Re: Mersenne: Re: Large-Exponent QA
At 07:54 PM 3/7/2000 -, Brian J. Beesley wrote: (many detail comments deleted, wherein Brian sets the record straight) >I've just put the file back up. Sorry, it got removed accidentally >when I upgraded the server hardware about three months ago. Thanks, that's useful. >[ Ernst Mayer comments ] >> >So, it doesn't look like testing exponents above ~40M is going to >> >be practicable any time soon, where I mean doable in a year or less. But >> >since the vast majority of GIMPS first-time LL tests won't even be >> >approaching 20M for some years yet, having one or two double-checked >> >exponents in each subrange below 39M would seem sufficient for the next >> >couple of years. > >I agree. Of course, anyone who thinks it's _fun_ to tie up a system >for several years running a LL test on a larger exponent is quite >welcome to do so, so far as I'm concerned! Well, I'm one of those folks who regards it as much more fun to have cpus fully occupied than idle, and believes the scouts should be well ahead of the army. Ken said, in regard to partially completed runs: >> I'd like to see them get cpu credit, but I am not in a position to >> guarantee it. > >George seems to add the CPU credit from QA tests to his records. So >far as PrimeNet is concerned, we (deliberately) don't use PrimeNet to >communicate results; in any case PrimeNet doesn't recognize that we >own the QA assignments (some of them are actually triple-checks & the >rest are outside currently active ranges), which is why they "don't >count". This doesn't bother me, but it should be easy enough to fix. So far as I know, George treats full LL tests from the QA group like any other manually reported results; credit is given. >> Most of the effort would fall on someone else, and I'd rather see George >> and Scott doing other things than the bookkeeping of apportioning credit >> by iteration count and exponent size and checks of usable save files. To >> keep the minimum contribution sizable, I ask the volunteers to commit to >> at least a half-PII-400-year; large contributions are more likely to >> justify crediting the work or a partial large exponent. >> >I'd strongly reccomend anyone running PrimeNet 10 million digit >assignments to place the following line in their prime.ini file: > >InterimFiles=100 > >This will cause the interim residual to be written to results.txt >every 100 iterations. At the same time, an extra save file will >be written. The idea is that, when double-checking is scheduled on >this exponent, any error can be found without neccessarily having to >complete the whole run to find it, thus saving time. Also, in the >event that a prime is found, with a set of interim save files we will >be able to verify the result much more quickly by running 100 >iterations on thirty odd systems in parallel. Personally, I'd prefer 200 for the bigger exponents, but that's personal taste. Ideally, in a future version of prime95 and primenet, the interim residues will be handled over IPS and include some tiebreaker strategy. The observed trend is for LL tests to be less reliable with increasing exponent, due to increasing runtime, so an automated way of detecting and handling mismatches in interim residue becomes increasingly important as the average available exponent increases. >If you're worried about disk space, delete the extra save files; the >interim residual has considerable value in itself. > >Also could anyone dropping out of a large exponent run (including >PrimeNet 10 million digit range assignments) please send in a copy of >their last savefile, so that work completed isn't lost. My server has >lots of space available for this task. I've made the standing offer before, of anyone with large exponents & wanting to quit, that the QA group will take them on for completion. Brian's ftp server is an ideal drop point. Ken > >Regards >Brian Beesley > _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: Dumb Newbie Question
> I saw somewhere on the PrimeNet page that factoring time is > weighted lower > in the top producers list in order to encourage an ideal ratio of > "about 10 > factoring assignments for 1 LL test". This implies that 9 out of 10 > factoring assignments do find a factor. I have completed 3 > assignments to > date without finding a factor. Am I just unlucky? Sometimes you find a bunch all in a row, sometimes you trial factor a couple dozen and don't find any. I have about 5 machines doing factoring, and for a while, I wasn't finding any, but just in the past week I've found something like 4. It all just depends... Aaron _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: why stay off the top producers list?
