mersenneforum.org GpuOwl 7.x
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2020-09-28, 23:19   #23
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

473410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 I think I will keep my 6x until I see how this all shakes out.
There is no need to get rid of a working installation to run a different version. Just use separate folders and shortcuts.

2020-09-29, 01:46   #24
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

24·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by storm5510 I think I will keep my 6x until I see how this all shakes out.
That's very wise.

2020-09-29, 01:50   #25
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

24608 Posts
Savefile transition from 6.x

Quote:
 Originally Posted by preda The savefiles are now named like this: 86059247-000014500.prp
Please either finish the exponent on 6.x and start a fresh one on 7.x, or:

carefully manually rename the 6.x savefile (.owl) to the new numbered name format .prp

<exp>-<iteration>.prp
where iteration should be on 9 digits as above. Feel free to make a backup beforehand.

BTW, 7.x is not ready for general use yet, still plenty of rough corners I'm working on now.

 2020-09-29, 02:17 #27 kriesel     "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 127E16 Posts There's a list of P-1 test candidates with known factors and required bounds here. I'll add more coverage of the mersenne.org exponent range as they are found. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-09-29 at 02:25
2020-09-29, 12:25   #28
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

24×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel There's a list of P-1 test candidates with known factors and required bounds here. I'll add more coverage of the mersenne.org exponent range as they are found.
Another P-1 list can be found in GpuOwl source code
https://github.com/preda/gpuowl/blob...st-pm1/pm1.txt

For testing it's a good idea to use exponents with lower B1, B2 values as they'll complete faster.

 2020-09-29, 12:31 #29 firejuggler     Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 32·52·11 Posts so, smooth factor found on mersenne.ca?
2020-09-29, 12:40   #30
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2×32×263 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by preda Another P-1 list can be found in GpuOwl source code https://github.com/preda/gpuowl/blob...st-pm1/pm1.txt For testing it's a good idea to use exponents with lower B1, B2 values as they'll complete faster.
That's a long list all within 86M-87M exponent. CUDAPm1 practice was to have test exponents using a variety of fft lengths of current and future interest. Bugs only affecting some fft lengths or bounds could get missed more easily if the test vector is concentrated in or limited to part of the parameter space.

 2020-09-29, 12:51 #31 preda     "Mihai Preda" Apr 2015 24·83 Posts P2 memory usage Because I need to specify all the time "first stage" or "second stage" of P-1, from now on I'm going to use this notation to identify the stages: "P1" denoting P-1 FS, and "P2" meaning P-1 SS. I simplified the P2 implementation; now there are only two cases for memory use in P2, let's call them "low memory" and "high memory". a) "low memory" uses D=210, where only 24 "big" buffers are allocated for P2 (plus a few auxilliarry buffers). b) "high memory" uses D=2310, where 240 "big" buffers are allocated for P2 (plus the same nb. of auxilliaries as before) The cost of P2 is dominated by the number "n" of primes between B1 and B2, which require about 0.85 * n muls (this value is pretty much the same between the low/high memory variants), plus an "overhead" for walking in steps of size D from B1 to B2, where each step requires 2 muls. It turns out that this overhead is about 2% (of the whole P2) for the "high memory" case, and about 20% for the "low memory" case, and this is why the "high memory" P2 is more efficient (by about 20%) than the low-memory P2. Long story short, it is good for P2 to be able to run in the "240 buffers" mode (D=2310). At the wavefront one "big" buffer is 44MB, so the "high memory" case would require about -maxAlloc 11G Notes: "D" above is a parameter of P2 -- it indicates the "step" of walking from B1 to B2. The values above are small primorials: 210 = 2*3*5*7 2310 = 2*3*5*7*11 "big" buffer: the buffers used have fixed length N given by the FFT size (e.g. N=5.5M for FFT=5.5M), but contain either 32-bit integers ("small" buffers) or 64-bit FP ("big" buffers). Last fiddled with by preda on 2020-09-29 at 13:04
2020-09-29, 12:58   #32
preda

"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

24·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kriesel That's a long list all within 86M-87M exponent. CUDAPm1 practice was to have test exponents using a variety of fft lengths of current and future interest. Bugs only affecting some fft lengths or bounds could get missed more easily if the test vector is concentrated in or limited to part of the parameter space.
Yes indeed (that list from gpuowl needs either updating with more varied exponents, or deleting).

 2020-09-29, 14:19 #33 masser     Jul 2003 wear a mask 5C016 Posts Here's a list I gleaned from the mersenne.ca "Factors missed by P-1" list . Maybe try these for testing? Code: Pminus1=1,2,10002859,-1,55000,838750,64 Pminus1=1,2,21150827,-1,6133,596857,66 Pminus1=1,2,31919773,-1,1901,84737,66 Pminus1=1,2,48701273,-1,570000,570000,69 Pminus1=1,2,50077721,-1,280000,280000,69 Pminus1=1,2,61684171,-1,13381,2443933,74 Pminus1=1,2,72713617,-1,3847,1047701,81 Pminus1=1,2,89281183,-1,65173,1303669,80 Pminus1=1,2,95675581,-1,4493,1143563,75 Pminus1=1,2,102086261,-1,1733,7253,74 Pminus1=1,2,102227777,-1,10601,14159,74 Pminus1=1,2,102001051,-1,37123,3078469,72

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post preda GpuOwl 20 2020-10-17 06:51 SELROC GpuOwl 59 2020-10-02 03:56 GP2 GpuOwl 22 2020-06-13 16:57 M344587487 GpuOwl 14 2018-12-29 08:11 preda PrimeNet 2 2017-10-07 21:32

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:54.

Mon Nov 30 05:54:08 UTC 2020 up 81 days, 3:05, 3 users, load averages: 1.25, 1.16, 1.21