On Thursday 25 December 2003 23:22, Ignacio Larrosa Cañestro wrote:
Where went M23494381?
I has assigned that exponent to factor. But today it dissappears from my
Individual Account Report. And I don't found it in the Assigned Exponents
Report nor in the Cleared Exponents Report ...
Yes -
On Tuesday 23 December 2003 20:15, Matthias Waldhauer wrote:
Last friday I read some messages about recent kernel modifications and
patches for version 2.6.0. There is an imcplicit_large_page patch,
allowing applications to use large pages without modifications. I don't
have the time to dig
Hi,
Another thought struck me - this could have useful applications in L-L
testing programs.
If M is the Mersenne number being tested R(i) is the L-L residue after i
iterations, then
R(i+1) = R(i) * R(i) - 2 (modulo M) (by the statement of the L-L algorithm)
But note that (M - R(i))^2 - 2 =
On Saturday 12 July 2003 13:08, Scott Gibbs wrote:
Dear Base:
By a twist of extraordinary luck I procured a 3GHz. P IV with 1 GByte of
RAM which translates to 12 possible 1 million candidate tests per year.
But I found a way to accelerate this behemoth even more!
By installing the
On Sunday 29 June 2003 05:42, Pierre Abbat wrote:
I am investigating 64-100 sequences, which are chains of bases such that
the number written 100 in each is written 64 in the next (e.g. 8,10,16,42).
I quickly wrote a Python program to compute them. It is now computing the
square of a 1555000
On Saturday 28 June 2003 18:47, you wrote:
Will the 64-bit residue be the SAME when a given exponent
was originally Lucas-Lehmer tested with a 384K FFT, but
the double-check is performed using a 448K FFT ?
Hopefully - in fact the whole 2^p-1 bit residue R(p) should be the same!
R(2)=4
R(n+1)
On Monday 16 June 2003 20:16, George Woltman wrote:
I'm also adding code to 23.5 to check EVERY iteration for an impossible
result such as -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. This test will be very, very quick.
Sounds sensible to me ... but, does it not make sense to run this test during
those iterations when
On Thursday 12 June 2003 10:07, Nathan Russell wrote:
That is a collosal understatement. Every modulo operation destroys
information, and I'm not sure whether one COULD construct such a file.
Indeed.
In general there will be more than one x such that x^2-2 = R modulo 2^p-1 so,
working
On Saturday 05 April 2003 20:33, Alexander Kruppa wrote:
Bjoern Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
I wondered if someone already have checked if the last mersenne
numbers +2 are double primes?
like 3+5, 5+7, 9+11, 11+13 or
824 633 702 441
and
824 633 702 443
regards
Bjoern
Mp + 2 is
Hi,
The _only_ incidence of 2^p-1 2^p+1 both being prime is p=2 yielding the
prime pair (3, 5).
Here's a proof by induction:
Consider the difference between the second successor of two consecutive
Mersenne numbers with odd exponents:
(2^(n+2)+1) - (2^n+1) = 2^(n+2) - 2^n = 2^n * (2^2 - 1) =
On Tuesday 01 April 2003 07:11, John R Pierce wrote:
I just started running a recent build of mprime on a couple of linux
systems, and noted an anomaly vis a vis primenet...
When mprime connects to primenet, its not updating date on the rest of the
worktodo, only on the exponent actually in
Hi,
There still seems to be a problem of some sort. This morning (between 0800
0900 GMT) I was able to get some results checked in but since then I'm
getting server unavailable from the client.
traceroute shows a nice loop:
This is typical of a problem at a network leaf node. The site
On Saturday 15 March 2003 01:07, John R Pierce wrote:
another minor question... Is there any way to force CPU affinity, or does
mprime do that automatically?
Unlike Windows, linux has a smart CPU/task allocation algorithm that tries
hard (but not too hard) to run a thread on the same CPU it
On Sunday 09 March 2003 12:24, Daran wrote:
In the hope of more quickly collecting data, I have also redone, to 'first
time test' limits, every entry in pminus1.txt which had previously done to
B1=B2=1000, 2000, and 3000. For these exponents, all in the 1M-3M ranges,
the client was able to
On Saturday 08 March 2003 03:35, spike66 wrote:
Some of you hardware jockeys please give me a
clue. I have two machines at home running GIMPS 24-7.