> > I'm glad you're doing it the "right" way, compared to the way I
> did it. :-)
> > http://www.sciencenews.org/2304/bob1.asp
> Aaron, its *because* of your experience that I am going the
> slow legal way. {8-] Otherwise I mighta just sent out GIMPS
> as an enclosure and thought little of it. I never did really get much
> management attention until I pointed out that a clever programmer
> could *already be using* spare CPU cycles on our machines and
> we wouldnt even know it, unless we had our own, well controlled
> background process to keep tabs on that.
>
> Those of you who work in big companies, feel free to give your
> IT manager a few sleepless nights with that line of reasoning, then
> hand her your clever solution... {8^D spike
Glad I could help. I really don't want to see *anyone* go through what I've
gone through. That's why when Ivars Peterson asked if I wanted to make any
comments for his article, I basically just advised anyone who would listen
that they had darn better go through the proper channels.
Through my contract work, I can't count how many times I saw people who
installed their own software onto their work PC. For the most part, whether
the employees had local admin access or not (or on Win9x boxes), there was a
written policy that stated that no "outside" software could be installed.
Period.
I just happened to be in the unfortunate situation of breaking this rule,
not just on one computer but on many.
So...even if you have installed something you consider trivial, if you did
it without authorization and your company has a policy about that, that
qualifies as "exceeding authorized access" and of course, as I've found out,
damages do not have to be physical damages, or "making the machines run
slow", but can include the cost to remove the software. So if some tech has
to come uninstall that software, and that tech gets paid $15 bucks an hour,
they can charge you for it. Just try and keep the "damage" amount under
$1000 dollars to avoid prosecution under federal law. :-)
On that note...best wishes to all! :-) I don't mean to be such a downer
about all that, but really, if anything, US WEST's reaction just goes to
show how uptight some companies are about things.
Aaron
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: Dumb Newbie Question
Hello everyone, I saw somewhere on the PrimeNet page that factoring time is weighted lower in the top producers list in order to encourage an ideal ratio of "about 10 factoring assignments for 1 LL test". This implies that 9 out of 10 factoring assignments do find a factor. I have completed 3 assignments to date without finding a factor. Am I just unlucky? Thanks for your time. Nathan __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne Digest V1 #703
Mersenne Digest Tuesday, March 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 703 -- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:45:29 -0800 From: Stefan Struiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: Mersenne Timings Ethan O'Connor wrote: > Having woken up too early this morning, I put the numbers > available at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm into an Excel > worksheet and very briefly played with them. The worksheet is > available at http://web.mit.edu/zudark/www/MersenneSpeeds.xls I find the Athlon 500 speeds truly astounding. Are other Athlon users in the quad getting this kind of performance? Best Regards, Stefanovic _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:39:26 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E4nggi_Philipp?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: RE: Mersenne Digest V1 #701 Hi! My Laptop (DELL Inspiron 5000) makes a high frequency noise (low volume) as long as prime is running. If I stop prime the noise stops. If I choose continue it comes back again. If I use a chess program, which also grabs 100% CPU, there's no noise. What should I do. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:51:42 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E4nggi_Philipp?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: Bug Report: Wrong timing for Intel Speedstep Hi all I use a Dell Inspiron 5000 Laptop with the new Intel Speedstep feature. Which meens that the box runs with 500Mhz on battery and 600Mhz on net power supply. My exponet 9066011 is timed with 0.233 secs/iter for 500Mhz and with 0.255 secs/iter for 600Mhz !!! No, I didn't mix the modes up. But I validated the timing with a stop watch. The true timings are 0.233 secs/iter for 500Mhz and ~0.200 secs/iter for 600Mhz. So somethings goes wrong in the calculation of prime95. By the way, I use windows 98 second release. Any Ideas ? Philipp _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:58:31 - From: "Tom Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mersenne: What's