Mersenne Digest Friday, February 23 2001 Volume 01 : Number 820 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:26:28 +0100 From: "Siegmar Szlavik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Accuracy of completion dates. On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:02:46 -0500, Jeff Woods wrote: >>Suggestion: the next version of Prime95 should contact the server after >>every 10% of an LL test. Based on how long this took, the server would >>calculate the probable finishing time. This estimate would probably be >>more accurate than the rough estimate based on how many hours the computer >>is estimated to be on which ignores for what the computer is normally >>used. The only drawback I see is the strain on the server. > >It can already be CONFIGURED to do so, not on percentages, but on number of >days between contacts. I have mine set to report daily, so my individual >report is always up to date. > Same here... unfortunately ntprime doesn't report to the server if it is in the 'sleeping mode'. I would find it usefull if it would do so, or at least on startup - just to say: 'hey, I didn't do any new calculations, but I'm still here'... for all the office-machines which are configured to run only over night and on weekends, but are normally turned off. Siegmar _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:17:53 +0100 From: "tom ehlert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Mersenne exponent assignement strategie I personally don't mind a P100 running full LL tests; they are a small, but usefull contribution to our effort. My own dual P700 makes a somewhat larger, but still small contribution to the project, compared to some other 30000+ maschines out there. the point was, is and should remain: every single cycle is useful. BUT I think, many people (oncluding me) want to see more Milestones finisheshed earlier. While the server is currently giving out assignment in the 12.3xx.xxx range, we haven't yet finished 5.558.701. looking at the status, I would consider LL up to 10.000.000 : 95% done DC 4.500.000 : 95% done, both with a very long tail. I think, the reason for this is NOT some very slow 486's running dull screensavers, but exponents, which have been recycled several times. here's my proposal: on the server side, set a limit (currently for LL=11.000.000, DC=5.000.000) define a RPTM= 'reasonable performing, trusted maschine' as a maschine, which has at least returned 2 results (scince last syncronization?) then: if a maschine asks for new work: if its 'reliable and reasonable fast' (has returned two results) give it the smallest exponent available else give it some expomnent above limit. this would: all overclockers - time out, before they hold the overall progress favor faster maschines at the tail - they could probably increase the DC milestone to 10.000.000 whithin a moth, if allowed to significantly narrow the gap between the frontrunners (12.3xx.xxx) at the backrunners (~5.300.000) REPEAT: I don't mind a P100 helping in our project; even a P100, runnining 8 hours a day, will finish M12000000 within 2 years, 8 days; I will happily wait for it; the gap between our 12.xx and 5.xx is larger as the surrent progress (on the front) is roughly 2.500.000/year. Happy cycling to everybody tom ehlert _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:02:12 +0100 From: "Hoogendoorn, Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Hybernation >> I personally don't mind a P100 running full LL tests; they are a small, but >> usefull contribution to our effort. I still use an old p100 and p166 to do a full LL test in the 9M range, but i do check in regularly and make sure that i won't hold up a new milestone. But i got another question, does anybody have experiance with prime95 and hybernation? Does the program pickup where it left correctly? Sander _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:24:34 +0100 From: "Lukasz Slachciak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Hybernation > But i got another question, does anybody have experiance with prime95 and > hybernation? > Does the program pickup where it left correctly? > > Sander After your question I've checked it on my Windows 2000 (on Duron 700, Motherboard AK33). It works correctly, but there is one strange thing. When I turned power on, after hibernation, the prime 95 showed message: Iteration.....Per Iteration Time: -52,792 sec. Next iteration times were showed correctly. I don't know why the time is lower then zero. Maybe somebody know? // Lukasz Slachciak // e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Poland _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:47:53 +0100 From: Philip Heede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Hybernation Hi Sander, Wednesday, February 21, 2001, 11:24:34 AM, you wrote: >> But i got another question, does anybody have experiance with prime95 and >> hybernation? Does the program pickup where it left correctly? >> Sander While it does work most of the time, I