One is a P4-2Ghz. The other is a 5 yr old 350 Mhz
PII, which is in need of a tech refresh. Clearly
there is more to computer performance than
On Thursday 06 March 2003 13:03, Daran wrote:
Based upon what I know of the algorithms involved, it *ought* to be the
case that you should do any P-1 work on the machine which can give it the
most memory, irrespective of processor type.
... assuming the OS allows a single process to grab the
On Friday 07 February 2003 04:00, G W Reynolds wrote:
I am using mprime 22.12 on a pentium 166 MMX to do trial factoring. For the
exponents currently being assigned from primenet it takes this machine
about 12 minutes to factor from 2^57 to 2^58.
I thought I would try factoring some small
On Saturday 01 February 2003 07:53, Eric Hahn wrote:
Let's say you've done 700 curves with B1=25,000 to
find a factor up to 30-digits... and you've been
unsuccessful... :-(
Now you've decided to try 1800 curves with
B1=1,000,000 to try and find a factor up to
35-digits.
Do you have to
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:07, Paul Missman wrote:
You bring up an interesting point about the software, I suppose. I never
thought that George or Scott considered the software proprietary.
This whole area is a legal minefield ... Even open source software can be
proprietized, e.g. the
On Sunday 26 January 2003 06:11, Rick Pali wrote:
[... snip ...]
that *everything* on the site is copyright by the owner. No exception is
made for the forums. They even go so far as do reject liability for what
people write, but seem to claim ownership non-the-less.
IANAL but I don't think
On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote:
[ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ]
Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2
clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64 bits unless
there aren't enough SSE2 clients to
On Saturday 25 January 2003 05:38, Michael Vang wrote:
Well, to be honest, not much more can be done... As it is now, we have
several mechanisms in place to enable people with dialup access the
ability to log on and get done right quick...
What about posting (a digest of) forum messages on
On Saturday 25 January 2003 02:07, John R Pierce wrote:
But, no, you won't be able to complete a 10M on a P100 ;-)
my slowest machine still on primenet is a p150 that has 60 days to finish
14581247, its been working on it for about 300 days now, 24/7, with nearly
zero downtime. 2.22 seconds
On Friday 24 January 2003 02:27, Richard Woods wrote:
Let's put it this way: Maybe you don't give a fig for fame, but
some of the rest of us do. A chance at real, honest-to-gosh
mathematical fame has a value not measurable in CPU years, but
poaching steals that.
So what we want is a
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 07:57, Denis Cazor wrote:
Hello,
for my part, I looked for my place in the top 1000 list
- on www.mersenne.org /top.html my place is 388 this week with
100 LL tests.
- on mersenne.org/ips/topproduccers.shtml (updated hourly)
I found to be at the 26444 place,
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 22:50, Richard Woods wrote:
Here's what I've just posted in the GIMPS Forum.
- - -
_IF_ PrimeNet has automatic time limits on assignments, ordinarily
requiring no manual intervention to expire assignments or re-assign
them, then why would any GIMPS participant,
On Saturday 07 December 2002 23:45, Barry Stokes wrote:
Tried to get to my individual account report again, and this time was
greeted with this:
Insufficient system resources exist to complete the requested service.
Anyone else getting the same?
Yes. Around 0700 GMT yesterday (7th) I
On Wednesday 04 December 2002 21:46, Daran wrote:
[... snip ...]
...though I think there needs to be a
careful analysis as to what the extra computation time for actual E
values might be...
I agree. My tests have been limited to exponents in the 8.1M range, for no
particular reason than
On Tuesday 03 December 2002 22:31, Daran wrote:
[... snip ...]
For clarity, let's write mD as x, so that for a Suyama power E, the
exponent (x^E - d^E) is thrown into the mix when either x-d or x+d is prime
in [B1...B2], (and only once if both are prime). This works because
(provide E is
On Monday 25 November 2002 12:36, you wrote:
One should basically not use a CD-R/CD-RW as a general CD reader, since it
usually has way lower MTBF than a normal CD/DVD reader, and is more
expensive. Ie. it breaks a lot earlier if you use it a lot, and it's more
expensive to replace :-)
Did
On Sunday 24 November 2002 15:55, you wrote:
(B I'm giving my brother's family a new computer for christmas.
(B He'll buy it from a local (to him) 'white box' pc store and I'll
(B pay for it. I am a little concerned about performance because
(B the pc will probably be running GIMPS and I'd
On Sunday 24 November 2002 18:47, John R Pierce wrote:
my shopping list for a reasonably priced high quality P4 right now is, with
prices from my local cloneshop (not the cheapest place, but good
service)...
