mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-06-20, 00:01   #1
Unregistered
 

22×3×173 Posts
Default Type of work I'm doing

Hi!

The Prime95 says I'm working on "Trial Factoring M87471793 to 2^69". Does this mean I don't work on finding a new prime? I know any work counts, but I read in a very old post that there were four types of work you could do. Only one of them were testing for new primes (directly). How is this so, I can't remember choosing any particular assignment? If I really want to test for my own prime, am I able to do so? In such case, what do I do?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-20, 05:23   #2
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7×167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Hi!

The Prime95 says I'm working on "Trial Factoring M87471793 to 2^69". Does this mean I don't work on finding a new prime? I know any work counts, but I read in a very old post that there were four types of work you could do. Only one of them were testing for new primes (directly). How is this so, I can't remember choosing any particular assignment? If I really want to test for my own prime, am I able to do so? In such case, what do I do?
At the moment, you're searching for a small factor. If you find one, then the number is not prime and you will have disposed of that exponent.

If you don't, then what happens next depends upon the type of assignment you have. Have a look at your worktodo.txt file. If the line with 87471793 in it begins with "Test=", then you will go on to test that exponent for primality. If it begins with "Factor=" then you won't, and the exponent will be given to someone else for testing.
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-20, 05:25   #3
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

251816 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
"Trial Factoring M87471793 to 2^69". Does this mean I don't work on finding a new prime? I know any work counts, but I read in a very old post that there were four types of work you could do. Only one of them were testing for new primes (directly). How is this so, I can't remember choosing any particular assignment? If I really want to test for my own prime, am I able to do so? In such case, what do I do?
What are the specifications for your PC? If it is 'old' PrimeNet will give it Trial Factoring work by default (you are correct that TF can not find a prime, but can find a factor, proving it is not prime.) If you chose 87471793 to test all the way to the end (the LL test), Prime95 will first run some TF and a P-1 test as needed. These are a wise investment as they can more rapidly remove a number of exponents that have factors.

If you just want to run LL tests on number that PrimeNet will assign, open the program. Then from the menu select Test > Worker Windows. In options for "Type of work to get", select "First time tests".
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-20, 09:22   #4
Unregistered
 

152458 Posts
Default

Thanks!

If i choose "world record numbers to test" or "100.000.000 digit numbers test", how long time will my computer use for this _if_ the number is a prime?

If i choose "first time tests", will my computer test numbers that are smaller than the current world record?

Are these three options the only one that do "full tests" on "new" numbers?

Funny/interesting, this...
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-20, 11:35   #5
Unregistered
 

33×83 Posts
Default

Now, I chose "world record tests" in the "worker windows"-menu-option in Prime95. But as a trial factor test finished, i didnt get a new assignment... i know the scheduled assignment have to finish, but the communication thread did not show that i got a new... is this a bug? im using the latest software on windows7.

I also tried setting the work to "world record testing" at www, under account type, but then, as three trial factor tests ended, i only got more trial factoring assignment from the server (in the communication thread)...
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-20, 14:46   #6
Unregistered
 

2·5·821 Posts
Default

Hi.

I'm sorry for the trouble, because now it works. I got LL-assignment. I think it will begin as soon as the previous scheduled TF-assignments are done! :-)

Thanks.

PS: For the future, if I must uninstall Prime95 and restart, is it best to set the work type in www? It seems that it will get TF-assignments automatically at start-up...
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 00:05   #7
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

23·1,187 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
If i choose "world record numbers to test" or "100.000.000 digit numbers test", how long time will my computer use for this _if_ the number is a prime?

If i choose "first time tests", will my computer test numbers that are smaller than the current world record?

Are these three options the only one that do "full tests" on "new" numbers?
Doing a LL test takes the same amount of time if a number is prime or not (it has to go all the way to the end to find out the results).
How long it take depends on your computer a lot. Most likely it will take about a year.

Right now there are about 32,000 numbers that will be handed out as "first time tests" that are smaller than the record (that was found this year).

Yes these are the options for "new" numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Now, I chose "world record tests" in the "worker windows"-menu-option in Prime95. But as a trial factor test finished, i didnt get a new assignment... i know the scheduled assignment have to finish, but the communication thread did not show that i got a new... is this a bug? im using the latest software on windows7.

I also tried setting the work to "world record testing" at www, under account type, but then, as three trial factor tests ended, i only got more trial factoring assignment from the server (in the communication thread)...
The settings on the machine are primary, if I recall correctly.
What type of processor, speed, and memory do you have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
PS: For the future, if I must uninstall Prime95 and restart, is it best to set the work type in www? It seems that it will get TF-assignments automatically at start-up...
Set it on the machine. If PrimeNet is giving you TF when you have "What ever makes sense" set on the machine, that means you have an older or slower machine. It may take more than a year and a half for a 100,000,000 digit number and more than 6 weeks for a record number.
Uncwilly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 00:15   #8
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11·157 Posts
Default Welcome!

Welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick around. A huge number of people never finish their first assignment when they see how long it takes.

Setting up your automatic assignments online is probably a good idea though doing it through the program is fine too. Prime95.exe will regenerate any missing .txt files that it needs so you can erase everything except the .exe and it will start over from scratch and you can change your settings. You can also do that through the menus in the program itself. See Test > Worker Windows.


