- please speak up.
>
> After seeing a few duplications of work units a machine at work had
> already processed (same headers, same content), I ran a test. I instructed
> my computer to repeatedly start the SETI@home client and download a work
> unit, but then just kill it, record the name, and start again. The result:
> Out of 2500 work units, the same 115 kept showing up.
>
> Two of the 115 work units are slices of different coordinates and have
> the following names (as shown on the fourth line of the work_unit.txt
> file):
>
> name=07ja99aa.10912.26555.213914.156 [got this one 6 times out of 2500]
> name=08ja99aa.16286.4081.917340.30 [got this one 4 times out of 2500]
>
> The others are all subband slices from one location (but only 113 of
> them). They all say
> name=08ja99aa.12769.4418.68748.*
> where * is one of these subband numbers:
> 0 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 31
> 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 41 43 44
> 45 47 50 52 54 55 56 60 61 62 64 65 66 67 70 72 74 76 78 79 80 85 86 87
> 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 96 97
> 98 99 100 102 103 104 109 110 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 122 123
> 124 125 127 131 132 133 134
> 135 138 139 140 142 143 145 148 149 150 151 152 154 158 160 161 163
>
>
> The only other data unit I've seen was one I downloaded on May 27 and
> then had to release the machine that was working on it.
>
> I hope the SETI@home project will fix this problem soon, or at least
> acknowledge it and promise that they're working on it.
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 17:15:56 -0600
From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: CPU Time
> I don't know much about the SETI program, but from what I know,
> the program
> is highly resource-intensive, and it also sends huge amounts of
> data through
> the Internet. Presumably it is also not as well-behaved as
> Prime95 is, which
> cannot slow down anything that has an adequate amount of RAM. (In
> your face,
> USWest. :-D)
>
> STL
Thanks! Got a laugh out of that. As we've seen, US WEST computers had
problems a full 4 days before I did anything on them, proving what we all
already knew, that NTPrime is well behaved.
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 20:15:41 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still trying
to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
In a message dated 6/5/99 10:27:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
> errors could be corrected?
Evidently you haven't been monitoring the list. The version 18 software was
DESIGNED, immediately after the bug was found, to determine whether any given
run contained corrupt data. Errors mounted with each and every iteration,
making "correction" impossible and worthless anyway.
>
> If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
> completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
> testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the
whole
> GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
More inflammatory statements showing your non-monitoring of the mailing list.
George made COPIOUS apologies REPEATEDLY when the bug was found. If you
think his behavior is unconsionable, you are welcome to withdraw from the
project. Remember that 100% of this effort is volunteer.
>
> Hopefully, realization of the impact on GIMPS is punishment enough to make
> sure this won't happen again...
>
Hopefully, you'll get a clue and stop being so insulting. I don't hold out a
whole lot of hope though.
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 99 20:09:39 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 Jun 99, at 8:23, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> If you check the source code...
I don't have it.
> And, because of a "feature" dating back to days when exponents were
> small, none of the test data sets in the program self-test would
> trigger the bug. So "normal" testing procedures failed to detect it.
The self tests go to arbitrary levels of precision! I've seen it. Before
beginning an exponent it does a self-test for that precision, if it hasn't
already done one there.
> a) This incident was well discussed when the bug was detected
> about 9 weeks ago.
I wasn't there then. Because of my FUCKING ISP and their worthless mail
system...
> b) I can assure you that George did not feel at all good about it at
> the time. Nevertheless, accidents happen. Always have done,
> always will do. That's life!
Accidents will happen. This is why they invented crash test dummies...
I think I'll be staying away from any ".0" versions in future.
> (Though, as I say, if you saw the offending code section, I
> think you'd need to think hard about it for a few minutes before you
> could see that there was a potential problem).
I'd bet you're right. Because, although I am a programmer myself, I don't know
the code like the back of my hand. I would hope each person that does work on
the code does know it like the back of his/her hand...
> d) There is a maxim amongst conservative computer users, "don't
> fix what ain't broken". There was no _need_ to upgrade to v17,
> unless you wished to run double-checking assignments.
I was running double checking assignments until I got the new K6-2 400MHz CPU.
> ...the setback was actually only four or five weeks.
Sounds like a lot to me. This CPU I have can finish LL tests in that kind of
time, except that I have a habit of using it for other things a lot of the
time.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 99 20:21:44 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still
> trying to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
I'm not trying to stir up trouble. However, between your insulting of my sig
file (absent temporarily, due to my ISP's mail trouble and my consequently
being stuck with usa.net's crummy web interface) and your accusing me of
flame-baiting, I begin to suspect that you, who I formerly had not even
noticed, are in fact trying to flame-bait the list.
I think that is a bad idea. This list is a good thing and causing a flamewar
on it will be a bad thing.
In the interests of not allowing a flamewar to start, I shall henceforth not
respond to anything you post that appears to have inflammatory intent. I
recommend that everyone else do likewise. Then there won't be any flamewars.
Of course, if I have misunderstood your intentions, you presumably won't post
anything else inflammatory, and the foregoing will be rendered moot.
> Evidently you haven't been monitoring the list.
No thanks to Globalserve...
> Errors mounted with each and every iteration, making "correction"
> impossible and worthless anyway.
A problem of such magnitude should have been caught a lot sooner... but I
repeat myself.
> George made COPIOUS apologies REPEATEDLY when the bug was found.
Well, no thanks to my ISP, I was not aware of this.
[Various inflammatory stuff deleted.]
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 00:18:50 -0400
From: "Rick Pali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
From: Paul Derbyshire
> and your accusing me of flame-baiting, I begin
> to suspect that you, who I formerly had not even
> noticed, are in fact trying to flame-bait the list.
I don't think that anyone's trying to flame anyone at all, but I can't
> > Evidently you haven't been monitoring the list.
>
> No thanks to Globalserve...
Well that's not the list's fault, not is it George's or Scott's so might
it not be a good idea to ask to be apprised of the situation before
accusing the very people who make all this possible of being "completely
unconscionably rash." Not only would've it prevented that egg on your
face, but it's just plain courteous.
> A problem of such magnitude should have been caught a lot
> sooner... but I repeat myself.
Yea, you sure do. I'd consider the software that the project has produced
as *outstanding* when compared to the commercial norm. And even when a
single problem has occurred, there was a fix within a day or two. It's a
pipe-dream with software that we pay hundreds of dollars for...and we can
download this stuff for free.
After two years, I've only lost two numbers (that weren't my fault). With
a record like that, the reasonable among us have nothing at all to
complain about. And if 100% accuracy is what you demand, Ken has extended
an invitation to you to join the testing team.
> > George made COPIOUS apologies REPEATEDLY when the bug was found.
>
> Well, no thanks to my ISP, I was not aware of this.
We're got nothing at all to do with that, and you can't claim that your
ISP has anything to do with what you've written since your return either.
Like the previous poster said, George obviously regretted the error, felt
bad about it, and apologised repeatedly. I don't think that he deserves to
be called to the carpet for it so long after the fact.
Rick.
- -----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alienshore.com/
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 21:38:13 -0700
From: Joe Decker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> Sounds like a lot to me. This CPU I have can finish LL tests in that kind of
> time, except that I have a habit of using it for other things a lot of the
> time.
It may seem like a long time to you, but I've been interested in Mersenne
Primes as an observer since around 1978-9, and as a participant in GIMPS before
primenet,
back when exponents were more like 700,000 rather than 7,000,000, which has been
what, 3, 4 years?
Moreover, George and Scott have always been very clear and forthright about
what's going on in GIMPS/Primenet. I've never met George and Scott in
person, but I've dealt with them in regard to GIMPS/Primenet, and I want
to take this opportunity to say publically that they are a primary reason
that almost all my idle cycles remain dedicated to the GIMPS.
- --Joe
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 00:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: lrwiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
All,
alright, everybody break it up!