$213 Intel Retail P4-2.4B (these have the 533MHz bus)
2.53B should be very little
On Saturday 23 November 2002 02:41, Torben Schlüntz wrote:
[... snip ...]
Sorry Nathan. It is my fault you read the IMHO paragraph in a wrong
way. I meant I had that point of view UNTIL I discussed it.. As
George argue: Nobody would do LL if a succesful TF was rewarded the
same - he is
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 16:21, George Woltman wrote:
At 01:30 PM 11/19/2002 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last week this was a 1st test assignment, now it's a double check?
Unfortunately there was a server sync in the meantime, so I can't check
the cleared.txt. But I find in hrf3.txt:
On Friday 15 November 2002 00:23, Ryan Malayter wrote:
Does anyone else have their P4 and newer Xeon machines show up as
Unspecified Type on the Individual Account Report page? Is this a
common issue, or do I have something flaky in my local.ini?
Yes, there's something odd -
I have two P4s
One more, this one is a much larger exponent.
The factor 17304916353938823097 of M111409 is found with
sigma=8866098559252914, in stage 2 with B1 = 4861 B2 = 343351.
I didn't bother finding the critical limit for finding the factor in stage 1
as it would have taken a considerable amount of
On Monday 11 November 2002 22:28, Gareth Randall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The front air intake vents on almost every PC case I have ever seen have
been virtually *useless*. For some reason manufacturers continue to drill a
few pathetically small holes in the steel sheet and call that an air
On Saturday 09 November 2002 04:45, you wrote:
A harder problem is finding some smooth ECM curves to test. I do not
have tools to compute group orders.
Nor do I.
If someone can help by finding a
couple of dozen smooth ECM test cases for exponents between 1000
and 50, I would be most
On Sunday 10 November 2002 20:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
- Here's one example:
-
- With sigma=1459848859275459, Prime95 v22.12 finds the factor
- 777288435261989969 of M1123:
-
- in stage 1 with B1 = 535489
- in stage 2 with B1 = 38917 B2
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 21:40, George Woltman wrote:
I'd actually recommend not doing the P-1 again. If you are using enough
memory to run both P-1 stages, then the bug did not affect stage 1 but did
affect stage 2.
If you run only stage 1 of P-1, then the bug would cause no factors to
Hi,
One thing you might consider - when you change to v22.11, check out your
results file. If you have a P-1 run logged on an exponent you haven't yet
started LL/DC testing, make it run the P-1 again (change the ,1 at the end of
the assignment line in worktodo.ini to ,0). If you are already
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 23:08, Gareth Randall wrote:
Could you please expand upon how this secure certificate concept would
work, for the benefit of myself and the list? Unless there is more to it
than I currently comprehend, this only authenticates results as coming from
specific users,
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 02:34, Nathan Russell wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded. In this case, it's a bug in my
thinking. I had the memory usage set to the max allowable, because I
wanted P-1 to succeed whenever possible, even if it inconvenienced me
- I do most of my academic
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 17:28, Gareth Randall wrote:
I'd like to suggest that prime95/mprime be modularised, and that only the
core calculation component be kept closed source.
Umm - actually the core calculation component is open source (but subject
to restrictive licence). See
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 07:26, Nathan Russell wrote:
Other people have mentioned the possibility of automatically disengaging
or updating the client.
I am aware of several linux distributions which do the exact same
thing (in fact I am not aware of any widely popular one which
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 16:31, you wrote:
Yeah, well, we don't have a super cool Trojan horse program that can
update itself (and crash machines) like these other ones, and we're not
out there looking for ET or saving cancer boy or anything... just a
bunch of geeks looking for big numbers.
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 21:00, you wrote:
Suffice to say that the machine I used to use when working at a *totally
different* telecom (not US WEST, oddly) had Prime95 running happily on
it. When I left, I didn't get a chance to wipe the machine, so every
once in a blue moon I see it check
On Tuesday 22 October 2002 19:09, Gordon Bower wrote:
[... snip ...]
Does anyone have any suggestions for how to stop a runaway copy of
v18? Perhaps in a few weeks the server can be updated to return an out of
exponents error to v18 instead of offering it an assignment it can't
handle?
