helpful if you identified the particular model of
SparcStation you are using. I have run Mfactor and could make
a binary available if people want it.
If it is something like a 50 or 70Mhz Sparc 5 or similar I would
suggest you might like to contribute to NFSnet. I have one 50Mhz
SparcClassic which
576000. It's
been like this for a couple of days. I've got work to check in
as well. I emailed the address given on the error page but haven't
gotten a reply yet.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury do
lucas I haven't got any way to factor
these.
If any wants to look for them the ones I picked up were:-
9987931
9987979
9988109
9988157
I'll need a new exponent in about 10 hours so I'll be trying again
soon.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Ca
-Feb-00 22:21
9233453 64 0x0C341480B10C63__09-Feb-00 20:00
9389167 64 0x65331012655C65__13-Feb-00 19:10
9403523 64 0xC737C7874B18AC__14-Feb-00 22:14
9448069 64 0x164D0216FA__20-Feb-00 19:24
Bill Rea
> Bill Rea wrote, in answer to a question:
>
> >Do people using the manual check out forms get in the Top Producers
> >list? I ask because I've never been able to find myself in the list
> >and I had an email from a former GIMPS contributor who claimed he
> >
ed he
got no credit for exponents tested through the manual check out/check in
pages.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
mikus wrote:-
>I've mothballed a middling-speed non-Intel machine. That machine
>could have been participating in GIMPS, but I chose not to have
>it do so any more. The reason - I resent feeling "pressured" by
>expiration requirements and contact-every-xx-days requirements.
I'm a bit mystified
Gimpsters,
A while ago someone posted a demonstration of the Lucas-Lehmer test
for, I think, 2^7-1. Would that person be so kind as to email me
another copy or point me to an archive if the posts on this list
are saved somewhere.
Thanks.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of
ing.
It takes close to 2 hours to build an executable with profiling,
run it, then recompile using the results of the profiling. The
compiler grows to take over 240Mb of address space while optimizing
and the disk rattles continuously as the system pages.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
have to opt for
one or the other on a particular exponent and stay with it to
the end. After several recompiles and restarts there is now no
noticeable difference in speed between 32 and 64-bit MLU. But I've
also mananged to reduce the executable size of the 64-bit version
to where it'
you the best performance. But that doesn't seem to be the
case.
Ernst, would you expect your code to run faster this way?
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
runs significantly
slower in 64-bit mode. On small cache systems, MLU is faster for
current exponents.
I would like to upgrade the E450 to Solaris 7 and see what Mayer's
code can do in 64-bit mode, but the owners won't let me :-(
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbur
d were:-
-fast -libmil -xlibmopt -xarch=v9
I'm happy to try this again if someone can suggest a better set of
options. Putting -xarch=v9 does make Mlucas run faster on systems
that support it.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot cant
Laurent,
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 15 20:37:35 1999
>
> Bill Rea wrote:
> >
> > This is using MacLucasUNIX compiled with the Sun workshop compilers.
>
>Which version and which flags did you use? I guess you ran
> your tests under Solaris 7, right?
Th
bove. Even with speed differences around 10%
on the tests showed no discernable differences in practice.
I haven't tried a binary compiled with the -xarch=v9 option on a
production run, perhaps it will be worth a try. If anyone does
this before I do, please post some results.
Bill Rea, In
sufficient
>interest; the code won't run on normal sparcs, my time is very
>limited I don't want to expend a considerable amount of
>energy on something no one will use. Would anyone like to help?
If you want to have a count up before deciding, I've got
Initially it
was performing more like a 90Mhz Pentium. I had over a 1000 hours
at the lower speed before recompiling.
The results will come, but not as fast as I first thought. I may
have to ask for extentions of time on some exponents, but they'll
get done.
Bill Rea, Information Technolo
compiled with gcc,
but there are warnings like:-
The -fast option is unsuitable for programs that require strict
conformance to the IEEE 754 Standard.
Should I be using this option?
Thanks for any help.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its d
18 matches
Mail list logo
