Re: Mersenne: results.txt
The results file is a history file. If it mentions it did a test on a number, and found it's not prime, it's already told primnet all that. It just keeps a history file in there the way a lot of programs do. --Peter At 11:26 07/07/1999 +0200, you wrote: >I have a question about the result file in prime. >My computer automaticly connects the prime server when a calculation is >ready. >Now I saw that the file results.txt still contains the result of a >former calculation. >If the current calculation is ready and the computer reach the server >will the old one also be send to the server? >Is this correct? >Or do I have to delete something from the result.txt file >bye, > >Paul van Grieken >Alcatel Telecom Nederland >afd: T-TAC NE Kamer:4121 >Postbus 3292 >2280GG rijswijk >Nederland > >Phone: + 31 70 307 9353 >Fax: + 31 70 307 9476 >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Prive: >Ruys de Beerenbrouckstraat 1 >2613AS Delft >Netherlands > >Marklin collector > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Status estimate
At 19:03 06/28/1999 -0400, you wrote: >The Status estimate of the chance that the number you are testing seems to >be off by a factor of e, based on Wagstaff's estimate. > >+--+ >| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie | >+--+ Yeah, I was wondering about that thing...if we don't even know if there are finite or infinite Mersenne primes, how does it generate that number? Mine says my odds are about 1 in 60,000 or soI'm doing an LL test on a number in the 719 range, and back when I was testing numbers in the 400 range the odds were much better...around 1 in 45,000. --Peter Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: safe to defrag?
At 09:54 06/24/1999 -0700, you wrote: >> From: Jud McCranie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Since Prime95 writes to the disk periodically, is it safe to do a disk >> defragmentation while it is running? My computer is up 24/7. Prime95 writes to disk every 30 minutes, and my email program (Eudora) checks for new mail every 20 minutes. Three times a week my computer automatically runs Win98 defrag program to defrag all 7.5GB of HDD space (a 4.3 HDD, and a 3.2HDD) I've never had any real problem. Everytime something writes to disk defrag restarts, scans for errors, and then checks over all that it has defraged, and picks up where it left off. This takes 1 to 2 minutes. I've had some unexplained computer hangs while defragging, but I can't attribute that to Prime95. So that's the long. The short is, it's entirely safe to defrag while running Prime95. --Peter Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: [Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18]
I second that. At 16:33 06/06/1999 +0100, you wrote: >NO MORE. The end.. > > >Chris Jefferson, Girton College, Cambridge, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I have a proof that x^n+y^n=z^n never has integer solutions for n>2. >However, it won't fit into my signature file > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: An example of inconsiderate CPU hogging
However, one thing to note is that SETI @Home doesn't seem to be as "idle priority" as Prime95 is. I ran it for a while, and I felt I could notice a slowdown, and when it wasn't minimized, there was a VERY noticeable slowdown. I think SETI @Home actually steals more than just idle cycles, and gets a few more. --Peter At 22:45 06/04/1999 -0400, you wrote: >The message of the day on the Sun machines here at the University of >Michigan included the following today: > > * * * * * >Please do not run the Seti At Home program on the Login Servers. Although >it is for a good cause, the Login Servers do not have any spare CPU cycles >to donate. Running Seti At Home interferes with other users getting their >work done. > * * * * * > >This illustrates the importance of getting permission before running >processor-intensive programs on machines that are not entirely your own. >There are only about thirty people logged in on the machine that I'm using >right now, and as usual almost all of them are running Pine; even with >this comparatively light load the slowdown was apparently bad enough to be >a problem. I suspect that people trying to run Seti on these machines at a >peak time of year would create a big performance drag, and force the >administrators to monitor individual users' processor usage more closely >to prevent such abuses. It is easy to forget about such consequences in >the quest for CPU time. > >I'd like to think that GIMPS members, on the whole, do not deserve >warnings like the one above. Let's keep it that way. > > >David A. Miller >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Serious problems with v.18
This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's useless. --Peter At 04:11 06/04/1999 -0600, you wrote: >Before the upgrade, I was 77% of the way through an exponent in the 7M area. >Now it says 0%. It looks like it couldn't read older versions' save files and >started over! How do I recover that 77%? (I assume it would have to be checked >to see if the version 17 error struck it, and either corrected or discarded if >it had...) Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
RE: Mersenne: cacheable memory
I'm quite sure the VX chipset has the same problem, and is limited to 64MB cacheable The Pentium2 with an older core can cache 512MB of RAM, but the newer ones can cache 4GB of RAM. The Celerons can also all cache 4GB of RAM. Most other chipsets cache different amounts depending on the L2 cache...with 512K cache most of those chipsets cache 64MB or 128MB...but most cache at least 128MB and higher --Peter At 20:24 05/16/1999 -0600, you wrote: >> Anybody know which chipsets have the memory caching >> problems, or who can point me in the direction to find this >> information? >> >> I am interested in finding out whether to add memory to a >> VXPro board, currently has 32MB, AMD K-6 200. > >I think it was just the 430TX chipset. It has the problem of not cacheing >anything above 64MB, and due to the way Windows uses memory, it can really >hurt performance. > >Other chipsets like the 430VX, 430HX, etc. are okay, and PII chipsets in the >440xx series are all fine. > >Other chipsets from non-Intel sources (VIA, etc.) I have no idea about, but >Intel chipsets make up a vast majority of system boards. > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne dynamic optimism
Personally, since I'm more of a dreamer, than a mathematition (I can't even spell it) SETI@home interests me more than GIMPSbut I'm going to stick to GIMPs for now for a few reasons.. The Programa constantly running idle priority program is nicer than a screensaver IMHO... I've already started with GIMPs...and I'm around rank 440, and proud of that high ranking, and kind of like the friendly competition. The simplicity of the goal...GIMPS searches for large primes...SETI searches for radio signals which may or may not be from earth, which may or may not be natural, which may or may not may make any sense However...on the other hand, if SETI finds something (by something, I mean a clearly repeating radio transmission that can only be alien in origin), we can know that there is other intelligent life out there. I know that it's out there, but we haven't yet found it, but proof of my belief would be nice... Although I don't see any immediate pratical purpose to mersenne primes...but like I said before, my interest and knowledge in math isn't very large. --Peter At 10:45 05/16/1999 -0700, you wrote: >Spike Jones wrote: ...What if... SETI@home does manage to find ET... > >There is yet another way to look at this. From reading the GIMPS >posts on SETI, it is clear that many are seeing SETI as a competitor >for idle CPUs. Yes, it is that, in a sense. I see that SETI@home is >getting nearly as much CPU time as GIMPS, and it is only in its fourth >full day. (Demonstrates the power of publicity). However, if we view >SETI@home, not as a competing sibling but rather as a robust >offspring, then perhaps it is not so bitter. I still think GIMPS will >be the winner in the long run, for many new CPU idlers will sign >on to SETI, realize the power of distributed computing, and many >will perhaps land in GIMPS. Sure will will lose a few GIMPSers >to SETI@home, but perhaps we will gain many. > >I see arguments for why there cannot be ETs, and other arguments >for why they *must* be there, but in fact no one knows. Is not this >the nature of scientific investigation, to find out? And GIMPS? As >we say in my business, one test is worth a thousand expert opinions. > >Secondly, since I am on the topic of dynamic optimism, consider what >we are doing whenever we get the result "2^yakkityyak-1 is not prime." >So, we have found nothing, right? NO! We have discovered >*another* Mersenne composite! One that was unknown before. >This process cannot be shortcut; the only way to know for sure >if a Mersenne number is composite is to test it. > >So, look on the bright side, my mathematical friends. We are mapping >the mathematical landscape every time we discover a new Mersenne >composite, even if they are as common as grains of sand on the >beach. Of course we want to find the diamonds, but to do so >requires sifting the sand. When we map this landscape, it is the >same for all time and all the universe. SETI@home is making a >map of sorts too. Let us wish them well and continue. spike > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Iteration time?
At 19:38 05/03/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Does anybody have a idea of what the iteration time for a PII 450a running >Prime95 under Win 98 should be (LL test in the 683 range)? > > >Shane Should be something like .200 seconds. I'm working on something in the 735 range and it's doing .218 sec on my P2 450. BTW, you say PII 450a...implying a Celeron 300A overclocked to 450...in which case it's a Celeron 450A...not PIIbut the Celeron and P2 are about the same speed for Prime95 Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Single precision in consoles
I see your point, and I'm aware it can be done. I didn't mean any kind of personal attack on you for your idea. Creative thinking is one of the most important things in my opinion. I just think such important and interesting things as GIMPS shouldn't be spread over to consoles. GIMPS is working incredibly well and so many numbers are getting crunched so quickly by the mass effort. If we all remain patient, we will soon have another mersenne prime on the list. At 13:59 04/13/1999 +, you wrote: >Hello, > >I know many have complained about my console idea (which, as I said, was not >very realistic at this point), because they only have single precision. I >just want you to consider that George once had an _integer_ version of Prime95 >running, but it was roughly 7 times slower (if I remember right) that the >FPU version. (The factoring code for 486es and clones _is_ integer, BTW.) > >However, there is strength in numbers. A _lot_ of people have consoles. So >even if they aren't as much worth as a P3/Mhz or whatever, they still >_help_, much more than 486es. > >/* Steinar */ > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Really really crazy idea...