This
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 06:05, Daran wrote:
P-1, like any other GCD-based factorisation method, will yield a composite
result in the event that there are two (or more) prime factors within its
search space. It seems unlikely that this would happen in practice because
unless both were ~
On Friday 20 September 2002 22:42, Torben Schlüntz wrote:
Anyone receiving a TF task could edit the worktodo.ini from
Factor=20.abc.def,59
to
Factor=20.abc.def,65
He would receive approx. twice the credit the effort is worth.
Not quite - even allowing for the 1/2^6 effort involved in TF
On Saturday 21 September 2002 16:15, Daran wrote:
... through 64 bits the algorithm runs much faster than it does for 65
bits
and above. The factor is around 1.6 rather than 2.
Good point, and one which I didn't consider in my reply. But the ratio
must be different for the P4, which
On Saturday 21 September 2002 21:20, Daran wrote:
Could this feature of forthcoming Intel processors be used to do trial
factorisation without adversely impacting upon a simultaneous LL? Could
this be easily implemented?
1) _Existing_ Pentium 4 Xeons have hyperthreading capability.
2)
On Monday 16 September 2002 22:18, George Woltman wrote:
I'm releasing about 3000 exponents from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 for
first-time testing! These have been tested once already, but the first run
had one or more error.
As we saw in another thread, this means the first test has less
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 13:43, Steve Harris wrote:
I don't think the TF limits were ever lowered;
I haven't checked the source from the latest version but the TF limits should
surely be linked in some way to the LL/DC FFT run length crossovers. Many of
these _have_ been lowered.
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 19:09, Jud McCranie wrote:
Yesterday I went from Windows XP home to service pack 1. The speed of
prime95 went down by over 2%. Has anyone else seen this? Any ideas on
what caused it or how it can be fixed?
No, I haven't seen this. I don't even have a copy of
On Friday 30 August 2002 20:59, I wrote:
Are we losing users? Well, if users can't connect to the server, they're
going to be discouraged. Ditto anyone still using Windows 95 - Prime95
v22.3+ has problems since George apparently upgraded his development kit.
I'm please to report that Prime95
Hi,
Since George added offset error information to the lucas_v database file,
it's grown ... now around 7 megabytes, making it painful to download on an
analogue modem link.
I've therefore created a truncated version of the file. This is the same
file but with the information omitted for
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
On Friday 30 August 2002 21:29, you wrote:
Well, Win95 is getting increasingly uncommon (and for good reasons,
stability and support for USB come to mind).
Well - there are still a lot of older systems around which run Win 95 quite
happily (some of them are even reasonably stable!) but
On Friday 30 August 2002 04:22, Sisyphus wrote:
Hi,
Recently started getting error 29 with Windows, PrimeNet version 21, so
I've upgraded to version 22.8.
Now I get error 2250 - so we're definitely making progress
2250 is a problem with the server being offline for some reason.
:-)
On Thursday 29 August 2002 13:30, Gary Edstrom wrote:
I have noticed a small but definite increase in the iteration time of
version 22.8.1 as opposed to 21.4.
During the night, when my 2.2GHz Pentium IV system was free of all other
processing activities, the iteration times were as follows:
On Tuesday 27 August 2002 02:08, Marc Honey wrote:
Anyone else notice that a kt333 Athlon board using an Athlon XP gets better
performance at 266 than at 333? I was amazed at the difference, and yes I
tweaked out the bios under both memory speeds. AMD really needs a fsb
speed update!
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 22:39, you wrote:
Michael Vang highlights the fact that there are two different things that
we can measure: 1) work accomplished, e.g. Mnumbers evaluated, iterations
run, etc. 2) work effort expended, which requires evaluation of
processor/system power.
The P4
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 16:32, Tony Forbes wrote:
We all know that A. Hurwitz discovered the Mersenne primes 2^4253 - 1
and 2^4423 - 1 in 1961.
(i) Were these the first two 1000+ digit primes discovered?
Yes. See http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/by_year.html#table2
(ii) If that
On Tuesday 20 August 2002 08:57, Paul Leyland wrote:
Anyone else here old enough to remember Meaningless Indicators of Processor
Speeds?
Oh yes. My first boss used to rate CPUs in Atlas power
All gigaflops are not created equal, unfortunately. Wordlength alone can
make a big
On Sunday 18 August 2002 17:59, Jeff Woods wrote:
21000 of the 31000 participating machines are P-III or better.
Less than 2,000 true Pentium-class machines remain in the mix.