The Primenet server tries to balance out its workload according to what needs to be done. Trial Factoring spends a small amount of time on each exponent testing small prime factors to see if the exponent can be cleared early. P-1 factoring is a different kind of factoring done once trial factoring is finished. After P-1, the actual, direct as you called it, Lucas Lehmer test begins. P-1 is barely keeping up with the LL tests so some times the server will assign P-1 to anyone taking "Whatever makes sense". "Whatever Makes Sense" is the best way to help make sure the server workload is balanced.

The amount of time your computer will take to test the numbers is highly dependent on your hardware. What is your CPU?

First time tests are done on any exponent which is ready for LL tests but has not had one done yet. Double check tests are another LL test done on an exponent which came up composite once. This is to check that the calculations were done without errors.

World record tests are like first time tests but you are specifically asking for numbers which are LARGER than the current world record. GIMPS isn't just trying to find the biggest ones. It's trying to test them all.

100,000,000 digit tests are special because there is a huge prize for finding a prime number with one hundred million digits. It's $150,000 of which $50,000 will go to you if you find it through GIMPS. These tests take a LONG, LONG time to run. It might take you over a year.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 01:20   #9
Unregistered
 

19×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Doing a LL test takes the same amount of time if a number is prime or not (it has to go all the way to the end to find out the results).
How long it take depends on your computer a lot. Most likely it will take about a year.
Ah, I see. But I don't understand it. If a number is a composite, then you find that out be finding the smallest divisor. If it's a prime, you have to test all the possible divisors? Or is the LL-algorithm different from this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
What type of processor, speed, and memory do you have?
i5-2500 @ 3.3 GHz. My computer have 16 GB RAM, but I assigned only 1. Perhaps it will run faster if i increase? I don't use the machine for awything else, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Set it on the machine. If PrimeNet is giving you TF when you have "What ever makes sense" set on the machine, that means you have an older or slower machine. It may take more than a year and a half for a 100,000,000 digit number and more than 6 weeks for a record number.
Thats weird, I didnt think my machine was old or slow in this context. Yeah, about 3 weeks according to the schedule to complete LL on a world record number. But the TF did go much faster than what the schedule said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Welcome to GIMPS! I hope you stick around. A huge number of people never finish their first assignment when they see how long it takes.
Thanks!

The Prime95 says that the chance of finding a world record prime, running 4 threads, were about 1:115,000. And also that it will take about 3 weeks to complete this.

It seems unvalid to me, but if it actually is true, then the chances are better than in the "lottery" that we have here, which are about 1:5,000,000. Hehe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
The amount of time your computer will take to test the numbers is highly dependent on your hardware. What is your CPU?
i5-2500 @ 3,30 GHz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 09:43   #10
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

938310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Ah, I see. But I don't understand it. If a number is a composite, then you find that out be finding the smallest divisor. If it's a prime, you have to test all the possible divisors? Or is the LL-algorithm different from this?
That method you describe is far too inefficient. LL test is a more efficient method. Comparing the "school method" you describe, with LL test, is even worse then comparing a snail with a supersonic airplane. We are talking about the same speed proportion, except that in the case of LL versus "school method", you have to add few thousand zeroes at the end of the speed number, in the favor of LL tests...

More details here.

LL tests will *not* run faster if you assign more memory to them. 1GB is plenty enough. The only work type which is affected by the memory amount is the "stage 2 of P-1/ECM", which you don't normally do if you do "first tests" or "world records", etc. Even for that, not the speed is affected, but the chance to find a factor (i.e. more memory increases the chance).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-06-21 at 09:51
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-06-21, 10:18   #11
MacMagnus
 
Jun 2013

2×3 Posts
Default

Hi, I am "Unregistered" (now registered).

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
That method you describe is far too inefficient. LL test is a more efficient method. Comparing the "school method" you describe, with LL test, is even worse then comparing a snail with a supersonic airplane. We are talking about the same speed proportion, except that in the case of LL versus "school method", you have to add few thousand zeroes at the end of the speed number, in the favor of LL tests...

More details here.
Hehe, ok. I knew that it was fast, I just forgot that there are several ways to attack finding primes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
LL tests will *not* run faster if you assign more memory to them. 1GB is plenty enough. The only work type which is affected by the memory amount is the "stage 2 of P-1/ECM", which you don't normally do if you do "first tests" or "world records", etc. Even for that, not the speed is affected, but the chance to find a factor (i.e. more memory increases the chance).
Ok, then I leave it at 1 GB. :)

Thanks.
MacMagnus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TF factor as work type: F-PM1? dh1 Information & Answers 2 2016-05-17 04:43
Type of work to get? Bispen Information & Answers 3 2016-01-27 16:46
Best type of work for my cpu Unregistered Information & Answers 11 2013-05-17 05:22
Type of work to get? ZFR Information & Answers 7 2011-09-17 08:43
LL no factoring work type edorajh Information & Answers 1 2010-04-16 16:55

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:53.

Tue Apr 20 23:53:01 UTC 2021 up 12 days, 18:33, 0 users, load averages: 5.23, 4.01, 3.38

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.