Re: factor is too fast

2009-04-27 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 08:19:23 Philip Rowlands wrote:
 On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Toralf F?rster wrote:
  For a long time I used the command factor to test my system WRT the cpu
  ondemand governor of the linux kernel, eg for issues like this :
  http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12385
 
  However switching from coreutils-6.10 to 7.1 (stable Gentoo Linux) now
  the factor command is too fast: it takes only 0.003 sec instead of 5.5
  sec for the same prime number.

 That's probably due to this entry from NEWS:

 * Noteworthy changes in release 7.0 (2008-10-05) [beta]

If the GNU MP library is available at configure time, factor and
expr support arbitrarily large numbers.  Pollard's rho algorithm is
used to factor large numbers.

if GMP is too fast, then you could try building coreutils with USE=gmp.  if 
coreutils itself got a new algo, then i guess save the old binary ...
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils


Re: factor is too fast

2009-04-27 Thread Toralf Förster
At Monday 27 April 2009 08:35:11 Mike Frysinger wrote :
 On Tuesday 21 April 2009 08:19:23 Philip Rowlands wrote:
  On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Toralf F?rster wrote:
   For a long time I used the command factor to test my system WRT the
   cpu ondemand governor of the linux kernel, eg for issues like this :
   http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12385
  
   However switching from coreutils-6.10 to 7.1 (stable Gentoo Linux) now
   the factor command is too fast: it takes only 0.003 sec instead of 5.5
   sec for the same prime number.
 
  That's probably due to this entry from NEWS:
 
  * Noteworthy changes in release 7.0 (2008-10-05) [beta]
 
 If the GNU MP library is available at configure time, factor and
 expr support arbitrarily large numbers.  Pollard's rho algorithm is
 used to factor large numbers.

 if GMP is too fast, then you could try building coreutils with USE=gmp.  if
 coreutils itself got a new algo, then i guess save the old binary ...
 -mike

Thx,

I like this speed improvement in general - and this was really impressive - 
and b/c I was pointed to the command timeout
BTW this has the advantage that I do not have to wait 3x longer (600 MHz 
versus 1700 MZh) to realize that the ondemand governor doesn't work
:-)

-- 
MfG/Sincerely

Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3



___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils


Re: factor is too fast

2009-04-21 Thread Philip Rowlands

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Toralf F?rster wrote:


For a long time I used the command factor to test my system WRT the cpu
ondemand governor of the linux kernel, eg for issues like this :
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12385

However switching from coreutils-6.10 to 7.1 (stable Gentoo Linux) now the
factor command is too fast: it takes only 0.003 sec instead of 5.5 sec for
the same prime number.


That's probably due to this entry from NEWS:

* Noteworthy changes in release 7.0 (2008-10-05) [beta]

  If the GNU MP library is available at configure time, factor and
  expr support arbitrarily large numbers.  Pollard's rho algorithm is
  used to factor large numbers.


Therefore I'm wondering whether you have a hint for me which number I could
use nowadays ?


If the goal is simply drive the CPU usage to 100% for 5 seconds, this 
would work:


$ timeout 5 factor 20158916322613169725842061629370496430


Cheers,
Phil


___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils


factor is too fast

2009-04-21 Thread Toralf Förster
For a long time I used the command factor to test my system WRT the cpu 
ondemand governor of the linux kernel, eg for issues like this : 
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12385

However switching from coreutils-6.10 to 7.1 (stable Gentoo Linux) now the 
factor command is too fast: it takes only 0.003 sec instead of 5.5 sec for 
the same prime number.

Therefore I'm wondering whether you have a hint for me which number I could 
use nowadays ?

:-)

Thx

-- 
MfG/Sincerely

Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3



___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils