About M1277

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by BigNumberGuy

first off hang on where the heck did like 5 pages of responses go?

If you look back a few posts in this thread, you'll have your answer: they got moved to another thread.

If you want to see them, click on the link in this post.

[storm5510]

FWIW. I had a machine sitting so I decided to run this:

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,1277,-1,800000000000,2500000000000000000,68

gpuOwl refused to run it. I had forgotten it only accepts "PFactor." I moved it to Prime95. It is v30.8 Build 12. It started alright but changed to B2 to "TBD" on the screen output. I had wondered what the strange B2 value was in Primenet for the largest previous P-1. Now I know. I used it as guide to pick out something a little larger. It added an assignment ID in the worktodo line, but did not change the B2.

Prime95 says it will be complete in 6 days. On that old i5, 6 weeks I would believe, but not 6 days. No matter. I will run it, sometimes intermittently, until it is done.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by BigNumberGuy

second, this isnt related (i dont feel like a new thread) but why doesn't mprime (Mac) use up 100% of the cpu? I thought it was designed to do that??

It might be that the machine is getting too warm and there is thermal throttling going on.

[firejuggler]

storm5510, if you want to run your P-1 B2 with a specific bond, remove the TF level.

[ryanp]

FWIW, I am planning on running some more ECM curves at B1=7.6e9, but it will probably be later this summer.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by BigNumberGuy

...
second, this isnt related (i dont feel like a new thread) but why doesn't mprime (Mac) use up 100% of the cpu? I thought it was designed to do that??

You will not always get 100 % with some processors :
Other processes might be "stealing" cycles from mprime / Prime95.
Hyperthreaded processors will show 50 % or less (for current GIMPS work hyperthreading is of no benefit.)
The processor might be limited by the memory bandwidth.
Some ranges of processors (from both Intel and ARM) are based on a processor having two types of cores : high-performance and high-efficiency. If I remember well, something discussed elsewhere on the forum, the high-efficiency cores are not adequate for mprime / Prime95.
There may be other reasons...
In short, a lot of reasons why not seeing 100% is perfectly "normal" even when mprime / Prime95 is still using all "useable" cycles.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

It might be that the machine is getting too warm and there is thermal throttling going on.

When thermal throttling or power usage limitations kic- in the processor will still be showing the same percentage of CPU usage AFAIK.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

storm5510, if you want to run your P-1 B2 with a specific bond, remove the TF level.

So, it decides the B2 based on the TF bit level. I didn't know that. Many thanks.

Edit: I tried removing the bit level. The expected completion date was January 19, 2038. This is not a type. By doing some time calculation, B1 should take 66 hours. I will decide then whether to continue or stop.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by storm5510

FWIW. I had a machine sitting so I decided to run this:

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,1277,-1,800000000000,2500000000000000000,68

gpuOwl refused to run it. I had forgotten it only accepts "PFactor." I moved it to Prime95. It is v30.8 Build 12. It started alright but changed to B2 to "TBD" on the screen output. I had wondered what the strange B2 value was in Primenet for the largest previous P-1. Now I know. I used it as guide to pick out something a little larger. It added an assignment ID in the worktodo line, but did not change the B2.

Prime95 says it will be complete in 6 days. On that old i5, 6 weeks I would believe, but not 6 days. No matter. I will run it, sometimes intermittently, until it is done.

It's not worth your time to increase B1 by 3%. Add a zero, or don't bother. You'll spend 98% of your time repeating an exact calculation that was already done, with essentially zero chance to find a factor.
There's a reason others have said "more P-1 is not useful". It's useful to run P-1 at bounds 10x those already done, but not useful at a smaller ratio (e.g. doubling B1 isn't worth the effort).
Essentially, you're running a P-1 double check, which simply isn't useful.

[kruoli]

Originally Posted by storm5510

FWIW. I had a machine sitting so I decided to run this:

Pminus1=N/A,1,2,1277,-1,800000000000,2500000000000000000,68

If you run it with B1=1e13 or higher I would volounteer to do a share of stage 2.

[Xyzzy]

Originally Posted by storm5510

The expected completion date was January 19, 2038.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by kruoli

If you run it with B1=1e13 or higher I would volunteer to do a share of stage 2.

Anyone want to remind us of the software limits for B1 or B2 with GMP-ECM? Or with the new P95 P-1?

If y'all are going to run yet another P-1 effort on this number, may as well make it the last- or, at least the last feasible with current software. Run Stage 1 so big nobody will ever be tempted to do it again, and publish the save file so future interested-in-wasting-computation parties can push B2 higher as suits them.