George et. al.: Could it be time to change the baseline reference machine
away from the Pentium-90, and wipe the
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 10:25, Paul Leyland wrote:
George,
I think I've found two bugs in Prime95 or, at least, serious
misfeatures. I don't know whether they've been fixed in more recent
releases but as I'm using the program in a rather creative manner I
suspect not. The Mersenne list is
On Monday 22 July 2002 16:55, you wrote:
Thank you and everyone else, both on- and off-list, for your helpful
suggestions. I took the cover off and had a look. The HSF looked like the
inside of an old vacuum cleaner, so I used a new one on it. :-) The fan
speed is now back up to 4600,
On Thursday 11 July 2002 00:00, you wrote:
Yesterday, Primenete did assigned to one of the computers that I manage,
a exponent in the 8 million rank, for first test, not for doublecheck.
But in the Status page, this rank is complete for first test ...
How is it possible?
The factorization
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 22:38, Gerry Snyder wrote:
I am puzzled. I am running two copies of prime95 (one with no options,
one with -A1) on a dual 1 GHz P3 computer under Windows 2K. One is
factoring, and the other is doing an LL test of an exponent in the
15,xxx,xxx range. The torture test
On Thursday 11 July 2002 03:43, George Pantazopoulos wrote:
Hey all,
If an overclocked machine is producing erroneous results, how much harm
does it to the project as a whole? Can it miss the next Mersenne prime?
Will the rest of the group assume that there is officially no Mersenne
On Thursday 13 June 2002 23:56, Bockhorst, Roland P HQISEC wrote:
Gentlemen;
Thank you for your help.
My P4 is successfully working on its second 15,000,000 range number.
The first number was found to be not prime in about three months full time.
It should have taken a month, hence this
Hi,
Check out http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25085.html
Microsoft do seem to chop change as to some of the more ridiculous
extensions of what their EULA actually says. Some of us are just happier to
sidestep the issue altogether.
My employer's policy is to permanently remove
On Sunday 09 June 2002 08:22, Daran wrote:
I'm currently concentrating exclusively on P-1 work. The primenet server
doesn't support this as a dedicated work type, so my procedure is to
reserve some DC exponants, imediately unreserve any which have the P-1 bit
already set, P-1 test the rest,
On Tuesday 28 May 2002 02:43, you wrote:
6 is -2 mod 8
6*6 = 36
36 = -4 mod 8
2^2 = 4
if the mod of the represented as a negative is much less than the positive,
could we square the negative and save some time ?
Sure we could.
However on average we would save 1 bit 25% of the time, 2
On Saturday 25 May 2002 22:19, you wrote:
I noticed that v22.2 and v22.3 automatically do roundoff checking every
iteration for any exponent close enough to the FFT limit. Is there any
reason to be concerned about the possibility of roundoff error for CPUs
that aren't P4s?
I don't think
On Tuesday 21 May 2002 16:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/05/21/supercomputing.future.idg/index
.htm
l
The theme of reducing transistor count without sacrificing much performance
is an interesting one.
This is indeed interesting. The problem seems to be
On Saturday 27 April 2002 22:11, you wrote:
Better still, switch the monitor off when you're not using it :-)
Sure. At least get it to switch to standby mode when not required. The
problem with switching the monitor off with its own power switch is that you
may be asking for problems, as
On Saturday 27 April 2002 21:26, Paul Leyland wrote:
[... snip ...]
They are still doing sterling service as fan heaters to keep my study
warm (it's not easy living at a latitude of 52 degrees north ;-) and
happen to factor integers by ECM while doing so.My 21-inch Hitachi
monitor cost
On Friday 26 April 2002 09:52, Lars Fricke wrote:
Hello!
I was just curious, how much electrical energy my system here needs to run
a LL-Test. Even if you don't let the system run if it is not used
otherwise, it seems to be quite a lot.
On my P-III 933 (WIN XP), Prime95 needs about 15W
Ouch, HTML formatting:(
On Thursday 25 April 2002 01:46, you wrote:
htmldiv style='background-color:'DIVHi,/DIV
DIVnbsp;/DIV
DIVnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; Mersenne primes are of the form 2^p-1.
The usual generalization is primes of the form ((k^p)-1)/(k-1), that is
repprimes in base k.
On Monday 22 April 2002 14:19, Jeff Woods wrote:
[... snip ...]
