Safe Mode

2004-07-10, 11:07

Hello fellow GIMPSters,

I just started GIMPS about a month ago and have been reading some things on this forum. I read somewhere about Safe Mode and how xyzzy quoted an e-mail saying that someone went from .202 per iteration time to .192. I tried it just to see how it helped for me and it went from .209 to .206. My question is do any of you have an idea to why his dropped so much (.010) and mine dropped so little (.003)?

Thanks for your time,
Unregistered
P.S. sorry if this is in the wrong section but this is the only place i can post w/o registering

Xyzzy · 2004-07-10, 14:52

Probably because I was running Windows 95... I bet an OS like that has less efficiency than XP or W2K...

Also, that box had no L2 cache so maybe even having other stuff running, even if it was idle, caused the CPU to stall a lot...

PrimeCruncher · 2004-07-10, 14:54

When a computer boots in safe mode, only the absolutely required software is loaded. The difference in drop could be that the other guy had more unnecessary stuff running and/or the difference in hardware between your two systems.

optim · 2004-07-10, 15:08

My SuSE Linux 9.1 OS has a failsafe option with disabled ACPI etc. Will this increase MPrime performance?

2004-07-11, 10:37

Xyzzy,
That could be, I am running 98SE
PrimeCruncher,
That is probably the reason, I try to keep my computer as clean as possible (sypware, adware, etc.)
Thanks for all the help!

Unregistered

2004-07-12, 10:33

I noticed that having num lock off brings down my iteration time from .209 to .208 =). Just thought I'd let everyone know that! So now I leave it off except for when I'm using it (num lock).

Unregistered

2004-07-12, 18:25

Another very good trick is, when you are not using your computer, close you windows session; prime95 will keep running as a service, and when you log on, you can even see at is gui how much work you have done and the iteration times.

In W2k it reduces my iteration time from 0.80 to 0.74!

2004-07-13, 11:02

Primehack
Cool, I'll try it tonight on Win98SE. I'll see how much it helps my per iteration time and post it here.

Unregistered

JuanTutors · 2004-07-13, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primhack

Another very good trick is, when you are not using your computer, close you windows session; prime95 will keep running as a service, and when you log on, you can even see at is gui how much work you have done and the iteration times.

In W2k it reduces my iteration time from 0.80 to 0.74!

Primhack, how do I end my windows session w/o shutting down my computer? Does it work on Win2k? Also, If I am running programs such as AIM+

, will the AIM+ still work?

PrimeCruncher · 2004-07-13, 19:27

By "end Windows session" I think he means "logout". It can be done on both 98 and 2K, as well as NT, XP, ME, and probably 95 too.

Uncwilly · 2004-07-13, 20:18

Prime95 won't automatically become a service. I use an NT4.5 machine, and I can't load a service onto it, therefore I use the non-service version.

2004-07-10, 11:07	#1
Unregistered 2·4,493 Posts	Safe Mode Hello fellow GIMPSters, I just started GIMPS about a month ago and have been reading some things on this forum. I read somewhere about Safe Mode and how xyzzy quoted an e-mail saying that someone went from .202 per iteration time to .192. I tried it just to see how it helped for me and it went from .209 to .206. My question is do any of you have an idea to why his dropped so much (.010) and mine dropped so little (.003)? Thanks for your time, Unregistered P.S. sorry if this is in the wrong section but this is the only place i can post w/o registering

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SAFE MODE....	petrw1	Hardware	14	2009-03-25 13:17
Is libecm thread-safe?	frmky	GMP-ECM	5	2009-02-28 16:08
Prime95 in Safe Mode on Win98SE	Unregistered	Software	3	2006-06-07 04:51
Safe Mode/High Priority	A_Pryme	Software	12	2005-02-13 19:22
Safe Mode	JuanTutors	Hardware	6	2004-06-24 10:15

2004-07-10, 14:52	#2
Xyzzy Aug 2002 20555₈ Posts	Probably because I was running Windows 95... I bet an OS like that has less efficiency than XP or W2K... Also, that box had no L2 cache so maybe even having other stuff running, even if it was idle, caused the CPU to stall a lot...

2004-07-10, 14:54	#3
PrimeCruncher Sep 2003 Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant 2×3³×13 Posts	When a computer boots in safe mode, only the absolutely required software is loaded. The difference in drop could be that the other guy had more unnecessary stuff running and/or the difference in hardware between your two systems.

2004-07-10, 15:08	#4
optim Nov 2003 European Union 2³·13 Posts	My SuSE Linux 9.1 OS has a failsafe option with disabled ACPI etc. Will this increase MPrime performance?

2004-07-11, 10:37	#5
Unregistered 3×991 Posts	Xyzzy, That could be, I am running 98SE PrimeCruncher, That is probably the reason, I try to keep my computer as clean as possible (sypware, adware, etc.) Thanks for all the help! Unregistered

2004-07-12, 10:33	#6
Unregistered 3·53·61 Posts	I noticed that having num lock off brings down my iteration time from .209 to .208 =). Just thought I'd let everyone know that! So now I leave it off except for when I'm using it (num lock). Unregistered

2004-07-12, 18:25	#7
Primhack 3·1,153 Posts	Another very good trick is, when you are not using your computer, close you windows session; prime95 will keep running as a service, and when you log on, you can even see at is gui how much work you have done and the iteration times. In W2k it reduces my iteration time from 0.80 to 0.74!

2004-07-13, 11:02	#8
Unregistered 2⁵·109 Posts	Primehack Cool, I'll try it tonight on Win98SE. I'll see how much it helps my per iteration time and post it here. Unregistered

2004-07-13, 19:27	#10
PrimeCruncher Sep 2003 Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant 2×3³×13 Posts	By "end Windows session" I think he means "logout". It can be done on both 98 and 2K, as well as NT, XP, ME, and probably 95 too.

2004-07-13, 20:18	#11
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 10895₁₀ Posts	Prime95 won't automatically become a service. I use an NT4.5 machine, and I can't load a service onto it, therefore I use the non-service version.