At 21:19 04/12/1999 +0100, you wrote: >> People then said most consoles are really bad at >> accurate floating point calculations because they aren't >> used much in games. > >Who said that? Floating point maths is used extensively in 3D calculation, >which all modern consoles excell at. Yes, but I think it's a question of single precision vs. double precision. The SSE or 3DNow! units of the K6-2 and P-3 can't be utilized by Prime95 because they are single precision only. Most games only use single precision floating point calculations. The consoles are the same. Prime95 needs a double-precision unit to do it's complex calculations. Overall I think the console idea is a really bad one. --Peter Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: IMPORTANT: BUG IN VERSION PRIME95 17
Please, oh please tell me this is some kind of cruel April Fools Joke. It's not though is it? Oh well. Sorry. --Peter At 18:04 04/01/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Hi all, > > Please forgive me. I'm terribly sorry. I've discovered a bug >in version 17 of prime95 and its variants (ntprime, mprime, OS/2 version). >All Lucas-Lehmer tests above 4,194,304 (except those that were done as >a continuation of a v16 run) are no good. I feel sick. > > I've uploaded version 18 of prime95 and ntprime. I'll port it >to Linux and Windows 3.1 as soon as I can. Please download and install >this new version immediately from http:\\www.mersenne.org\freesoft.htm >Version 16 and earlier users were not affected by this bug. Neither >were those users that are double-checking. > > I've asked Scott to change Primenet to assign double-checking >work to version 17 clients in the future. I don't know if he can do this >or not, let's hope so. > > After upgrading, you will get error messages that look like this: >Error reading intermediate file: p6180331 >Renaming intermediate file q6180331 to p6180331. >Error reading intermediate file: p6180331 > This is normal. Prime95 must discard the incorrect version 17 >save files. > > My records indicate that 10,794 of the 59,169 Lucas-Lehmer tests >above 4,194,304 will have to be discarded. This will set GIMPS back >roughly 3 to 4 months. This will not affect your standings on the PrimeNet >server's Top Producer's page. > > For those that like to look at the bright side of things, I can find >only one bit of good news. This will give you a better chance to win the >$50,000 EFF prize once I sort out the mess and have the server hand out >smaller exponents to retest. > > Once again, I'm sorry for the bug and the wasted CPU cycles the >last few months. > >Humbled, >George > > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Re: Mersenne: Need info about K6
It's not actually optimized for a Pentium so much as the pentium is optimized for the kind of math that prime95 does. Prime95 uses the FPU (Floating Point Unit) extensively. The Pentium and Pentium 2 (and 3) can do a single FLOP (Flointing Point Operation) per clock cycle. It's a pipelined FPU. This means a 500MHz Pentium can do abou 500 MegaFLOPs. The K6 has a less advanced FPU and cannot perform one FLOP each clock cycle. It's significantly slower...perhaps it works arounf 50-75% of the speed of the Pentium FPU. However, the K6-2 has the 3DNow! instruction set (similar to P3's SSE) Which means that the 3DNow! Unit is basically a high speed but simpler FPU. The 3DNow! unit is like a RISC processor, it can do less sophicated things, but do them a lot faster. The unit can pump out 4 FLOPs per clock cycle. A 500MHz processor can theoretically do 2GigaFLOPs. However, I'm pretty sure Prime95 isn't coded for 3DNow! or SSE, and therefore this is irrelvent. It may be impossible to code for 3DNow! if the LL tests require instructions and code that isn't in the 3DNow! unit. I don't know enough math or programming to be able to answer that conclusively though. I don't have first hand knowledge, but can speculate that the K6-2 will perform at about 50-75% of what a Pentium can do clock for clock. But since the fastest socket-7 Pentium is 233MHz, and that K6-2 is 333, it should even out...well...actually the K6-2 will come out ahead. To get much faster performance you'll have to get at least a 300MHz P2 or Celeron, but that would require a motherboard upgrade, and that's an extra $100 on top of the CPU price... I'd stick with the free K6-2 and enjoy the extra CPU time that will go towards your account. :-) --Peter At 16:32 03/25/1999 -0800, you wrote: >I have just discovered that my wife is about to be presented with a new >computer which contains a K6-2/333 processor, 64K L1, 512K L2, 64MB of >SRAM. I would be willing to invest a few $$$ of my own in an upgrade to >a Pentium if it made a substantial difference in running Prime95. My >understanding is that the program has been optimized for the Pentium. >The question is - how well does it run on the K6? > >Can someone please give me a comparison of the merits of the K6 vs. the >Pentium? Also, please withhold comments on the domestic implications of >the problem. > >Thank you. > >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
