mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-30, 14:46   #1
lidocorc
 
lidocorc's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
Rosenheim, Germany

23×3 Posts
Default 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?
lidocorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-30, 15:57   #2
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

24·5·59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lidocorc View Post
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?
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-01, 01:14   #3
cheesehead
 
cheesehead's Avatar
 
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA

1C1416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lidocorc View Post
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
cheesehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 15:12   #4
lycorn
 
lycorn's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Oeiras, Portugal

2·19·37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
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)
lycorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A (new) old, (faster) slower mersenne-(primality) PRP test boldi Miscellaneous Math 74 2014-04-17 07:16
LL test successfully completes Double-Check of M53137907 TheMawn PrimeNet 12 2013-11-17 12:51
Faster LL-test Bounty Questions __HRB__ Information & Answers 6 2009-10-04 19:37
A primality test for Fermat numbers faster than P├ępin's test ? T.Rex Math 0 2004-10-26 21:37
will searching for factors sometimes be faster than LL test? ixfd64 Math 3 2003-10-16 22:15

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:56.

Thu Oct 29 19:56:06 UTC 2020 up 49 days, 17:07, 2 users, load averages: 3.27, 3.01, 2.76

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.