mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-11-24, 06:49   #925
De Wandelaar
 
De Wandelaar's Avatar
 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium

10100112 Posts
Default

22.3M is quite completely finished with a lot of the work done by TheJudger.
My reserved exponents will be processed within less than 2 days.

@Wayne : What's the next range for TF work ?
Thanks.
De Wandelaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 15:30   #926
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

3·11·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SethTro View Post
With James's help (thanks for everything). I rigged up a P-1 calculator in python and tried to optimize TF vs P-1. I use a similar methodology to what Wayne does.
This is really cool.
I've been dreaming of such a "calculator" since I started....I wish I was better at programming; and math; and time management. LOL

I'll need a few days to wrap my head around all of this then I'll try to make some useful comments.

Thanks
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 15:33   #927
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

120758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Wandelaar View Post
22.3M is quite completely finished with a lot of the work done by TheJudger.
My reserved exponents will be processed within less than 2 days.

@Wayne : What's the next range for TF work ?
Thanks.
If you are using GPU72 I think it should give you 21.9 or 21.8 or 21.7.
I don't know if Chris has to make magic or if it will just happen.

Thanks
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 16:04   #928
De Wandelaar
 
De Wandelaar's Avatar
 
"Yves"
Jul 2017
Belgium

83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
If you are using GPU72 I think it should give you 21.9 or 21.8 or 21.7.
I don't know if Chris has to make magic or if it will just happen.

Thanks
I got 21.9 exponents.
De Wandelaar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 16:51   #929
techn1ciaN
 
techn1ciaN's Avatar
 
Oct 2021
U. S. / Maine

2·73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
I have a i5-7820x with 3600 DDR4 RAM that for unknown reasons performs best with 1 Worker x 8 Cores.
What exponent did you test with? Because of the thread we're in I'm going to guess something well below the DC wavefront but still with eight digits, say 20 M. In that case you are at the "sweet spot" for your CPU where one FFT (one worker) can just fit in your L3 cache, but two or more can't (2+ workers) and get evicted to your slower DRAM. This erases the throughput gains one might typically hope to make by running more workers.

I own a Ryzen 5 3600XT, whose L3 cache is large for a consumer CPU (32 MB) and can actually fit up to DC wavefront FFTs. So I stick to one worker because I tend to run DC. I recently did an informal "benchmark" with some of my DC work (59 to 61 M exponents) and 2 workers * 3 threads indeed performed significantly worse than 1 worker * 6 threads. 3 workers * 2 threads made up some ground, but not all of it. I will have to reevaluate after the DC wavefront advances a bit (say to 70 M).

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
If P-1 is so fast now relative to PRP let it find as many factors as possible and save as many expensive PRP tests as possible. Maybe it should be 2.5 or 3 to 1 tests-saved?
Kriesel recently did some fantastic analysis that confirmed tests_saved=1 is solidly best for overall GIMPS throughput at the current wavefront with current Prime95 versions. Since the automatic bound calculator is internal to the software, I imagine Mr. Woltman will adjust it such that this continues to be the case and larger bounds do not need to be manually forced. With such a dramatic stage 2 boost, it probably will take a few releases for the accuracy to be sharpened so something like tests_saved=1.2 may turn out to be optimal in the short term (or even, say, tests_saved=0.9 if the new calculator swings too hard in the other direction).

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
Similarly it is because GPUs are SOOOO much faster at TF that we bumped the pre-PRP TF by a few bits to save PRP tests.
A nitpick: GPU factoring programs have had the effect of 3 or 4 more bit levels for almost all pre-PRP TF, but the "official" TF level where an exponent is cleared for PRP has still not changed from when factoring was done by CPU. Put differently, an exponent of 332,xxx,xxx (for example) will be TFed to at least 81 bits as long as someone from GPU72 can get to it, but if this does not happen then the server will not hold up the PRP assignment.
techn1ciaN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 17:10   #930
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10100001111012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techn1ciaN View Post
What exponent did you test with? Because of the thread we're in I'm going to guess something well below the DC wavefront but still with eight digits, say 20 M. In that case you are at the "sweet spot" for your CPU where one FFT (one worker) can just fit in your L3 cache, but two or more can't (2+ workers) and get evicted to your slower DRAM. This erases the throughput gains one might typically hope to make by running more workers.
Interesting comment on the L3.
When I first got this new 7820x PC I was doing P-1 from 40M to 50M. 1 Worker x 8 Cores performed the best.
Yet my quads i5-3570 with the same range still perform P-1 the fastest with 4 Workers x 1 Core.
I actually haven't rechecked now that I am in the 20M to 30M range.

Quote:
Kriesel recently did some fantastic analysis that confirmed tests_saved=1 is solidly best for overall GIMPS throughput at the current wavefront with current Prime95 versions. Since the automatic bound calculator is internal to the software, I imagine Mr. Woltman will adjust it such that this continues to be the case and larger bounds do not need to be manually forced. With such a dramatic stage 2 boost, it probably will take a few releases for the accuracy to be sharpened so something like tests_saved=1.2 may turn out to be optimal in the short term (or even, say, tests_saved=0.9 if the new calculator swings too hard in the other direction).
OK, Kreisel/George know best.

