mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Software (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   PFGW 4.0.3 (with gwnum v28.7) Released (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13969)

Prime95 2010-09-27 19:56

[QUOTE=rogue;231648]It had to do with the M$ compiler always defining a long...[/QUOTE]

To be clear this was my bug, not M$.

rogue 2010-09-27 21:16

[QUOTE=Prime95;231663]To be clear this was my bug, not M$.[/QUOTE]

You know me. I like to blame M$ for these types of things. Seriously though, I don't know what the standard is. The definition was clear when CPUs were 32-bit, but I don't see a standard definition of a long for 64-bit architectures. I would expect an ISO standard, but haven't been able to find it yet.

rogue 2010-09-27 21:46

PFGW 3.4.1 Released
 
I have updated the link for PFGW [URL="http://sourceforge.net/projects/openpfgw/files/"]here[/URL] I am releasing 3.4.1 for Windows only since only Windows was affected by the issue. Although the 32-bit version is included in the zipfile, only the 64-bit bit version has any changes.

mdettweiler 2010-09-28 16:58

Mark, I seem to be getting a slowdown with 32-bit 3.4.0 as opposed to 3.3.6. I noticed this on some base 5 pairs that I was running through PRPnet. I'm using this PRPnet server as filler work between TPS sieve ranges; thus, I worked on it a little a few days ago, then took 3 days or so off to do a sieve range, and am now back on the PRPnet server again. I upgraded PFGW to 3.4.0 in the interim. Here is my test_results.log showing the results before and after the changeover:
[code][2010-09-22 18:42:46 EDT] Candidate: 289184*5^477336-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 08B0E31C3A9EFF00 Time: 3671 seconds
[2010-09-22 19:43:34 EDT] Candidate: 127174*5^477351-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: DA00969979D57138 Time: 3644 seconds
[2010-09-22 20:49:24 EDT] Candidate: 207394*5^477357-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 2DB93A71BB0A6D89 Time: 3948 seconds
[2010-09-22 21:57:49 EDT] Candidate: 53542*5^477367-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: C219C5F34A2B8D2B Time: 4099 seconds
[2010-09-22 22:59:56 EDT] Candidate: 102818*5^477378-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: D78C24D964BE86CA Time: 3720 seconds
[2010-09-23 00:00:25 EDT] Candidate: 64598*5^477390-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 494AE4D759658CE7 Time: 3624 seconds
[2010-09-26 07:39:13 EDT] Candidate: 243944*5^478048-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: A48AB870927245F0 Time: 4580 seconds
[2010-09-26 08:55:23 EDT] Candidate: 194368*5^478057-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 3B71DD5DA8AB0BF7 Time: 4567 seconds
[2010-09-26 10:12:28 EDT] Candidate: 259072*5^478063-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 703423F79481265C Time: 4619 seconds
[2010-09-26 11:29:47 EDT] Candidate: 146756*5^478072-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 019D098696437238 Time: 4636 seconds
[2010-09-26 12:18:20 EDT] Candidate: 22478*5^478082-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 5A2455E84FCE318B Time: 2909 seconds
[2010-09-26 13:35:07 EDT] Candidate: 162434*5^478092-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: BF3D8B20B48257FE Time: 4601 seconds
[2010-09-26 14:53:18 EDT] Candidate: 268514*5^478100-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 5B30C65AF64582E8 Time: 4688 seconds
[2010-09-26 16:11:34 EDT] Candidate: 119878*5^478109-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 49B7CA1372F2BF82 Time: 4692 seconds
[2010-09-26 17:31:20 EDT] Candidate: 151026*5^478112-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 539CEBED84B56084 Time: 4779 seconds
[2010-09-26 18:49:28 EDT] Candidate: 170386*5^478123-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 51CECE7D80876FA2 Time: 4681 seconds
[2010-09-26 20:06:36 EDT] Candidate: 102818*5^478134-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 039C4C573ADA683D Time: 4620 seconds
[2010-09-26 21:25:08 EDT] Candidate: 262172*5^478138-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 83B5AA2A245C99FD Time: 4705 seconds
[2010-09-26 22:41:43 EDT] Candidate: 105782*5^478154-1 Program: pfgw.exe Residue: 2AEE407A72D331B7 Time: 4583 seconds[/code]
PFGW 3.3.6 got times around 3600-4000 seconds, and 3.4.0 gets around 4600 seconds.