>> Well, you've dropped the annoying Mandelbrot quote, but you're still
>> trying to stir up trouble on my favorite mailing list.
>
> I'm not trying to stir up trouble. However, between your insulting of my sig
> file (absent temporarily, due to my ISP's mail trouble and my consequently
> being stuck with usa.net's crummy web interface) and your accusing me of
> flame-baiting, I begin to suspect that you, who I formerly had not even
> noticed, are in fact trying to flame-bait the list.
I doubt that anyone was trying to flame-bait, [EMAIL PROTECTED] was mearly
over-reacting to Paul Derbyshire's over-reacting to a software bug.
Hey, I understand on both counts. Most of us deeply respect George as
a brilliant organizer, and (at the very least) a very competent programmer, as
well as very good leader of a *fun* and *volunteer* project.
Here are my ideas on bugs:
Bugs happen! They're a fact of life, omnipresent in all software.
Bugs should allways be caught in the testing, but so often they aren't.
In the meantime, a subgroup of testers have been created which should
(hopefully) ensure that things like this cannot take place again.
>> a) This incident was well discussed when the bug was detected
>> about 9 weeks ago.
>
> I wasn't there then. Because of my F---ING ISP and their worthless mail
> system...
Ok, hopefully, you can see how your remarks seemed especially inflamatory, as
well as rude and stupid to someone without this knowledge. However, now that
we all have this knowledge about your email, your remarks seem more reasonable, just
an over-reaction.
and remember,
A debugged program is one for which you have not yet found the conditions
that make it fail.
-- Jerry Ogdin
- -Lucas Wiman
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: 5 Jun 99 23:07:04 MDT
From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [RE: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]]
"Rick Pali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that anyone's trying to flame anyone at all, but I can't
[the rest is missing]
???
> ... might it not be a good idea to ask to be apprised of the situation
> before accusing the very people who make all this possible of
> being "completely unconscionably rash."
Erm? Regardless of when I found out, it remains a fact that to release
non-beta software to the general public without a thorough testing *is* a rash
act.
> And even when a single problem has occurred, there was a fix within a
> day or two.
Yeah. But with spectacular showstopper bugs, that is still locking the barn
door after the horses have escaped. Spectacular showstopper bugs shouldn't
ever make it into a release product... testing (alpha or beta) should be able
to catch all of those.
> I don't think that he deserves to be called to the carpet for it so
> long after the fact.
>From my point of view, it isn't "long after the fact". It was yesterday.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:06:43 -0600
From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]]
> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> > Sounds like a lot to me. This CPU I have can finish LL tests in
> that kind of
> > time, except that I have a habit of using it for other things a
> lot of the
> > time.
>
> It may seem like a long time to you, but I've been interested in Mersenne
> Primes as an observer since around 1978-9, and as a participant
> in GIMPS before primenet,
> back when exponents were more like 700,000 rather than 7,000,000,
> which has been
> what, 3, 4 years?
>
> Moreover, George and Scott have always been very clear and
> forthright about
> what's going on in GIMPS/Primenet. I've never met George and Scott in
> person, but I've dealt with them in regard to GIMPS/Primenet, and I want
> to take this opportunity to say publically that they are a primary reason
> that almost all my idle cycles remain dedicated to the GIMPS.
I also, as someone whose been in GIMPS since nearly the beginning, don't
consider a few weeks of lost time to be very much. I run NTPrime/Prime95 on
anywhere from 30-50 processors at any given time. The version 17.x bug was
annoying, and I had a few machines that were just about finished. But it's
not a big deal. I just started over. Cumulatively, I probably wasted
nearly a couple P-90 CPU years, but so what?
I do this for fun...before there was any prize, whether I'm able to run on
just 1 machine or several thousand :-) or whether I'm doing just factoring
work, double-checks, or LL tests (or a healthy mix of all 3).
If losing a few weeks work is so upsetting, perhaps you should examine your
motivation.
Just my $0.02 worth...
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
End of Mersenne Digest V1 #568
******************************
