Mersenne Digest Wednesday, June 9 1999 Volume 01 : Number 571 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 06:34:55 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mikus Grinbergs) Subject: Re: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc Note to the QA testers: I personally do not overclock, but from time to time I do upgrade motherboards. I have seen opinions on this mailing list that the existing 16-hour self-test might not be enough to bring hardware deficiencies to light. Someone suggested running the torture test - but is that more "rigorous" than the self-test? And why should running the torture test for a week be any more definitive than already running Lucas-Lehmer on an assigned exponent? My suggestion is that the QA people should "update" the built-in self-test to make it more likely to provoke hardware deficiencies. (Also, now that we are in the realm of "large" FFTs, is it still useful for the self-test to spend so much time on "short" FFTs ?) mikus In article <000001beb17a$0e5dfe40$5deabfa8@buster>, "Ethan Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is also possible to have an overclocked CPU pass the full self test > suite, but later exhibit problems. The likely culprit is simple wearout -- > the CPU initially was barely functional at the overclocked speed, but slowed > enough that it no longer runs. If this happens, you usually can still run > the CPU at the rated speed. ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:27:32 -0600 From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc > If you've overclocked your system at all (_not_ reccomended, but I > know it can be successful in some cases) then I suggest you let > the torture test run for a couple of days before committing yourself > to doing "real" work. It can happen that an overclocked system > appears to run fine for "office" applications but causes problems > with Prime95 because very few other applications use the floating- > point unit even half as intensively as Prime95 does. > > Note that simple overheating can also cause problems, even if your > system _isn't_ overclocked. Might be an idea to check that case > and processor cooling fans are operating. They have been known to > fail! I'd just like to pitch in again... Overclocking your bus from 100 to 103 is not likely to exhibit problems. Any problems you have were probably there at 100MHz also. I'm talking about the folks who overclock their 66MHz (bus speed) Celeron's to 100MHz. Sure, there are Celerons that can make it and you won't see any problems, but if that game you're playing exhibits a small calc error once per hour, who'll notice? You WILL notice it in Prime95 though. Following along on what Brian Beesley is saying, the problem is definitely heat. The FPU in CPU's takes up a good 1/4 to 1/3 of the total die package, but it's not normally used that much (although MMX does share the same registers as the FPU). When you play your games, run Word/Excel, you're just simply not generating as much heat. When you run an FPU intensive program, your CPU will really heat up much more, and heat is the killer...raises resistance, causes "misfires" with capacitive loads (e.g. memory, be it cache or registers), timing problems, etc. So, I urge anyone out there to not overclock their prime finding machines, or if you're tempted, do so only moderately (100-103 bus speed for instance, or possibly 66-75 is not extraordinary). Those Abit motherboards with their "turbo" setting provides a nice, moderate 3% boost in clock speed and *I* would consider that safe anyway. Aaron ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:10:50 +0200 From: "Henk Stokhorst." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: [First 10 million digit exponent] L.S., > And below M36000000, there are 159,975 exponents (again repeating Brian) > with at least 10 million digits. Fine, but are the efforts being made in that region centrally registered? YotN, Henk Stokhorst. ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:55:06 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #569 At 09:10 AM 6/8/99 +0100, you wrote: >On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 04:37:32PM -0500, JON STRAYER wrote: >> > You need to test exponent (10000000 / log 2) = 33219281 or above. > >Time for an n bit multiply using DWT is O(n log n) plus some fiddly >bits to do with decreasing precision available when using longer >convolutions - I'd probably estimate this as O(log log n). As it >takes n iterations for each test then to test an n digit number using >the Lucas Lehmer test with DWT takes O(n^2 . log n . log log n). > >If we say that the current exponent is about 6.5 million then we need >to test one which is approx 5 times bigger. Using the above formula I >make this 29.97 times longer for a 5 times increase in exponent size >starting at 6.5 million. My PII-400 is showing 1.121 and 1.236 seconds per iteration for FFT sizes of 1.75M and 2M. The crossover point will be somewhere in the vicinity of 35,000,000. Thus, the smallest 10 million digit Mersenne number will take 33219281 * 1.121 seconds or 431 days. In a few years when 2 GHz chips are readily available this will be a more reasonable 80 days. ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:20:43 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) Hi, An aside: Please try to rename the subject like I did above when the thread has strayed way off the original topic). Thanks. At 06:34 AM 6/8/99 -0500, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >I have seen opinions on this mailing list that the >existing 16-hour self-test might not be enough to bring hardware >deficiencies to light. Someone suggested running the torture >test - but is that more "rigorous" than the self-test? It is more rigorous in that it can run for as long as you like, whereas the full self-test takes "only" 16 hours if I recall correctly. >And why >should running the torture test for a week be any more definitive >than already running Lucas-Lehmer on an assigned exponent? The torture test is identical to a Lucas-Lehmer test except that the end result is known and can be tested for correctness. When you are done with a Lucas-Lehmer test your result will not be proven right or wrong until a double-check or triple-check is done. >My suggestion is that the QA people should "update" the built-in >self-test to make it more likely to provoke hardware deficiencies. >(Also, now that we are in the realm of "large" FFTs, is it still >useful for the self-test to spend so much time on "short" FFTs ?) I don't know how to make the self-test any more strenuous. I suspect short FFTs are just as hard on the CPU and cache as the large FFTs. The large FFTs will access a little more memory. Best regards, George ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:14:35 -0400 From: George Woltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc Hi, At 04:39 PM 6/7/99 -0700, J. Williams wrote: >Error: Illegal Sumout This error can be a hardware problem, but is very often caused by a faulty driver or program (usually related to the audio card). >Is this anything I need to be concerned about and is there a listing of >such messages? This error and the others are briefly discussed in the readme.txt file. Prime95 recovers from ILLEGAL SUMOUT ERRORs quite well, so there is little to be concerned about. If you get either of the other two errors, then almost certainly you have a hardware problem, and a cause for concern. >Also, a while ago the program reserved about 20 numbers for testing (all >the way into the year 2001) then it and released them a few minutes later. >Is this normal operation? No. It is possible the program misguessed your CPU speed (say it thought you had a 2000 MHz Pentium), reserved a lot of exponents to keep you busy, and then when your actual progress was less than expected it returned the excess exponents. >Any tips for optimization and usage? No, there really is little you can do other than remove screen savers and power save features that slow the CPU speed down. >Finally, when and why does it communicate with the server (besides getting >new numbers to test)? Every 28 days it checks in to let the server know you are still working on the number. It may also call in to let the server know of any changes in the expected completion date. Best regards, George ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:47:51 -0400 From: "Ernst W. Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The radix is always 10. {snip} >or, more concisely, (1+1+1)^(1+1) + 1. > >Can anyone represent that number in fewer than (1+1+1)! ones? How about 1 << 1, where the shift is, of course, decimal. Your shifty friend, - -Ernst ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:49:03 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: [First 10 million digit exponent] > > And below M36000000, there are 159,975 exponents (again repeating Brian) > > with at least 10 million digits. > > Fine, but are the efforts being made in that region centrally registered? Not to my knowledge - seems pointless since few programs currently available can cope with exponents in the 30 millions. Prime95 v19 is still some way off, the early pre-pre-pre-release I have (as part of the QA team) won't accept exponents that big for factoring assignments, though it can attempt LL tests! Of course it's very quick to generate lists of prime numbers in the 30 millions by sieving. I stopped at 36 million because I thought that would yield more than enough work to start with! Out of interest, I also wrote a quick-and-dirty program to check for small (< 2^32) factors of Mersenne numbers, ran that against my list of primes & eliminated 28,468 of the 159,975 candidates. (A 15-minute run on a PII-350). I need to check these & will post the files on my ftp server when I've done so. Regards Brian Beesley ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:53:49 -0500 From: "Griffith, Shaun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: re: Island Theory...Settled? Luke Welsh writes: TTBOMK, the theory was never formalized. Regardless, Peter Lawrence Montgomery settled the issue: http://www2.netdoor.com/~acurry/mersenne/archive2/0032.html I assume that the island theory was settled in the negative? I have read the post, and others. Instead of settling the island theory, it seems that PLM has supplied an alternative that fits and is well defined. In http://www.silverlink.net/poke/archive4/0278.html <http://www.silverlink.net/poke/archive4/0278.html> I summarized the poor man's predictor - MS Excel trendline of ln(Exponents of Mersenne Primes). At the time, there were only 36 known Mersenne Primes. The trendline predicted p = 1.75(e^(0.4*Ordinal)), so that trend(M38): p = 6987377. Updating my spreadsheet to include the actual M36 & M37 gives p = 1.77(e^(0.4*Ordinal)), which predicts trend(M38): p = 7067233. Note, however, that roundoff in the "0.4" multiplier causes a huge change in the outcome. When I use the more accurate "0.391", the prediction is p = 5020196. To me, this trendline seems about as good a fit as PLM's. The range of the errors is about the same. The range of the squared errors is worse for PLM's exponential distribution. The error is more centered using the log-linear trendline. I don't know enough about the rest, anyone have any comments here? - -Shaun ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:07:05 -0700 From: "Ethan Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc Aaron, You are correct in identifying overheating as the main problem. Most major manufactures give a maximum air temperature of 35-40C inside the PC case. If the air temperature is lower, the processor will run somewhat faster. The speedup is on the order of 1-3MHz per degree C, depending on processor type. None of this is to say that overclocking will not fail for some other reason, but the 3% increase is not likely to cause problems except in a very hot environment. Regards, Ethan > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron > Blosser > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 7:28 AM > To: Mersenne@Base. Com > Subject: RE: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc > > > > > > Note that simple overheating can also cause problems, even if your > > system _isn't_ overclocked. Might be an idea to check that case > > and processor cooling fans are operating. They have been known to > > fail! > > I'd just like to pitch in again... > > Overclocking your bus from 100 to 103 is not likely to exhibit problems. > Any problems you have were probably there at 100MHz also. > > I'm talking about the folks who overclock their 66MHz (bus speed) > Celeron's [SNIP] > > When you play your games, run Word/Excel, you're just simply not > generating > as much heat. When you run an FPU intensive program, your CPU will really > heat up much more, and heat is the killer...raises resistance, causes > "misfires" with capacitive loads (e.g. memory, be it cache or registers), > timing problems, etc. > > So, I urge anyone out there to not overclock their prime finding machines, > or if you're tempted, do so only moderately (100-103 bus speed > for instance, > or possibly 66-75 is not extraordinary). > > Those Abit motherboards with their "turbo" setting provides a > nice, moderate > 3% boost in clock speed and *I* would consider that safe anyway. > > Aaron > > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:25:57 -0500 From: Gary Diehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc The system I built/overclocked is a Pentium-II 266 with a Shuttle Computer International HOT-641 motherboard and 256 megs of 10ns RAM. The original bus clock speed was 66 mhz which I upped to 83 mhz in the BIOS Configuration Utility. I had to remove the case and train a 3" desk fan on the CPU to keep it cool enough to run at 333 mhz but the 20% increase in speed was worth it. I ran a burn-in test on it for 2 solid days when I first overclocked it to make sure I didn't have a weak processor, and when I started Prime95 I tortured it for about a half of a day with no errors so I figured it was good to go. I think the problem is heat-related, due to the onset of hotter months in this climate and the poor ability of our air conditioner to handle the heat. I have since started looking at P2-450mhz processors because adding an extra 20% to the Prime # "expected completion date" test time after having a shorter completion time is rather irksome. Thanks to all the list members who offered different and vaild viewpoints as to the nature of the problem. I have since configured my reported CPU speed in Prime95 back to 266 (which I forgot to do), and the reported time between iterations increased to a more accurate figure. Gary Diehl Brian J Beesley wrote: > > > > It is also possible to have an overclocked CPU pass the full self test > > suite, but later exhibit problems. The likely culprit is simple wearout - -- > > the CPU initially was barely functional at the overclocked speed, but slowed > > enough that it no longer runs. If this happens, you usually can still run > > the CPU at the rated speed. > > Or, the errors are there all the time but at a low rate e.g. on > average 1 every day. This is very likely to pass the 1 hour "self > test" but will show up in actual use, or on the continuous "torture > test" (see the "Options" menu in Prime95). > > If you've overclocked your system at all (_not_ reccomended, but I > know it can be successful in some cases) then I suggest you let > the torture test run for a couple of days before committing yourself > to doing "real" work. It can happen that an overclocked system > appears to run fine for "office" applications but causes problems > with Prime95 because very few other applications use the floating- > point unit even half as intensively as Prime95 does. > > Note that simple overheating can also cause problems, even if your > system _isn't_ overclocked. Might be an idea to check that case > and processor cooling fans are operating. They have been known to > fail! > > Finally (I think this is right - I'm sure George will chip in if not) there > is a small but finite chance that you could get a very occasional > "sum out error" even if your system is 100% perfect. This is due to > abnormal combinations of data in the FFT triggering the "sanity > check" in the code; the result may well be OK. The program should > check that the "error" is "deterministic" (repeatable) rather than > random and continue automatically if it is - though there will be an > error log entry - PrimeNet uses this information to flag the result as > "suspect", the exponent should then be re-assigned for an early > double-check instead of waiting its turn as usual. > > Regards > Brian Beesley > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:48:34 GMT From: "Brian J Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) George Woltman writes, in reply to Mikus Grinbergs: > I don't know how to make the self-test any more strenuous. I suspect > short FFTs are just as hard on the CPU and cache as the large FFTs. > The large FFTs will access a little more memory. Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature sensors which can be read by software. I believe the hardware interface is a de-facto standard, so portability shouldn't be a major concern. I suppose it would be possible to log the temperatures at which the tests were run & re-test if the temperature during a "live" run was found to be higher. But whether it's worth the effort is disputable - the same boards also have a high temperature alarm which will trigger if the temperature exceeds a limit (set in the BIOS) - my (Supermicro) board also comes with a Win 9x/NT utility (runs in the background, using about 0.5% CPU) which will sound "warnings" for high temperature, low fan speed, etc, etc. It has its own setup file, therefore does not require a reboot via BIOS Setup to change the settings. When I built my dual PII system I did find I had a potential overheating problem, on Prime95 self-test one of the processors was triggerring the high temperature warning, nevertheless the reliability was OK. I fitted a case fan and the processor temperature dropped by about 10C, well out of the danger zone. I get the impression that plastic cases with "tinfoil" screening need more assistance with ventilation than cases made of painted metal. Incidentally the reason one processor runs hotter than the other is that the airflow in its vicinity is compromised by a bunch of HDD/FDD cables, so that processor fan tends to drag in "dirty" air. If anyone has any ideas as to how the self-test could be made more rigorous, without taking forever, we'd sure like to hear them. Regards Brian Beesley ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:31:18 -0700 From: "Scott Kurowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: RE: Mersenne Digest V1 #570 Hi all, (replying to the digest) [Steinar:] > >However we can't deny having seen cash prizes, in addition to > >this satisfaction, make an observable difference in accelerating > >Mersenne number research results. > > Can we? I'm sure you (Scott) is the one with most data on this... I have one solid data point and a few weak ones. The GIMPS newsletter registration web form data has about 1,000 entries. GIMPS participation is apparently self-reported with prizes as a motivating factor for at least 16% of registrants, though prizes alone did come in last: 26% good use of spare CPU time 18% just for fun or cool hobby 15% research participation 14% several reasons, in part for the prize 14% (no response entered) 06% help distributed computing 05% possible famous discovery 02% other (added to comments) 02% $50k prize money The weaker evidence is from PrimeNet's account level responses. First, the April 1999 GIMPS Newsletter detailed both the v17 bug and the EFF prize - and resulted in about 5% of recipients rejoining GIMPS and adding over 1,000 new accounts the following few days. The second account level response was EFF's prize announcment finally gaining press (including CNN and Science), where another 1,000 accounts joined in the span of a week. In conclusion, I'm guessing people on the fence may be tipped by the extra reason to play, but in retrospect my impression of prize effectiveness was more subjective than I thought. So while I'm on the subject, the list response regarding sponsoring a prize pool amounted to 2 people offering $225 between them - I have my answer. > - --Luke, who has such great vision that he lost a bet and > owes George a dinner (prime rib, of course) That reminds me, during a lunch last summer it was Luke who made sure the prize pool was all 1 digits to entertain all of you...! (I was too lazy to change all the zeros on the web site.) Luke is also an advisor to George and I, and helped shape the PrimeNet status report content & layouts. [John Williams:] > Finally, when and why does it communicate with the server (besides getting > new numbers to test)? It will update the server at least every 28 days with when the exponents are expected to finish. This keeps your assignments 'alive' so PrimeNet will not give them away after several months. When there's a factoring or primality test result, or you change your account settings, those are updated immediately. Overall, the transactions are very fast and only a few hundred bytes each, perhaps once a week on average. The majority of the server's transactions are assignment progress updates. [Aaron Blosser:] > I did notice in the prime.log that when errors occur, that info is sent to > the Primenet server. > > On that note, Scott...what becomes of info sent indicating errors in the > calculations? Are those exponents flagged in someway, indicating that they > are "suspect"? PrimeNet completely ignores error messages and stuffs them into the results log for George to analyze. George requeues exponents with bad results through the database synchronization process and his use of a few remote scheduling commands. Things seem to be working smoothly enough, but there's always room for improvement. Best regards, scott ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:17:54 -0400 From: "Pierre Abbat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) > Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature > sensors which can be read by software. Is there a file in /proc that will tell me this? phma ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:22:15 -0700 From: "Joth Tupper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) Ground rules are critical, but how about /.1 where "/" represents the APL-style monadic divide or multiplicative inverse. 1/.1 takes two. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ernst W. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 11:47 AM Subject: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) > > Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >The radix is always 10. > {snip} > >or, more concisely, (1+1+1)^(1+1) + 1. > > > >Can anyone represent that number in fewer than (1+1+1)! ones? > > How about > > 1 << 1, > > where the shift is, of course, decimal. > > Your shifty friend, > -Ernst > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:48:24 -0700 From: Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: These go to 11 (WAS: blahblah...) > Ground rules are critical, but how about > > /.1 > > where "/" represents the APL-style monadic divide or > multiplicative inverse. > > 1/.1 > > takes two. Indeed, but ".1" represents 1 / radix, so 1/.1 is just radix. The whole point of my tongue-in-cheek posting was to indicate how an implicit assumption of decimal notation had crept in, despite the clear intention of the original to make the representation explicit. So: you *cannot* assume any particular radix; your solution must work for all integer radixes. Paul ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:34:50 -0700 From: "John R Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: another CPU speed benchmark... I just built up a Pentium-III 450 (128MB PC100 memory running at CAS/3), and I'm testing it at 528MHz with a 115MHz system clock (rock stable so far). Prime95 is benching M=7,636,483 [63 bits] at 0.190 seconds/iteration. My fastest box yet! Is anyone still collecting CPU vs. prime95 speed statistics? - -jrp ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:04:56 -0700 From: Paul Leyland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: ECM factoring and P773 A small but valuable group of members of the Mersenne list have been running the elliptic curve method to factor small Mersenne numbers, with some impressive results so far. The outstanding example is Conrad Curry's discovery of the record-holding 53 digit factor of M677, and still the only factor with more than fifty digits to be found by ECM I would like to request that one particular number be concentrated on. That number is P773, also known as 2,773+ by the Cunningham project and as 2^773+1 by everyone. Two small factors are known, 3 and 533371. The composite cofactor has 227 digits. The reason for this request is that it is a candidate for a SNFS factorization (as are several others) and before embarking on a large-scale computation, we want to be sure that it doesn't have a small factor --- under fifty digits or so. George's ECM page (http://www.mersenne.org/ecm.htm) records only the work done by his prime95 program and reported to him. Other work in the past (I've done well over a thousand curves at B1=1M, for instance) suggest that there are very probably no factors under 40 digits and that you should start with the B1 value set to 3 million. If you join in, please report progress back to George so that we can move on to higher values of B1 when appropriate. Prime95 is so efficient at factoring numbers of the form 2^n +/- 1 that non-Intel machines are at a significant disadvantage. Nonetheless, they are a valuable resource and owners of such might find the ECMNET page http://www.loria.fr/~zimmerma/records/ecmnet.html useful. I will be adding P773 to the ECMNET master server shortly. Paul ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:28:46 +0000 From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > I have heard some insider news that Intel *could* hit the 1 GigaHertz mark > > by years end if they had a reason to Did DEC not demonstrate a gigahertz Alpha chip shortly before Compaq purchased them? ________________________________________________________________________ David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] "unpersuasive and dubious" ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:51:17 +0000 From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature > > sensors which can be read by software. > > Is there a file in /proc that will tell me this? > > phma This is the first I've heard of such sensors being a standard item. How long have they been a standard item? ________________________________________________________________________ David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The radix is always 10." -- Paul Leyland ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:42:20 -0700 From: Michael Gebis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) >>>>> "David" == David L Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote the following on Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:51:17 +0000 David> Pierre Abbat wrote: >> > Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature > >> sensors which can be read by software. >> >> Is there a file in /proc that will tell me this? >> >> phma David> This is the first I've heard of such sensors being a standard David> item. How long have they been a standard item? Linux users will probably be interested in the lm_sensors package, which is a kernel module that does what Pierre suggests: makes your system's hardware health information available via the /proc filesystem. The homepage is: http://www.netroedge.com/~lm78/ Even non-linux users might be interested in these pages, as they contain information about how "hardware health monitoring" works, a useful FAQ, and plenty of useful related links. (This is why I'm posting this in response to David's question: the FAQ addresses his question.) - --Mike ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:13:19 -0700 From: "Joth Tupper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits Two things: 1) I do seem to recall a 1GHz Alpha announcement. 2) Was it Intel that bought the Alpha rights? It might have been IBM but was NOT Compac. Joth - ----- Original Message ----- From: David L. Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits > Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > > > I have heard some insider news that Intel *could* hit the 1 GigaHertz mark > > > by years end if they had a reason to > > Did DEC not demonstrate a gigahertz Alpha chip shortly before Compaq > purchased them? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "unpersuasive and dubious" > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:03:03 -0500 From: "Willmore, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits Yes, you can find the presentation under their website at: http://www.dec.com/alphaoem/microprocessorforum.htm Cheers, David > ---------- > From: David L. Nicol[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 11:28 AM > To: Aaron Blosser > Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com > Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits > > Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > > > I have heard some insider news that Intel *could* hit the 1 GigaHertz > mark > > > by years end if they had a reason to > > Did DEC not demonstrate a gigahertz Alpha chip shortly before Compaq > purchased them? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "unpersuasive and dubious" > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:05:42 -0500 From: "Willmore, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ Misc) For a few years. Most PII class MBs have them and some late Socket7 ones do, too. They're not standard as far as how they interface both at the hardware and software levels. You need MB specific drivers. Linux has a project called lm_sensors (named after one of the early chips used to perform this function, the National LM78). Cheers, David > ---------- > From: David L. Nicol[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 11:51 AM > To: Pierre Abbat; Yngvwe Mersenne > Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Self-test (was: Prime 95 Error Messages/ > Misc) > > Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > > > Most modern motherboards contain case and/or CPU temperature > > > sensors which can be read by software. > > > > Is there a file in /proc that will tell me this? > > > > phma > > This is the first I've heard of such sensors being a standard > item. How long have they been a standard item? > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "The radix is always 10." -- Paul Leyland > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:21:19 -0500 From: "Willmore, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits 1) see my other email. Yes, they did. 2) Yes, it was Compaq. Intel bought foundry technology that is used on the StrongARM as well as the StrongARM archetecture itself. Cheers, David > ---------- > From: Joth Tupper[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 1:13 PM > To: GIMPS > Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits > > Two things: > > 1) I do seem to recall a 1GHz Alpha announcement. > > 2) Was it Intel that bought the Alpha rights? It might have been IBM but > was NOT Compac. > > Joth > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David L. Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 9:28 AM > Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits > > > > Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > > > > > I have heard some insider news that Intel *could* hit the 1 > GigaHertz > mark > > > > by years end if they had a reason to > > > > Did DEC not demonstrate a gigahertz Alpha chip shortly before Compaq > > purchased them? > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "unpersuasive and dubious" > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:33:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Chip Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits (fwd) Intel worked out a licensing agreement with Digital just before Compaq took over. It gave them access to almost all of the technology of the Alpha line, if I recall correctly. I don't think anyone actually bought the Alpha chips; the line stayed with Digital when it went to Compaq. IBM was not involved. If I remember, Intel had better research into smaller data paths (so and so many nanometers smaller than the Alpha line), but the Alphas had superior clock rates... the combination of those two technologies (and a million other miscellaneous marriages of technology) was suppossed to produce killer chips. Or something like that, - ---Chip \\ ^ // (o o) ---oOO--(_)--OOo------------------------------------ | Chip Lynch | Computer Geek | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | (703) 465-4176 (w) | (202) 362-7978 (h) | ---------------------------------------------------- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:13:19 -0700 From: Joth Tupper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: GIMPS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits Two things: 1) I do seem to recall a 1GHz Alpha announcement. 2) Was it Intel that bought the Alpha rights? It might have been IBM but was NOT Compac. Joth - ----- Original Message ----- From: David L. Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Mersenne@Base. Com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 9:28 AM Subject: Re: Mersenne: EFF and 10,000,000 digits > Aaron Blosser wrote: > > > > > I have heard some insider news that Intel *could* hit the 1 GigaHertz mark > > > by years end if they had a reason to > > Did DEC not demonstrate a gigahertz Alpha chip shortly before Compaq > purchased them? > > ________________________________________________________________________ > David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "unpersuasive and dubious" > ________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #571 ******************************
