mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Software (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Prime95 30.7 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=27180)

James Heinrich 2021-12-07 14:38

307MB for wavefront P-1... :sad:
This is why we need more dedicated P-1'ers at the wavefront.

axn 2021-12-07 14:41

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;594663]307MB for wavefront P-1... :sad:
This is why we need more dedicated P-1'ers at the wavefront.[/QUOTE]

Yes, 300MB is the default. The default should be higher. However, most likely moot point.

techn1ciaN 2021-12-07 15:44

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;594663]307MB for wavefront P-1... :sad:
This is why we need more dedicated P-1'ers at the wavefront.[/QUOTE]

I run P-1 on my mid-range AMD Zen laptop (Zen 2 / 6 cores, 13 GB RAM allocated) and I get through eight runs a day with work lines manually rewritten to have [c]tests_saved=1[/c]. If the server-side [c]tests_saved[/c] value is adjusted downwards, then less than 50* other people like myself would be needed to keep ahead of primality testing — with huge RAM, potentially even fewer once 30.8 goes gold.

Concerningly, it seems that jakasi2 is actually running full-time P-1 himself, since his assignment for M[M]108043021[/M] cleared after he turned P-1 in. jakasi2 — if you are still reading this thread, you have not given Prime95 enough RAM for P-1 to be a productive use of your computing time. You turned in P-1 without doing stage 2, when allocating (for example) a few GB of RAM instead of the default 300 MB would allow you to run this stage, giving you a much better chance of finding a factor for similar or even less run time. If this is not an amount of RAM you can give up, consider running something other than P-1, like PRP or DC testing.

[QUOTE=axn;594664]Yes, 300MB is the default. The default should be higher.[/QUOTE]

I believe Mr. Woltman has said that a fresh Prime95 installation left at default settings can't be intrusive to normal PC use, which hogging GBs of RAM would fall under. Anything more than maybe 500 MB (which is still not enough for stage 2 at the PRP wavefront) is probably out of the question.

* Napkin math assuming that the mersenne.org daily "First Prime Tests" value is accurate and doesn't include PRP-CF tests.

kriesel 2021-12-07 15:47

[QUOTE=jakasi2;594654]I paused the worker via GUI (opened window Test->Stop) as I had some other work to do on the PC.
Half an hour later I continued searching. Via opened window I went Test->Continue.

...Any thoughts?
[/QUOTE]Welcome. Normally, pausing prime95 is unnecessary. It runs at lower priority. Read the documentation shipped with prime95. You can set it to pause when it detects specific other applications, such as unusually memory hungry apps. Check how much free ram you normally have. It's very likely that a mere 300MB is too conservatively low and slowing your prime95 P-1 work.
See also the reference info collection at [URL]https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=521922#post521922[/URL]
And if you have a capable GPU, it could be contributing more than your CPU, with the right software.

James Heinrich 2021-12-07 19:59

[QUOTE=techn1ciaN;594666]I believe Mr. Woltman has said that a fresh Prime95 installation left at default settings can't be intrusive to normal PC use, which hogging GBs of RAM would fall under. Anything more than maybe 500 MB (which is still not enough for stage 2 at the PRP wavefront) is probably out of the question.[/QUOTE]I posit that it would be better to have installations without at least a bare minimum of reasonable RAM (4GB? but this number will just get higher as the wavefront advances) allocated that they should just not do P-1 at all rather than do it badly. Have them do already-PM1'd PRP, or if none are available then PRP-DC. Even doing first-time PRP without P-1 would be better, even if it risks wasted cycles on the small chance of a P-1 factor, since those cycles will be wasted anyways if someone ends up re-doing the badly-done P-1 at a later date (and someone certainly will, eventually).

paulunderwood 2021-12-07 21:24

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;594679]I posit that it would be better to have installations without at least a bare minimum of reasonable RAM (4GB? but this number will just get higher as the wavefront advances) allocated that they should just not do P-1 at all rather than do it badly. Have them do already-PM1'd PRP, or if none are available then PRP-DC. Even doing first-time PRP without P-1 would be better, even if it risks wasted cycles on the small chance of a P-1 factor, since those cycles will be wasted anyways if someone ends up re-doing the badly-done P-1 at a later date (and someone certainly will, eventually).[/QUOTE]

My Xeon Phi barfs at P-1. I am running 32 workers with 16GB RAM. It would be nice to have the option to grab P-1-less tasks, assuming there is a great effort to do tons of P-1 by others at the wavefront.

ixfd64 2021-12-07 21:38

jakasi2, please consider allocating more memory for P-1 if you can. This will allow Prime95 to run stage 2 and increase the chance of finding a factor.

kriesel 2021-12-07 21:49

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;594687]My Xeon Phi barfs at P-1. I am running 32 workers with 16GB RAM.[/QUOTE]Cut back to 4 workers. Latency will improve tremendously, and occasional P-1 runs are unlikely to coincide. The loss of total throughput is modest.

kruoli 2021-12-09 11:23

[QUOTE=ixfd64;594378]I ran the documentation through a spell checker and found some typos[/QUOTE]

In whatsnew.txt:
Section 30.7, second point, it should be [I]perspective[/I] instead of [I]perpective[/I].
Section 25.7, first point, it should be [I]used[/I] instead of [I]unsed[/I].
Section 22.2, third point, it should be [I]aggressive[/I] instead of [I]aggresive[/I].
Section 22.1, fourth point, it should be [I]override[/I] instead of [I]overide[/I].
Section 21.2, eighth point, it should be [I]occurred[/I] instead of [I]occured[/I].

jocelynl1204 2021-12-16 03:51

Prime95 30.7 build 9 crash
 
Hi,


I just installed the latest build. And it is doing poorly at managing RAM.
It just crashes. If I run 4 workers, the first and second workers pick up to much ram.
It ends up having to restart the third and fourth with different size and crashes.

The previous version would divide equally the available ram to the 4 workers.
This build does not.

I have to give it all available RAM to make it work.

Anybody having the same issue ?

emiller 2021-12-18 03:24

Is it possible to get a Mac OS 64 bit version or instructions for how to compile?


All times are UTC. The time now is 04:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.