2016-07-17, 14:36 | #1 |
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
11353_{8} Posts |
ecm with Fermat numbers
Question: with regard to both mprime and gmp-ecm, is it faster running the Fermat number "as-is", or divided by its known factors?
IIRC, mprime was faster using the standard notation and providing the known factors either on the worktodo.txt line or on the lowp.txt file, while gmp-ecn was faster as the number to test grew smaller. Is it still correct? Luigi Last fiddled with by ET_ on 2016-07-17 at 14:37 |
2016-08-02, 19:40 | #2 |
Sep 2003
13×199 Posts |
As an experiment, I decided to run mprime twice on the same machine, once with the known factors and once without.
This was using the latest version, 28.9 In other words: Code:
ECM2=1,2,4096,1,800000000,80000000000,1,"114689,26017793,63766529,190274191361,1256132134125569,568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433" Code:
ECM2=1,2,4096,1,800000000,80000000000,1 The two versions ran absolutely identically. The second version was maybe 0.1% faster. Stage 2: The first version completed stage 2 in 42% of the time that stage 1 took. The second version "discovered" a composite factor after stage 1 and stopped without doing stage 2. PS, when I run ECM exponents I always add: Code:
ScaleOutputFrequency=1 You can also add Code:
ContinueECM=1 Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2016-08-02 at 19:46 |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-1/P+1 on Fermat numbers | ATH | Operazione Doppi Mersennes | 2 | 2015-01-25 06:27 |
Generalized Fermat Numbers | ET_ | Programming | 4 | 2008-06-23 07:59 |
Are there any Fermat numbers that might be prime? | jasong | Math | 39 | 2007-10-27 23:11 |
LLT numbers, linkd with Mersenne and Fermat numbers | T.Rex | Math | 4 | 2005-05-07 08:25 |
Fermat Numbers | devarajkandadai | Math | 8 | 2004-07-27 12:27 |