2 pcs. My new system has an AMD Athalon 1400mhz
processor and has been crunching the numbers in about 3
weeks or so and my per iteration time has always been
around 0.098 to 0.099, Since I got my newest number
(33238643), My per
On Tuesday 26 March 2002 15:32, Markus Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
What settings should I use in Prime95 on a 1 GHz Duron? Since there is no
Duron in the options menu I tried Athlon, it seemed like the closest
choice, but the performance I get is not quite as good as I expected
On Monday 25 March 2002 00:31, Bruce Leenstra wrote:
Gordon writes:
Now where on Earth does the figure of 210,000 computers come from??
This is the same mistake made on a previous news item: Both of them are
misquoting an earlier study that determined a *Total* of 210,000 computers
Hi,
Sorry for wasting your time. I need to send this message to find out why some
of the messages I've been sending to this list are being duplicated.
Apologies...
Brian Beesley
_
Unsubscribe list info --
Hi,
I seem to remember about 3.5 years ago someone (I think it was Chris Nash)
had done something similar eliminated a lot of Mersenne numbers.
Is it worthwhile mounting a formal attack on the Mersenne numbers between 20
million say 40 million using this technique? We're getting quite close
On Tuesday 19 March 2002 10:09, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:12:48PM +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
If the active data is already memory resident, TLB thrashing is not going
to be an issue.
The TLB (translation lookaside buffer) has very little to do
On Monday 18 March 2002 10:21, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
There has been some discussion on the linux kernel mailing list about
providing 2 MB pages (instead of 4kB ones) to user space for the use
of database or scientific calculations.
It seems to me that prime95/mprime would benefit from this
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 00:52, danny fleming wrote:
I saw recently a method of locating a Mersenne Prime.
Please tell us more! We'd all like to know of any better (less
computationally expensive) method than computing the Lucas-Lehmer sequence
for those Mersenne numbers which cannot be
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 06:26, Steve Harris wrote:
For those of you interested in optimizing efficiency of LL testing:
We are approaching first time tests of 15.30M exponents, at which point
the Prime95 program will start using an 896K FFT. However, the P4-SSE2
section of the
On Friday 01 March 2002 00:40, Mary K. Conner wrote:
At 05:17 PM 2/28/02 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
mprime should only raise this error if the pid in the local.ini file and
the current pid are both running mprime (actually comparing the inode
values). If there are any Linux experts that
On Thursday 28 February 2002 22:03, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
Hi,
On Thu 28 Feb 2002 22:19, Brian J Beesley wrote:
[ snip ]
The difference here is that your method generates memory bus traffic at
twice the rate George's method takes advantage of the fact that (with
properly
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 05:07, you wrote:
Well anything that can increase the speed of TF by even a wee amount is
welcome by me.
Unfortunately there is no impact on trial factoring. The technique suggested
is an improvement requiring specialized hardware of a technique which is only
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 06:26, you wrote:
For those of you interested in optimizing efficiency of LL testing:
We are approaching first time tests of 15.30M exponents, at which point the
Prime95 program will start using an 896K FFT. However, the P4-SSE2 section
of the program will
On Wednesday 27 February 2002 19:28, Justin Valcourt wrote:
Which brings up something that I just wondered about.
As far as FFT operations go for LL and DC, if some crazy person who had
millions to spend (ie we are talking pure theory here) to hire a chip
maker, could a coprocessor be made
On 23 Jul 2001, at 19:13, CARLETON GARRISON wrote:
The name of the game is validate - by duplication. You cannot
make a
case without duplicating the result. This is to safeguard against the
many gremlins that can occur - faulty overclocked CPUs, etc.
But the only thing that goes
On 30 Jun 2001, at 20:16, Guido Lorenzini wrote:
1st observation: the beerman's computer named
SKA4 seems to work simultaneously on 4 33mio exponents, since each
exponent is getting iterations: how it come? If any Cpu is best
working on just one copy of prime95, even a dual cpu PC should
--- Forwarded message follows ---
From: Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:46:43 -
Subject:Re: Mersenne: Factoring on a P4
Copies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 22 Jun 2001, at 13:42, Gordon Bower wrote:
After seeing a post on this list a few weeks ago I decided to branch
out and try a few ranges from Michael Hartley's page looking for
k*2^n-1 primes. I must say there is a bit of a thrill in actually
discovering a new prime every day I run the
On 22 Jun 2001, at 13:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some reason, I am at a loss to explain, a v21 P4 1.4 GHz factors
significantely slower that a P3 v20 700MHz. Is there a reason, and
solution, for this?
Good question.
AFAIK George has done nothing to the factoring code. You will see a
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
