![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3
58310 Posts |
![]()
I had done some factorial prime testing with PRPnet with i5 and i3 CPUs before and a test took about 25-30 hours.
Now recently I began testing using an i10-10900k and a test in the 282000! range takes more than 40 hours. I have no idea why. FFT is about 450k, it's a 10 core with 20 MB L3 cache, I'm running 10 tasks simultaneously. It's not ideal, but better L3/task ratio than on the other computers. It's running Ubuntu. I tried different pfgw versions, the one supplied with the PRPnet client (3.7.10) and also 4.0.1 from sourceforge. No difference. Each pfgw instance is using 99-100% of a core. Total RAM usage is 1GB/16GB. I used that same computer for yafu and cado and never had any issues with slow speeds. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Jun 2003
5,387 Posts |
![]()
It would be helpful if there was some indication of the sizes of the numbers being tested when you were getting the above timings.
For example, n=280k ought to take appr. 35% more time compared to n=250k (based on naive scaling calculations) on the same CPU. Of course, it would be worse, since the impact of large L3 will be less when you have bigger FFT. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Linear Congruence order 4 sequence not testing in PFGW? | carpetpool | Software | 14 | 2017-07-13 19:54 |
Efficient testing in Pfgw | Trejack | Information & Answers | 2 | 2016-04-30 05:30 |
PFGW 3.3.6 or PFGW 3.4.2 Please update now! | Joe O | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 5 | 2010-09-30 14:07 |
Factorial | mfgoode | Puzzles | 6 | 2007-07-24 14:24 |
Primality-testing program with multiple types of moduli (PFGW-related) | Unregistered | Information & Answers | 4 | 2006-10-04 22:38 |