mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > GMP-ECM

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-03-29, 18:24   #34
VJS
 
VJS's Avatar
 
Dec 2004

29910 Posts
Default

Agreed,

I did not mean to imply that increasing b2 bounds by 40% will increase your chances of finding a factor by 40% that's certain. What I did want to say is that "increasing the B2 bounds by 40% will increase the time for that curve by roughly 40%".

It just wasn't a fair comparision between the two versions with different bounds. I'm uncertain why the beta client uses larger bounds by default although I'm glad to see it doing so. I've always ran a large B2 since stage2 seems to run significantly faster than the old days of B2=100xB1, especially on dual channel boards with sufficient memory.

If both clients are running the same speeds with the same bounds I'm uncertain about the improvments. Not being harsh here or anything I just havn't followed the discussion.

Last fiddled with by VJS on 2006-03-29 at 18:25
VJS is offline  
Old 2006-03-29, 22:00   #35
Mystwalker
 
Mystwalker's Avatar
 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany

3·277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil MjX
the --enable-asm-redc works for "smaller" numbers (<180 digits ??
the bigger ones being squarred with another method in gmp-ecm)
that's why you won't see no effect with such a "large c205 number",
try a bench with the c126 I have provided (currently ggnfs'ing)...
Actually, we don't see no effect - we see worse timings for the P4 once --enable-asm-redc is activated.

But it's true that different composites prefer different gmp-ecm variants. Yesterday, I tested the M1071.C205 with my Pentium-M.

Result:
Stage1: 6.1 --enable-asm-redc was fastest, then 6.0.1, then 6.1 - but they differ by 1.5% from first to last.
Stage2: 6.1 (both) are ~15% faster than 6.0.1


But then I put them on 55459*2^1666+1 (507 digits). Here, gmp-ecm 6.0.1 (with gmp4.2) was fastest for stage2 - by ~20%!


Seems like we either find a good way to determine which variant is the best for certain numbers, or we have to benchmark once we start ECM work on a "new" composite. I'll soon test the gwnum variant. And it really gets interesting once someone plays around with "tune".
Mystwalker is offline  
Old 2006-03-29, 22:05   #36
Mystwalker
 
Mystwalker's Avatar
 
Jul 2004
Potsdam, Germany

3·277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime95
Have you tried the use gwnum option? GPL compatible libraries are available at ftp://mersenne.org/gimps
I just wanted to try, but sadly, I found no way doing so. gmp-ecm's help didn't give me a hint, neither did the configure's help. Did I miss something?
Mystwalker is offline  
Old 2006-03-30, 17:30   #37
Phil MjX
 
Phil MjX's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

5×37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystwalker
But it's true that different composites prefer different gmp-ecm variants.
Clearly, for smaller numbers (gnfs candidates for example), v6.1.beta2 is a good choice with my pentium-m.
For larger numbers, I do agree with you that the improvement isn't so spectacular (but we have tested only two composites with a single B1=3e6 and I am sure that the developpers have reasons for their choices)!!

Let's wait for the final gmp-ecm 6.1 release .
Philippe.
Phil MjX is offline  
Old 2006-03-30, 18:56   #38
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

1001101100102 Posts
Default

A few curves on M1061 (time in milliseconds) at B1=110M

Code:
			
	P95, B2=default | GMP-ECM (4.2/6.0.1), B2=100*B1	
Kurve	Step 1	Step 2 |Step 1	Step 2
1	1571005	194096 |3223343	98944
2	1570854	194047 |3248428	98974
3	1570851	193983 |3229012	99322
-----------------------------------------
average	1570903	194042 | 3233594 99080
Edit: I will do some curves with B2=4290M with GMP-ECM tomorrow.

Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2006-03-30 at 19:00
Andi47 is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 04:30   #39
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

2,467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystwalker
I just wanted to try, but sadly, I found no way doing so. gmp-ecm's help didn't give me a hint, neither did the configure's help. Did I miss something?
Say "--with-gwnum=<directory where GWNUM library is>" at configure time. Please let me know how it works.

Thanks,
Alex
akruppa is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 14:46   #40
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

2·17·73 Posts
Default

Code:
GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM]
Input number is 2^1061-1 (320 digits)
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=4229074309
Step 1 took 3224970ms
Step 2 took 48658ms
Run 2 out of 25:
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=4059283320
Step 1 took 3233083ms
Step 2 took 48797ms
Run 3 out of 25:
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3225355689
Step 1 took 3256811ms
Step 2 took 48855ms
I interrupted the run after 10 completed curves.
Andi47 is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 16:08   #41
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

750610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andreas Schinde
Code:
GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.2] [ECM]
Input number is 2^1061-1 (320 digits)
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=4229074309
Step 1 took 3224970ms
Step 2 took 48658ms
Run 2 out of 25:
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=4059283320
Step 1 took 3233083ms
Step 2 took 48797ms
Run 3 out of 25:
Using B1=110000000, B2=4290000000, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3225355689
Step 1 took 3256811ms
Step 2 took 48855ms

I interrupted the run after 10 completed curves.

I would suggest using larger step 2 limits. It is optimal to spend the
same amount of time in step 1 and step 2. This is independent of the
speed of the computer.
R.D. Silverman is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 17:07   #42
PBMcL
 
PBMcL's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

2×31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman
I would suggest using larger step 2 limits. It is optimal to spend the
same amount of time in step 1 and step 2. This is independent of the
speed of the computer.
Bob, this may be true on a one processor machine, but the disparity in memory requirements between step 1 and step 2 has led me to a different strategy for multi-processor machines in the case where step 2 is going to use most of the available RAM. Given, say, a four processor box I choose B1 and B2 so that step 2 takes just less than a quarter of the total (step 1 plus step 2) time (which may require some test curves), then I stagger start 4 copies of ECM so that only one copy at a time is in step 2. Otherwise the machine spends huge amounts of time swapping pages to/from the disk.
PBMcL is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 20:51   #43
akruppa
 
akruppa's Avatar
 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria

46438 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman
I would suggest using larger step 2 limits. It is optimal to spend the
same amount of time in step 1 and step 2. This is independent of the
speed of the computer.
Is this correct for FFT stage 2 implementations?

Alex
akruppa is offline  
Old 2006-03-31, 22:10   #44
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

9B216 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman
I would suggest using larger step 2 limits. It is optimal to spend the
same amount of time in step 1 and step 2. This is independent of the
speed of the computer.
This was just for benchmarking - to compare Prime95 with GMP 4.2/ECM6.0.1 at the same B1 and B2 bounds.
Andi47 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 01:35.


Sat Jan 28 01:35:27 UTC 2023 up 162 days, 23:04, 0 users, load averages: 1.13, 1.19, 1.13

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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