mersenneforum.org Double check LL test faster than first run test
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-11-30, 14:46 #1 lidocorc     Nov 2008 Rosenheim, Germany 23·3 Posts Double check LL test faster than first run test Why is a double check LL test about twice as fast than a first run LL test? As far as I understood LL testing the number of iterations has to be the same for both kinds of LL tests. Is it because a first run LL test does some intermediate error detecting, which a double check leaves out? What else could it be to make a double check faster then a first run check?
2008-11-30, 15:57   #2
axn

Jun 2003

24×5×67 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lidocorc Why is a double check LL test about twice as fast than a first run LL test?
For the same exponent, double check & frist time LL take the same amount of time (on the same kind of CPU, natch). They're basically the same computation sequence (the random shift count not withstanding).

However, at any given point in time, the exponents given out for first time testing will be much bigger than the ones handed out for doublecheck. Does that answer your question?

2008-12-01, 01:14   #3

"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

22×3×641 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lidocorc Why is a double check LL test about twice as fast than a first run LL test?
In addition to what axn explained:

If what you're comparing is the elapsed time taken by a DC now to the elapsed time taken for the first LL test back when it was first tested, consider that the average computer used by GIMPS participants has gotten faster over time. So the (perhaps) 2.66 GHz system that does the DC may do so in half the time needed by the (perhaps) 1200 MHz system that did the first test.

Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 2008-12-01 at 01:16

2008-12-03, 15:12   #4
lycorn

"GIMFS"
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

29·3 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn For the same exponent, double check & frist time LL take the same amount of time (on the same kind of CPU, natch). They're basically the same computation sequence (the random shift count not withstanding). However, at any given point in time, the exponents given out for first time testing will be much bigger than the ones handed out for doublecheck. Does that answer your question?
Actually, for the current ranges (46M for 1st time LL and 23M for DCs) the time taken for a DC is roughly 1/4 of the time taken for a 1st time LL (1/2 of the iterations, each one done in 1/2 of the time)

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post boldi Miscellaneous Math 74 2014-04-17 07:16 TheMawn PrimeNet 12 2013-11-17 12:51 __HRB__ Information & Answers 6 2009-10-04 19:37 T.Rex Math 0 2004-10-26 21:37 ixfd64 Math 3 2003-10-16 22:15

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:45.

Sun May 22 10:45:06 UTC 2022 up 38 days, 8:46, 0 users, load averages: 1.57, 1.34, 1.21