It's possible I just hit an FFT change and this is a fluke...I'll run some quick tests to see if this is the case.

mdettweiler 2010-09-28 17:08

It doesn't look there were any FFT changes. Here's what each version used for pairs before and after the changeover in my above list:
[code]289184*5^477336-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K

105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K[/code]
So this appears to be some kind of general slowdown with 3.4.0. This is rather surprising, since I'm running this on a Core 2 Duo (one of the architectures that would be expected to have a speedup).

I'm using the 32-bit Windows 3.4.0. If I'm understanding things correctly, 3.4.1 only made changes to the 64-bit version, so whatever's happening here probably affects 3.4.1 as well.

rogue 2010-09-28 17:38

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;231784]It doesn't look there were any FFT changes. Here's what each version used for pairs before and after the changeover in my above list:
[code]289184*5^477336-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K

105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K[/code]
So this appears to be some kind of general slowdown with 3.4.0. This is rather surprising, since I'm running this on a Core 2 Duo (one of the architectures that would be expected to have a speedup).

I'm using the 32-bit Windows 3.4.0. If I'm understanding things correctly, 3.4.1 only made changes to the 64-bit version, so whatever's happening here probably affects 3.4.1 as well.[/QUOTE]

This is a question for George as PFGW does not select the FFT used by gwnum for the PRP Test.

You are correct on 3.4.1.

Prime95 2010-09-28 21:44

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;231784][code]
105782*5^478154-1:
3.3.6: zero-padded FFT length 128K
3.4.0: Core2 type-3 FFT length 128K[/code].[/QUOTE]

Using 32-bit Prime95 on my Core 2 Mac running Windows in VMware I get 2.75 ms for the old gwnum code and 2.25 ms/iter for the new gwnum code.

rogue 2010-09-29 02:32

I tested the second number with 3.3.6 and 3.4.0 (both 32 bit). 4713 and 4165 seconds respectively. You should probably test one of those numbers with both versions. There are other factors in gwnum that can affect timing.

mdettweiler 2010-09-29 04:59

[QUOTE=rogue;231841]I tested the second number with 3.3.6 and 3.4.0 (both 32 bit). 4713 and 4165 seconds respectively. You should probably test one of those numbers with both versions. There are other factors in gwnum that can affect timing.[/QUOTE]
Okay, here's what I got running the first number with both versions:
[code]
$ ./pfgw336.exe -q289184*5^477336-1
PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3820.2773s+0.1489s)

$ ./pfgw.exe -q289184*5^477336-1
PFGW Version 3.4.0.32BIT.20100925.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (4416.4668s+0.0490s)
[/code]
Again, 3.4.0 is significantly slower. Very strange. :huh:

rogue 2010-09-29 14:29

PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3526.7372s+0.0633s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.32BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3428.3614s+0.3369s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.64BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (2683.5896s+0.0174s)

This is on a "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz" according to the pfgw.ini file. What is the CpuBrand entry in your pfgw.ini file? This was on 64-bit Window 7.

My tests last night were on a MacIntel T7700 Core 2 Duo at 2.40 GHz. The MacIntel is about 4 years old and has slower memory.

mdettweiler 2010-09-29 18:39

[QUOTE=rogue;231916]PFGW Version 3.3.6.20100908.Win_Stable [GWNUM 25.14]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3526.7372s+0.0633s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.32BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (3428.3614s+0.3369s)

PFGW Version 3.4.1.64BIT.20100927.Win_Dev [GWNUM 26.2]
289184*5^477336-1 is composite: RES64: [08B0E31C3A9EFF00] (2683.5896s+0.0174s)

This is on a "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8700 @ 2.53GHz" according to the pfgw.ini file. What is the CpuBrand entry in your pfgw.ini file? This was on 64-bit Window 7.

My tests last night were on a MacIntel T7700 Core 2 Duo at 2.40 GHz. The MacIntel is about 4 years old and has slower memory.[/QUOTE]
The CPU is a Core 2 Duo E4500 (at stock speed of 2.2Ghz) and is identified by PFGW as:

"Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz"

The computer is running Windows XP Pro 32-bit.


All times are UTC. The time now is 00:35.

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