On Sunday 01 September 2002 03:35, George Woltman wrote: > > Our intrepid researcher broke down the non-clean run stats below. So if > you get a single error, you've got a 2/3 chance of being OK. Two or more > errors and your chances are not good.
There will be a major change in this area - since new versions run per-iteration roundoff error checking when close to FFT run length crossovers, there will be a fair number of _reliable_ results with multiple (automatically checked) roundoff errors. Perhaps the analysis should distinguish between runs where all roundoff errors were found to be "false alarms", and runs where a roundoff error seems to have been a glitch. Analysis of the seven results in the "bad" database submitted on my account: 3 due to a failed CPU fan (on an old P100 system, running in an air-conditioned computer lab. One with detected roundoff errors, two without) 2 due to software bug in a recent alpha release 1 due to hard disk problem - almost certainly bad swap file I/O caused memory corruption on a busy system (without detected error) 1 (also without detected error) cause unknown. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
