20210628, 02:06  #320  
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
2×3×151 Posts 
Quote:


20210628, 02:32  #321 
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
906_{10} Posts 
I didn't get any roundoff errors.

20210628, 04:21  #322 
Jun 2003
3×23^{2} Posts 
If doing P1 work on (k^p1)/(k1) or (k^p+1)/(k+1) with p prime
Does Prime95 automatically includes p in the B1 stage? Thanks 
20210628, 05:47  #323 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3,313 Posts 
@Prime95: Is this strange that there are no roundoff errors in Prime95 on AVX512 200K on these 2 exponents that I got roundoff errors on in mprime? or is it very dependent on the specific processor?
Last fiddled with by ATH on 20210628 at 05:47 
20210628, 07:18  #324 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{4}×17×29 Posts 

20210628, 07:19  #325 
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
7888_{10} Posts 

20210628, 17:37  #326  
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
110011110001_{2} Posts 
Yeah I switched it :( In case whoever tested it wanted to finish it, then it would not be wasted effort.
Quote:
Should I continue above the maximum in case of no failures below? Edit: I reached a failure in the 33423 case. I started at M32611 and reached a roundoff error at M33391, should I do more testing for this FFT? Code:
[Work thread Jun 28 16:01:03] P+1 on M33391, start=2/7, B1=100000000, B2=10000000000 [Work thread Jun 28 16:01:03] Using AVX512 FFT length 1536 [Work thread Jun 28 16:09:30] Possible roundoff error (0.4520854), backtracking to last save file. [Work thread Jun 28 16:09:30] Using AVX512 FFT length 1536 [Work thread Jun 28 16:17:55] Possible roundoff error (0.4520854), backtracking to last save file. [Work thread Jun 28 16:17:55] Using AVX512 FFT length 1536 [Work thread Jun 28 16:26:17] Possible roundoff error (0.4520854), backtracking to last save file. M33301 Round off: 0.4065263058 M33347 Round off: 0.4113334932 M33353 Round off: 0.4064540519 M33359 Round off: 0.401012083 M33377 Round off: 0.4146345477 Last fiddled with by ATH on 20210628 at 18:06 

20210628, 19:49  #327  
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary
2^{5}×7^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Or for example at P1 test the check is only: we computed that b^e==res mod N then check: res==b^(e mod eulerphi(d)) mod d [EulerFermat], for gcd(b,d)=1 and dN, so you need to update only the e mod eulerphi(d) at each step and not the slightly more costly b^e mod d. [since d is usually very small compared to N this makes not a large difference in timing]. Last fiddled with by R. Gerbicz on 20210628 at 19:52 Reason: typo, corrections 

20210628, 20:13  #328  
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
1ED0_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20210714, 23:46  #329 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
3×251 Posts 
I am having a workercount related issue with Prime95. I have been using (4 workers, 3 cores) configuration for a while. Now I've decided to make it (12 workers, 1 core), because of the better throughput at 50K FFT, which is what I am doing now  P1 in 1M range on factored exponents. So I went and set the Prime95 accordingly. When I started the workers, it went fine, but when it got to starting worker #6, it crashed. The same happened when I restarted the program.
Workers #1 to #4 have plenty of work in their worktodo entries, worker #5 was assigned CERT, but the rest is hungry. Is it possible that it crashes because of that? I am using version 30.6b4, processor is Ryzen 9 3900X (12 cores). After a few testing attempts, it seems to crash precisely when all the first 4 workers finally agreed on RAM consumption (3 of them are in stage 2) and started working. That happens somewhere around the start of worker #8, i.e. about 40 seconds after the start of the program (there are 5second delays between worker starts). 
20210715, 01:30  #330 
"Viliam Furík"
Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia
3×251 Posts 
Weird... When I fed the workers with assignments, it's no longer crashing.
But I am going to (6 workers, 2 cores), because 12 workers make the CPU really hot, 92 °C. 