mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Lone Mersenne Hunters > LMH > 100M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-01-06, 22:50   #1
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

3·11·157 Posts
Default If I may make a request on behalf of 32 bit PCs

There have been several posters that have noted that older 32 Bit hardware (PIII, Duron, etc) actually perform pretty decent doing TF up to BUT NOT above 64 bits. Doing TF above 64 bits or LL/DC work drops their thruput in half.

Coupled with that the currest published Primenet server default TF-LMH assignment rules assign exponents below 400M up to 64 bits. Any exponent 400M and above get TF-LMH assignments to 65 bits. As defined above the work up to 64 bits completes at thruput "X" and from 64-65 bits at 1/2"X".

Once all exponents are TF'd to 64 bits all these machines drop in thruput by 50%.

So what I am so humbly asking is that for those of you with 64 bit PCs that are assigning your own TF work below 64 bits is to consider taking exponents at 400M and above and leaving those lower to the 32 bit PCs

Thanks for your time.

Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2010-01-06 at 22:51
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-06, 23:14   #2
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

13×809 Posts
Default

There are several users that hit hard in that range.
Torchwood Institute
Tydus
linded
monst
GIMPS Visualization
Some may not read the forum. You may be able to contact them directly.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-07, 00:32   #3
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

3·11·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
There are several users that hit hard in that range.
Torchwood Institute
Tydus
linded
monst
GIMPS Visualization
Some may not read the forum. You may be able to contact them directly.
Thanks...the biggest by far is GV (aka Chalsall) who is a frequenter of this forum; and I have seen monst on this forum too. The other three are newer and may not have found it yet.
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-07, 01:14   #4
lindee
 
Feb 2009

3·11 Posts
Default

Almost all of linded's TF <= 64 bits is on PIIIs. I have been doing this ever since we noticed the performance issue doing TF above 64. We just happen to have about 60 of them going.
lindee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-07, 04:51   #5
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

143D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lindee View Post
We just happen to have about 60 of them going.
Wow....that's a lot of PIII's.

Thanks for replying.
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-11, 14:12   #6
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

1044610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
So what I am so humbly asking is that for those of you with 64 bit PCs that are assigning your own TF work below 64 bits is to consider taking exponents at 400M and above and leaving those lower to the 32 bit PCs.
OK. Please note that there are still just short of 15 million exponents currently below 64 bits. I would argue it is going to take quite some time before these are exhausted.

However, in the interests of cooperation, I have instructed my cluster to work in the 800M to 900M range, and will stay above 400M.
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-11, 17:29   #7
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

3·11·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
OK. Please note that there are still just short of 15 million exponents currently below 64 bits. I would argue it is going to take quite some time before these are exhausted.
Doing a quick calc in my head tells me that based on the effort in the last few months that all exponents will be at 64 bits before year end.

But thanks...
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-12, 00:53   #8
chalsall
If I May
 
chalsall's Avatar
 
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados

2×3×1,741 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petrw1 View Post
Doing a quick calc in my head tells me that based on the effort in the last few months that all exponents will be at 64 bits before year end.
In your opinion, is this necessarily a bad thing?
chalsall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-01-12, 02:01   #9
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
 
petrw1's Avatar
 
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

10100001111012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalsall View Post
In your opinion, is this necessarily a bad thing?
I'm really NOT trying to tell people what they should or shouldn't do; it up to them.

I am just suggesting that once there are no more <64 bit TF assignments left then many (probably hundreds of) 32 bit machines thruput will be cut in half and along with that their ability to contribute most effectively to this project. This includes Intel PIII, AMD Duron, etc.

My PIII and Duron both take 4 times as long to complete TF from 64 to 65 bits as from 63 to 64 for only double the credits. This observation has been confirmed several times by others on this forum recently. By the way these same 32 bit machines perform just as poorly at all other work types as they do at TF above 2^64.

On the other hand most (all?) 64 bit PC's effectiveness doing TF does not diminish whether to 58 bits or 68 bits.

So the more 64 Bit PC's that take TF at 2^64 and above then the longer the most useful life of the 32 bit machines will be....without impacting the effectiveness of the 64 bit PC's

IMHO...

Last fiddled with by petrw1 on 2010-01-12 at 02:03 Reason: Wording
petrw1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to make llr do a prp on +3 or +5 Joshua2 Information & Answers 2 2009-01-25 12:05
Would this make people mad? jasong Information & Answers 2 2007-11-01 06:26
You just can't make it up. xilman Lounge 11 2006-10-06 22:36
Yet another problem to make you think. Uncwilly Puzzles 3 2005-05-27 20:37
does this make sence moo Data 2 2004-08-23 14:32

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


Thu May 19 21:21:05 UTC 2022 up 35 days, 19:22, 1 user, load averages: 2.20, 1.91, 1.78

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