Quote:
A nitpick: GPU factoring programs have had the effect of 3 or 4 more bit levels for almost all pre-PRP TF, but the "official" TF level where an exponent is cleared for PRP has still not changed from when factoring was done by CPU. Put differently, an exponent of 332,xxx,xxx (for example) will be TFed to at least 81 bits as long as someone from GPU72 can get to it, but if this does not happen then the server will not hold up the PRP assignment.
Agreed, but GPU72 is trying to push the bits up as much as he can.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 18:03   #931
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

1045110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Wandelaar View Post
I got 21.9 exponents.
Never send a human to do a machine's job...

George... Absolutely amazing work! Can't wait to start working with it!!!
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 20:37   #932
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

143D16 Posts
Default I'm taking 24.7M next

I expect to start Monday.
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 22:11   #933
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

518110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SethTro View Post
With James's help (thanks for everything). I rigged up a P-1 calculator in python and tried to optimize TF vs P-1. I use a similiar methodology to what Wayne does.


Code:
[17000000,17100000] 156 needed, current TF 2155 x 72

	Existing P-1 for interval greater than B1=100000, B2=2025000 => 2.0%
	Last P-1 2155 x 9.6% @ B1=20405627 B2=413213953
	0 GPU(72) + 74390.0 CPU | GHz-Days/factor  GPU: 0.0  CPU: 476.9 | 0.0x GPU/CPU
	Factors/Tests 0.0/0 TF + 156.0/2155 P-1 @ B1=20405627 B2=413213953

	Existing P-1 for interval greater than B1=100000, B2=2025000 => 1.8%
	Last P-1 2155 x 8.0% @ B1=11808812 B2=239128445
	60443 GPU(73) + 43049.8 CPU | GHz-Days/factor  GPU: 2159.7  CPU: 336.3 | 1.4x GPU/CPU
	Factors/Tests 28.0/2155 TF + 128.0/2155 P-1 @ B1=11808812 B2=239128445


	3314264 GPU(1605 x 78) + 0 CPU | 156/12380 TF
Each block stands for completing another bitlevel of TF. Starting with no additional TF and going up to completing TF 2^77

If we do no additional TF we'll need P-1 bounds around B1=20M, B2=413M to get 156 factors from 2155 P-1 tests

[/CODE]
Again this is awesome.
Sorry but the following sounds pretty disjoint ...

I've always wished I could find an Excel formula to calculate the factor ratio difference with a given B1/B2.
(Yes I use Excel ... fossil as it is)
I've tried to convert prob.php to an excel macro but it was above me.
I would love a dummy-downed version of prob.php that I could use as a function/formula in Excel ... for my purposes here it wouldn't have to be exact.

A few observations from my experience over the last 4 years
I don't think you will get 28 factors going to 73 bits.
I know the PrimeNet math suggests so but I suspect that is based on NO P-1.
With all the big factoring done recently in the 2x.xM ranges I've been seeing closer to 24 per range where there is low to moderate current P-1 done.
It would be great if these was a tool similar to prob.php that could calculate the expected TF success rate based on how much P-1 (or ECM) has been done.

To take the entire 17.0 range to 77 bits is about 3.75M GhzDays. or 2.3 years with my 2080Ti GPU.
If I were to take all exponents to the highest Bounds above and run this on my 5 home CPUs it would take me about 270 days.
So if I was tasked to complete 17.0 with the hardware I have I would do a little more TF but rely mostly on P-1.

At the individual level, I guess that is what each of us might want to do if they adopt a range:
--- Use your tool to calculate the TF vs P-1 effort as above.
--- Consider what hardware they own and use it appropriately

But at a grander scale for this project it is always a balancing act considering how much TF vs P-1 power is available.
And that has changed dramatically month to month.
I have not much of a clue what the current total capacities are for TF and P-1.

But if I did your tool is great to use to suggest/recommend TF levels for each range vs P-1 bounds.

Thanks again
Wayne
petrw1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-24, 23:27   #934
gLauss
 
Nov 2014

3·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by masser View Post
I've attached 38 candidates from the 5.5M range that should be safe from the TF wavefront and where additional P-1 is needed. After you complete these, we can probably find similar candidates in higher ranges.

Wayne and others, is anyone working the 5.5M range?

EDIT: - gLauss, be sure to allocate enough ram to get a decent B2.
Unfortunately, axn poached that list of P-1 on at least one exponent 5547953. So I will stop working on any exponents for now, please "unreserve" everything. I probably work to irregularly and am not contributing much anyway with my laptop - so I will work on whatever I like, but only on ranges where there has been no progress for at least some time and make sure to report my results timely.
gLauss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-25, 01:25   #935
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

7·1,493 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gLauss View Post
Unfortunately, axn poached that list of P-1 on at least one exponent 5547953. So I will stop working on any exponents for now, please "unreserve" everything.
Sorry about that (although I wasn't involved).

Please know we tend to work rather fast 'round these here parts...
chalsall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thinking of Joining GPU to 72 jschwar313 GPU to 72 3 2016-01-31 00:50
Thinking about lasieve5 Batalov Factoring 6 2011-12-27 22:40
Thinking about buying a panda jasong jasong 1 2008-11-11 09:43
Loud thinking on irregular primes devarajkandadai Math 4 2007-07-25 03:01
Question on unfactored numbers... WraithX GMP-ECM 1 2006-03-19 22:16

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:21.


Sun May 22 14:21:50 UTC 2022 up 38 days, 12:23, 0 users, load averages: 1.15, 1.26, 1.21

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

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