have experienced some problems when resuming my laptop from suspend and hibernation modes. The problems seems to occur mostly when Windows (Win2000) attempts to reinitialize broken network connections. I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact cause of the trouble though and have transferred my LL-tests to other (desktop) computers leaving my laptop doing factoring assignments. - -- Sincerely, Philip Heede [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... "Bollocks", said Pooh, being more forthright than usual. _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:55:20 -0000 From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Mersenne exponent assignement strategie On 20 Feb 2001, at 22:17, tom ehlert wrote: > I personally don't mind a P100 running full LL tests; they are a small, but > usefull contribution to our effort. > [... snip ...] > even a P100, runnining 8 hours a day, will finish M12000000 within 2 years, > 8 days; I will happily wait for it; the gap between our 12.xx and 5.xx is > larger as the surrent progress (on the front) is roughly 2.500.000/year. True enough. There are a few issues here: (a) most users don't seem prepared to wait two years to complete a run - even two months is asking a bit much of relatively new users; (b) a working hypothesis is that random glitches causing runs to go wrong happen at a rate which is independent of the system speed - so that a given assignment is more likely to give the correct final residue if it is run on a fast system rather than a slow one. When we're talking about assignments taking years to complete, the chance of a random glitch spoiling the result seems to be very real; (c) so far as PC systems are concerned, the cost of the power used to complete an assignment (together with the related environmental damage in terms of carbon emissions, if you're worried about global warming) is wholly dependent on the run time. Depending on how much you pay for utility power, there comes a point where it's actually cheaper in the long term to buy new hardware but run it for less hours in order to achieve the same processing rate. Personally I don't _mind_ P100s running LL tests - but I'd rather they did double-checks, or factoring, and left the bigger jobs to the faster processors. > here's my proposal: > on the server side, set a limit (currently for LL=11.000.000, > DC=5.000.000) > > define a RPTM= 'reasonable performing, trusted maschine' as a > maschine, > which has at least returned 2 results (scince last syncronization?) > > then: if a maschine asks for new work: > > if its 'reliable and reasonable fast' (has returned two results) > give it the smallest exponent available > else > give it some expomnent above limit. > I think this proposal would (a) deter new users and (b) dry up the supply of smaller exponents more quickly than the current scheme, thereby making the "slow processor problem" worse than it is at present. To implement this scheme, we'd need to change the decision point from the user to the server, since the server would have to keep track of which systems are "RPTM". At present the user client asks the server for a particular type of assignment. I think most people prefer the element of free choice implicit in the present method. Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:55:20 -0000 From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Hybernation On 21 Feb 2001, at 11:24, Lukasz Slachciak wrote: > After your question I've checked it on my Windows 2000 (on Duron 700, > Motherboard AK33). It works correctly, but there is one strange thing. When > I turned power on, after hibernation, the prime 95 showed message: > Iteration.....Per Iteration Time: -52,792 sec. Next iteration times were > showed correctly. I don't know why the time is lower then zero. Maybe > somebody know? Same thing happens on my laptop if I force it to suspend e.g. by deliberately running down the battery. Note that it you leave a laptop running 24x7 on mains power, the battery will die fairly quickly - it needs to be discharged & recharged occasionally if it is going to stay healthy. I guess the CPU cycle counters get set to zero, so when the last saved value is subtracted from it, the result is negative. After the first line following wake-up, everything is normal. The residues obtained by continuing the run through the suspend operation appear to be as good as any others ... Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 23:39:57 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mersenne: New version of Mlucas Dear GIMPSers: I am pleased to announce Mlucas 2.7b (source code and binaries for selected platforms) is available. See ftp://hogranch.com/pub/mayer/README.html ftp://hogranch.com/pub/mayer/gimps_timings.html (768kbps capacity) or the mirror at ftp://209.133.33.182/pub/mayer/README.html ftp://209.133.33.182/pub/mayer/gimps_timings.html (160kbps capacity). The major differences from v2.7a are: 1) New FFT radices, including ones of the form (11,13,15)*2^n. Thus every interval between adjacent power-of-2 runlengths can be split into roughly eight equal pieces. Folks testing exponents > 12.59M and double-checking exponents > 6.39M will (on all but a few of the older platforms) benefit from the new radix-11 capability. There are also new larger power-of-2 radices (32 and 64), which allow even very large runlengths (up to 2^23) to be handled with as few as 6 passes through the data. 2) Runtime performance optimization for the user's platform. The program now allows the user to choose from a reasonable set of possible radices which can be used at each runlength by changing a single entry in a configuration file. This can be done without interrupting the program - the file is reread each time a 2000-iteration checkpoint is reached, and if the prescribed radix set is different from the one currently being used, the code switches over and prints the actual new radices being used to the .stat file for the exponent in question. The elapsed time written to the .stat file at the next checkpoint can then be used to find the optimal radix set for the current runlength. Preoptimized configuration files for most major hardware setups on which the program has been tested accompany the precompiled binaries, so folks who don't want to fiddle around with this feature don't have to. Folks who do the runtime tuning will often be rewarded with a healthy speedup. If you peruse the timings page, you'll also see that Mlucas now has competition for the hearts and minds (well, mainly the CPU cycles :) of the RISC crowd. Guillermo Ballester Valor's excellent C program, Glucas, is showing excellent performance on most platforms, and even beats Mlucas on some. Mac/PowerPC users will be especially interested in Glucas, since it outperforms MacLucasUNIX except for a few narrow ranges of exponents, and (IMO more importantly) is being actively maintained and improved. Right now Glucas has only been compiled using the CodeWarrior C compiler (which I believe has the Gnu C compiler at its core - correct me if I'm wrong), and we're looking for folks to compile and do timings on various generations of the PPC chip, and also who have other compilers, such as the Absoft suite (whose Fortran-90 compiler could also be used to compile Mlucas for Mac.) Anyway, the above links have all the details. Right now I'm really bushed, so please excuse me while I go sleep for about 12 hours. Happy hunting, - -Ernst _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:37:25 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mersenne: New version of Mlucas - acknowledgements In my haste to make the announcement for the Mlucas 2.7b release and get to bed, I forgot to thank a very important group of people, namely my "compile czars" who spent many hours building, timing and tuning the various binaries: Brian Beesley - Alpha/Linux Paul Novarese (Compaq Corp.) - Alpha/TruUnix Bill Rea - Sparc/Solaris as well as the following: Guillermo Ballester Valor - helpful discussions and suggestions for various code improvements; David Willmore - for bugging me to get v2.7b released. My apologies, guys - I couldn't have done it without you! Cheers, - -Ernst _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:14:38 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mersenne: New version of Mlucas: p.s. In my haste to thank the various folks who helped build the Mlucas 2.7b binaries and get *back* to bed, I forgot to thank John Pierce for kindly hosting the ftp archive on his hogranch.com server. Thanks, John! And to all the others I've probably still forgotten to thank, thanks. (Hopefully that covers everyone :) Now back back to bed, - -Ernst _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:18:52 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Spontaneous reboots Hi, After being away for five days recently, I noticed that my computer (running Linux kernel 2.4.1, by the way -- 2.4.2 now) had rebooted. Just a few hours later, it rebooted again -- and that night, it rebooted _again_. If I turn off mprime (v20), the problem goes away -- the computer doesn't reboot, at least not the 36 hours I tested. After I start mprime, it reboots in just a couple of minutes now. mprime doesn't run as root, the machine has run mprime stably since I got it (about a year) and the machine (an Athlon 800, running on an Abit KA7-100 mainboard) is not overclocked. Does anybody know what's going on here? Like I said, it's been going fine on the same exponent for quite a while now, but suddenly, it just feels like rebooting (no error message or anything, the screen just goes blank and suddenly it's in the BIOS). The voltage meters in the BIOS screen look OK, and there should be more than enough power for the PC... Strange... Any ideas? /* Steinar */ - -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/ _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers ------------------------------ End of Mersenne Digest V1 #820 ******************************
