mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-03-13, 02:08   #111
Chuck
 
Chuck's Avatar
 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL

2×443 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95 View Post
Build 30.5 build 1 is available. It fixes the PRP problem described here: https://www.mersenneforum.org/showth...197#post573197
There is no prime95.exe in the windows folders.
Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 02:40   #112
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

3·11·227 Posts
Default

Oops. Fixed.
Prime95 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 12:50   #113
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2·29·83 Posts
Default

OK.
Restarted with 30.5.1 a session initiated with 30.4.9, and had the following message:

Code:
Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Worker starting
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #1
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Waiting 5 seconds to stagger worker starts.
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #1
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 4 on CPU core #3
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 5 on CPU core #3
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 6 on CPU core #4
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Resuming trial factoring of M216166681 to 2^74
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #2
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Trial factoring M216166681 to 2^74 is 24.56% complete.
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on CPU core #2
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 7 on CPU core #4
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Worker starting
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #5
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #6
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #8
while with version 30.4.9 I had the following allorment for the CPUs:

Code:
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Worker starting
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #1
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Waiting 5 seconds to stagger worker starts.
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #1
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 5 on CPU core #3
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 6 on CPU core #4
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #2
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 4 on CPU core #3
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 7 on CPU core #4
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Resuming trial factoring of M216166681 to 2^74
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on CPU core #2
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Trial factoring M216166681 to 2^74 is 24.56% complete.
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Worker starting
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #5
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #6
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on CPU core #7
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #8
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47]
Something went wrong with the assignatio of the CPUs at the worker threads...? or maybe it's just me.

Luigi

Last fiddled with by ET_ on 2021-03-13 at 12:52
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 13:50   #114
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

25916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET_ View Post
OK.
Restarted with 30.5.1 a session initiated with 30.4.9, and had the following message:

Code:
[...]
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:46] Resuming trial factoring of M216166681 to 2^74
[...]
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #5
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #6
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:46] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #8
while with version 30.4.9 I had the following allorment for the CPUs:

Code:
[...]
[Worker #1 Mar 13 13:47] Resuming trial factoring of M216166681 to 2^74
[...]
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run worker on CPU core #5
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on CPU core #6
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on CPU core #7
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on CPU core #8
[Worker #2 Mar 13 13:47]
Something went wrong with the assignatio of the CPUs at the worker threads...? or maybe it's just me.
The only difference I can see (apart from the line ordering) is that 30.5 is missing helper thread 2 on worker #2 (which I've clipped your log to in the quote). And of course there's the obligatory question of why you're doing TF on a CPU.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2021-03-13 at 13:53
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 14:23   #115
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

31·101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
And of course there's the obligatory question of why you're doing TF on a CPU.
Because the PRP-CF-DC category is getting TF assignments right now when there are no DCs.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 14:37   #116
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

25916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATH View Post
Because the PRP-CF-DC category is getting TF assignments right now when there are no DCs.
Still? I thought George fixed that. I've been following since my computers run that work type and received TFs as well, but they were queued far enough in advance that I still have a couple of days worth of PRPs before I run out.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2021-03-13 at 14:40
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 16:04   #117
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2×29×83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
Still? I thought George fixed that. I've been following since my computers run that work type and received TFs as well, but they were queued far enough in advance that I still have a couple of days worth of PRPs before I run out.
I usually get 3 days of work in advance, that's why there was that single TF range on my worktodo
ET_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 16:18   #118
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

601 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ET_ View Post
I usually get 3 days of work in advance, that's why there was that single TF range on my worktodo
I cut mine back to 1 day ahead and released the TFs. Two of the machines were only attached to GIMPS for the PRP-CF-DC backlog clearing push. They normally run clients for my personal PRPNet servers, and they're slated to resume that work once their queues dry up. I haven't decided what I'll do with the third (by far the most powerful). I have a few backlogged P-1 and ECM exponents to run, but I don't know if I'll do first-time PRP-CF or start BOINC work after that (which was the original plan post-clearing).
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 16:23   #119
ATH
Einyen
 
ATH's Avatar
 
Dec 2003
Denmark

313110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
Still? I thought George fixed that. I've been following since my computers run that work type and received TFs as well, but they were queued far enough in advance that I still have a couple of days worth of PRPs before I run out.
Fix is not working, I'm still getting TF just now.
ATH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 16:33   #120
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

25916 Posts
Default

On a completely unrelated note, my PRP-CF-DC test of 10841147 somehow ran without even attempting to generate a proof. It's not a big deal, since it was a DC and the residues matched, but this is the first time I recall this happening since I switched to 30.3 (of which I was an early adopter). I don't know if the worktodo line was wrong (it's complete, so the line is gone), but I didn't see anything unusual in the log files. But it didn't even attempt to create a residue file at the beginning of the test, and it sent periodic residues like in the pre-proof era. Actually, looking at the console printouts again, it didn't use Gerbicz on it either. I upgraded from 30.4 to 30.5 midway, but I don't think that had an impact, since 30.4 had already decided the test type (though strangely it did lower the FFT lengths back to 560K from 576K on those tests).

Edit: From my laptop, here's the printout line:
Code:
[Worker #1 Mar 13 02:16] Starting PRP test of M10841147/24023981753 using FMA3 FFT length 576K, Pass1=384, Pass2=1536, clm=2, 2 threads
Edit 2: Oh, now I see what happened. Some clown did the first-time test as a type-1 instead of a type-5. Would I get first-time or DC credit if I redid that as a type-5 with proof?

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2021-03-13 at 16:39 Reason: Explanation
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-03-13, 18:26   #121
Viliam Furik
 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia

45610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
Edit 2: Oh, now I see what happened. Some clown did the first-time test as a type-1 instead of a type-5. Would I get first-time or DC credit if I redid that as a type-5 with proof?
I think you would get a credit.
Viliam Furik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 20:12.

Tue May 11 20:12:03 UTC 2021 up 33 days, 14:52, 1 user, load averages: 1.76, 1.93, 1.92

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.