the right way to do this? I set up Prime95 on my laptop to get timings for the benchmark page, and it has started working on 4992583. Sadly, I don't run the laptop 24 hours a day, the WinModem drivers slow Prime95 down by about a factor 1.5 (0.671 iteration times, as against 0.449), and so it's unlikely that I'll have the number finished before Christmas. I have on my desk at home a P2/350, which may well soon become an Athlon/800 given the way Athlon prices are going, which could finish this number within a week. That machine, however, doesn't have an Internet connection. Can I just copy the prime95 directory across and let rip, or do I have to do something to stop prime95 from trying to contact Entropia? Tom _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:06:55 -0800 From: Russel Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mersenne: searching the biggies 2 Spike Jones wrote: > play, there might be some very good reasons to *not* show up > in the top contributors list. In fact, the someone who organized What might those reasons be? Curious... Russ _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers -- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 11:35:03 +0100 From: "Hoogendoorn, Sander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Mersenne: Bug Report: Wrong timing for Intel Speedstep You'll have to change the cpu speed in Options/cpu to the correct speed - -Original Message- From: Hänggi Philipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:52 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Mersenne: Bug Report: Wrong timing for Intel Speedstep Hi all I use a Dell Inspiron 5000 Laptop with the new Intel Speedstep feature. Which meens that the box runs with 500Mhz on battery and 600Mhz on net power supply. My exponet 9066011 is timed with 0.233 secs/iter for 500Mhz and with 0.255 secs/iter for 600Mhz !!! No, I didn't mix the modes up. But
Re: Mersenne: why stay off the top producers list?
> > Ive been offered a few machines, but I want em ALL! spike
> Aaron Blosser wrote:
> I'm glad you're doing it the "right" way, compared to the way I did it. :-)
> http://www.sciencenews.org/2304/bob1.asp
Aaron, its *because* of your experience that I am going the
slow legal way. {8-] Otherwise I mighta just sent out GIMPS
as an enclosure and thought little of it. I never did really get much
management attention until I pointed out that a clever programmer
could *already be using* spare CPU cycles on our machines and
we wouldnt even know it, unless we had our own, well controlled
background process to keep tabs on that.
Those of you who work in big companies, feel free to give your
IT manager a few sleepless nights with that line of reasoning, then
hand her your clever solution... {8^D spike
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: time and credit...
Well. been doing an LL on 9xx since erJuly last year... on a cyrix333 with Win 98 Must admit...I'll probably be looking at factorising in future...yawneven if I don't get the kudos... Ian... double checking has no cache value...lol... _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: Re: Large-Exponent QA
On 6 Mar 00, at 23:09, Ken Kriesel wrote: > > Lots of results (verified by 2 independent runs on separate processor > generations in V19 prime95) were available at iteration counts of 100 and > 400 if I recall correctly, partly for validating future programs, at > ftp://lettuce.edsc.ulst.ac.uk/gimps/PrimeQA/QADATA.TXT thanks to Brian > Beesley for generating the list of exponents to run on, running most or > all of one pass, and hosting the data. I see that file's no longer there. Actually the file contains the low 64 bits of the residual after 400 and 1000 iterations for smaller exponents (up to 4 million), 400 iterations only for medium size exponents (4 million to 20 million) and 100 and 400 iterations for larger exponents (20 million to 79 million). The results were created on an Alpha 21164 using a version of Richard Crandall's "original" LL testing program lucdwt, modified to write the interim residual & stop instead of completing the test. It's very slow compared with the current production software, but much simpler! I verified the results obtained against both Prime95 v19 on Intel PII (during beta testing, using both the "classic" and "PPro" tunings of the FFT code) and Mlucas v2.7z on the Alpha system. I've just put the file back up. Sorry, it got removed accidentally when I upgraded the server hardware about three months ago. [ Ernst Mayer comments ] > >So, it doesn't look like testing exponents above ~40M is going to > >be practicable any time soon, where I mean doable in a year or less. But > >since the vast majority of GIMPS first-time LL tests won't even be > >approaching 20M for some years yet, having one or two double-checked > >exponents