[QUOTE=Prime95;589236]
1) Help fine-tune the P-1 stage 1 vs stage 2 cost function. In preferences, set output iterations low -- like 10000. Report the typical P-1 stage 1 timings vs. typical stage 2 timings as well as minimal architectural info.[/QUOTE]

Are these numbers still of interest? I am running full-time P-1 on my Zen 2 laptop with 30.7b8 (Windows 11).

[QUOTE=techn1ciaN;592971]Are these numbers still of interest? I am running full-time P-1 on my Zen 2 laptop with 30.7b8 (Windows 11).[/QUOTE]

A little bit. Stage 2 per iteration time seems to be 30-70% slower. I could make it a prime.txt option, but I doubt many would bother with it. I'll just pick an average value and be done with it.

[QUOTE=Prime95;592975]A little bit.[/QUOTE]

OK, then — 107.3 M exponent using FMA3 FFT; 30.7b8; Zen 2 with dual-channel 3200 MHz RAM (Prime95 allowed max. 9 GB). Using automatic bounds with [c]tests_saved=1[/c]. Stage 1 appx. 12.5 sec. and stage 2 appx. 16 sec. with output every 7,000 iterations.

This is decidedly on the fast end of your average even though the bound selector is being decently generous with B2/B1 (around 38 for the exponent I got the timings from). I'm guessing this is due to my particular configuration somehow.

[QUOTE=Prime95;592975]I could make it a prime.txt option, but I doubt many would bother with it.[/QUOTE]

Great, I was asking for that (I know that I do not count as many). :smile: If that is easily implemented, maybe this would be fitting for undoc?

Speaking of asking for things… I seemed to recall that once somebody asked in the past how to set the default amount of curves when receiving ECM or ECM-CF work. Doing a quick search, I was not able to find it. While I am in full support of not changing that value to a smaller value than default for preventing cluttering the database, a higher number would decrease the work units one needs to keep locally and exchange with the server. Addtionally, it would presumably save even more database operations and space. Would this be a PrimeNet or Prime95 setting, if (!) it is deemed useful enough to being implemented?

After upgrading Windows 10 to Windows 11, there was no problem running LL and PRP tests with the prime95 app.
Then I attempted to run TF on M[M]337654321[/M] and v30.7b4 crashed.
The same happened after upgrading to the latest v30.7b8.
The green icon of the app appears on the taskbar for a moment and then it is gone.
When the TF task is removed from the worktodo.txt file, a pending PRP test is properly resumed.
Said TF test is now assigned to another computer with Windows 10 and is running just fine.
Therefore, there is some issue when running TF with the CPU in Windows 11. The CPU is Intel Core i7-1065G7.

[QUOTE=Dobri;593029]Therefore, there is some issue when running TF with the CPU in Windows 11.[/QUOTE]


Not to ignore the software problem, but is there a reason why you're doing CPU TF?

[QUOTE=nordi;592815]RESOLVED
Turns out I mis-edited my worktodo.txt to read "Pminus1=N/A,2,11996279,-1" instead of "Pminus1=N/A,1,2,11996279,-1". That makes mprime crash. I guess that shouldn't happen either, but at least it is a crash that is easy to reproduce.[/QUOTE]

I could not reproduce this. I get an "Illegal line in worktodo.txt message".

[QUOTE=techn1ciaN;593030]Not to ignore the software problem, but is there a reason why you're doing CPU TF?[/QUOTE]
I do not have suitable GPUs for TF tests and use only prime95 mainly for PRP, LL, and P-1 tests.
Occasionally, I may run a TF test before a P-1 test.

[QUOTE=Dobri;593032]I do not have suitable GPUs for TF tests and use only prime95 mainly for PRP, LL, and P-1 tests.
Occasionally, I may run a TF test before a P-1 test.[/QUOTE]

I am sure that myself or someone else on the forum who does have access to a good TF GPU would be happy to take an exponent to GPU72's recommended TF bit level for you if you asked (see [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=26844"]Uncwilly's post[/URL] in the old LMH sub-forum; I don't need anything in exchange, though / I'm happy just to save the cycles for the project). I could get the exponent you posted to 2[SUP]81[/SUP] TF bits in less than 48 hours with my laptop's GTX 1650. Is this of interest?

[QUOTE=techn1ciaN;593041]I could get the exponent you posted to 2[SUP]81[/SUP] TF bits in less than 48 hours with my laptop's GTX 1650. Is this of interest?[/QUOTE]
Thanks, your offer is appreciated, but I do not want anyone accusing me after that of diverting resources from the wavefront TF tests in the 229,xxx,xxx range. Also, the exponent in question is no 'special' to me.

My only intention is to report the TF bug I encountered with Windows 11.

[QUOTE=Dobri;593049]II do not want anyone accusing me after that of diverting resources from the wavefront TF tests in the 229,xxx,xxx range..[/QUOTE]
No one is entitled to accuse you (or anyone else, for that matter) of anything whatsoever. You are volunteering to take part in this project, so you are free to use your resources as you see fit.