Prime95 v30.3

[Prime95]

Running 4 workers is fine. In Test/Workers, have each worker use just one CPU core.

Note that running 4 PRP tests at a time will quadruple the amount of temporary disk space the program uses. At default settings, you are letting mprime use up to 24GB of disk space.

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Running 4 workers is fine. In Test/Workers, have each worker use just one CPU core.

It doesn't allow me to use 1 CPU core.

When I run "2. Test/Worker thread" and select 4 Workers, then 2 CPU cores for each worker are automatically selected.

EDIT: I even changed local.txt "CoresPerTest=2" to "CoresPerTest=1" but as soon as I run it it gets changed to 2 again.

[Prime95]

Please PM or email to me the prime.txt and local.txt files.

Is hours-per-day you expect to run mprime set to something other than 24?
If so, set it to 24 and try again.

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Is hours-per-day you expect to run mprime set to something other than 24?
If so, set it to 24 and try again.

Yes, this was the issue. I had it set to 10hrs. If I set it to anything above 12 and run "2. Test/Worker Threads" I get this:

Options for worker #1

Type of work to get (0): 
CPU cores to use (multithreading): 1

Options for worker #2

Type of work to get (0): 
CPU cores to use (multithreading): 1

Options for worker #3

Type of work to get (0): 
CPU cores to use (multithreading): 1

Options for worker #4

Type of work to get (0): 
CPU cores to use (multithreading): 1
Get occasional proof certification work (Y):

But after I set it to 12 hours or less, I get
CPU cores to use (multithreading): 2

CoresPerTest in local.txt changes accordingly.

Is this behaviour correct?
I've changed it to 13 for the time being. But 10 hours is closer to what I really use. Does hours-per-day affect anything except the expected completion time on PrimeNet?

[tha]

Now that we have the new functionality in place and can double the throughput of Primenet, it might be a good idea to monitor the upgrades on the local machines by all the users. Traditional first time LL tests now become pretty much a waste of time. Even all exponents that have been tested once but are still waiting to be double checked can better be 'double checked' with a new PRP test and cogenerated proof file than just traditionally double checked.

The next step would than be to see if there is a way to reach participants that still run outdated clients and not regularly visit the GIMPS website. But being able to monitor the work done by the different versions would be first. Anyone?

[moebius]

Originally Posted by Prime95

..

Without wanting to offend you, I can't understand why your own (presumably gpuowl) results are still without proof? gpuowl v6.11.364 to v6.11.380 runs without errors under Linux at least Ubuntu 18.04. Or do you upload the proof files later in one batch?

[James Heinrich]

Originally Posted by moebius

I can't understand why your own (presumably gpuowl) results are still without proof?

Can you perhaps provide some example(s) of which exponents without proof concern you?

[moebius]

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

Can you perhaps provide some example(s) of which exponents without proof concern you?

The problem seems to have been resolved by now, when I looked through the exponents till yesterday, none of his PRP results on the recent cleared page had proofs assigned or confirmed.

[Viliam Furik]

Originally Posted by moebius

The problem seems to have been resolved by now, when I looked through the exponents till yesterday, none of his PRP results on the recent cleared page had proofs assigned or confirmed.

I have noticed that proof's existence doesn't show up publicly until it's assigned for certification. That means you will not know, whether the proof was uploaded until it is assigned to certifier, and that is not instantaneous.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by ZFR

CoresPerTest in local.txt changes accordingly.

Is this behaviour correct?
I've changed it to 13 for the time being. But 10 hours is closer to what I really use. Does hours-per-day affect anything except the expected completion time on PrimeNet?

I'd say the behavior is pretty close to a bug. It certainly is unexpected.

The hours-per-day setting affects very little. Some estimated completion dates, work assignments if you use "What makes sense" work preference.

I'll look into what I need to fix in the next release.

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by moebius

Without wanting to offend you, I can't understand why your own (presumably gpuowl) results are still without proof? gpuowl v6.11.364 to v6.11.380 runs without errors under Linux at least Ubuntu 18.04. Or do you upload the proof files later in one batch?

No offense taken. I have scripts to upload my proofs at night (move the gpuowl proofs to prime95 directory).