in each subrange below 39M would seem sufficient for the next > >couple of years. I agree. Of course, anyone who thinks it's _fun_ to tie up a system for several years running a LL test on a larger exponent is quite welcome to do so, so far as I'm concerned! > I'd like to see them get cpu credit, but I am not in a position to > guarantee it. George seems to add the CPU credit from QA tests to his records. So far as PrimeNet is concerned, we (deliberately) don't use PrimeNet to communicate results; in any case PrimeNet doesn't recognize that we own the QA assignments (some of them are actually triple-checks & the rest are outside currently active ranges), which is why they "don't count". This doesn't bother me, but it should be easy enough to fix. > Most of the effort would fall on someone else, and I'd rather see George > and Scott doing other things than the bookkeeping of apportioning credit > by iteration count and exponent size and checks of usable save files. To > keep the minimum contribution sizable, I ask the volunteers to commit to > at least a half-PII-400-year; large contributions are more likely to > justify crediting the work or a partial large exponent. > I'd strongly reccomend anyone running PrimeNet 10 million digit assignments to place the following line in their prime.ini file: InterimFiles=100 This will cause the interim residual to be written to results.txt every 100 iterations. At the same time, an extra save file will be written. The idea is that, when double-checking is scheduled on this exponent, any error can be found without neccessarily having to complete the whole run to find it, thus saving time. Also, in the event that a prime is found, with a set of interim save files we will be able to verify the result much more quickly by running 100 iterations on thirty odd systems in parallel. If you're worried about disk space, delete the extra save files; the interim residual has considerable value in itself. Also could anyone dropping out of a large exponent run (including PrimeNet 10 million digit range assignments) please send in a copy of their last savefile, so that work completed isn't lost. My server has lots of space available for this task. Regards Brian Beesley _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Mersenne: PrimeNet error 1 running mprime under Linux
I just set up mprime to run on a Linux (Stampede) box with a Pentium 200 cpu. Every time mprime tries to contact IPS, it receives "PrimeNet error 1". The internet connection runs through a proxy server running on a WinNT machine with a dialup modem. I can switch the network cable from the Linux machine to a Win95 machine which has the same proxy assignment in the primenet.ini file and the Win95 machine has no trouble communicating with IPS. What might I be missing? Rich Harms _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
RE: Mersenne: why stay off the top producers list?
> Nowthen, I want to *encourage* people to join GIMPS, even > if they have a slow outdated computer, just so more people can > learn some math, have some fun and perhaps spread the meme > that computing is cool. > > I am employed at a really big company, and I am trying > to push thru the bureaucracy there to run GIMPS on A > the computers, 24-7-52. That in itself is a huge job, but it > is a huge prize, all those idle CPUs. Ive been working on > this for almost a year now, and slow progress is being made. > Ive been offered a few machines, but I want em ALL! spike I'm glad you're doing it the "right" way, compared to the way I did it. :-) On that note, you might check out the current edition of Science News where it mentions GIMPS and yes, mentions me. Never mind that Ivars Peterson got some facts wrong (I was never actually arrested, and US WEST, the FBI and the US attorneys have lately been backing off on the claim that NTPrime caused any "slowdown" of the computers), it's still interesting. http://www.sciencenews.org/2304/bob1.asp Aaron _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Re: Mersenne: why stay off the top producers list?
Spike Jones wrote: > Ask yourself: Do I *know* > more about math now than when I started GIMPS? You can say that again. I remember well when I asked on the list what the point of P-1 factoring is when it takes an hour to get to 100 (or 103, rather) while trial factoring can do 2^40 in the blink of an eye. Now I feel reasonably comfortable writing a simple P-1 factorer (I need to get into that polynomial stage 2 thing!), or computing the odds of finding a factor, given a certain bound. The best thing I can say about GIMPS is that it revived my long-lost interest in math, and I'm having a wonderful time with it. > Ive been offered a few machines, but I want em ALL! spike Go spike. Ciao, Alex. _ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
