I have ftp'd a new beta release of the mers package to:
http://www.garlic.com/~wedgingt/beta.tgz
beta.tar.gz
beta.zip
beta.shar
I'm announcing it to the mailing list because it includes a brand new
L
On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 04:17:05AM +0100, Ian L McLoughlin wrote:
>Why do primality tests run to the full value of the integerFor any
>iteration surely if an exponent is found within the test it should be
>reported and the program aborted?.Not being a maths buff...
Perhaps you're referrin
Will Edgington wrote:
> (The 49% CPU usage is because my computer was also doing a long term
> ecm3 run, including during the FFTW tuning.)
Unless you're doing a timed run, maybe "kill -STOP pid" and "kill -START
pid" on the ecm3 run might give more accurate results - I hate to think
of what's h
Simon Burge wrote:
> I'll let you know of some results soon.
My early tests on a 200MHz UltraSparc are not that encouraging.
./MacLucasUNIX -C -S 10 141
speed: 10 iters in 1.668 seconds, 0.167 iters/sec (fft len 128k)
speed: 10 iters in 1.688 seconds, 0.169 iters/sec
When I leave my computer alone and let Prime95 run, it will
repeat the same second per iteration amount (.209 for M741)
for the most part. However, for about 2000 to 3000 iterations,
it will increase. Sometimes it only goes to .214 or .256, but
I've seen it as high as .544. What's going on?
> for the most part. However, for about 2000 to 3000 iterations,
> it will increase. Sometimes it only goes to .214 or .256, but
> I've seen it as high as .544. What's going on? It must be
It might be some scheduled service working.
How often is it happening or was it a one-time observation?
Hi again:
Simon Burge wrote:
>
> Simon Burge wrote:
>
> > I'll let you know of some results soon.
>
> My early tests on a 200MHz UltraSparc are not that encouraging.
I'm not surprised. The performance of FFTW seems is no so good in other
machines than x86, as E. Mayer commented in a recent m
Hi!
Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
> Have you used runtime wisdom or fftwtune wisdom?. A bad tune can affect
> very much the
> results.
Only runtime wisdom - Will didn't put tunefftw.c in the distribution.
If you or Will can send me a copy I'll try the tests again.
> Has your system two proc
Hi:
Simon Burge wrote:
>
> Will Edgington wrote:
>
> > (The 49% CPU usage is because my computer was also doing a long term
> > ecm3 run, including during the FFTW tuning.)
>
I recommend to use tunefftw when the system is bored, i. e. when no
other idle programs like mprime or ecm3 are runnig,
On 4 Oct 99, at 14:38, Lars Lindley wrote:
> > for the most part. However, for about 2000 to 3000 iterations,
> > it will increase. Sometimes it only goes to .214 or .256, but
> > I've seen it as high as .544. What's going on? It must be
>
> It might be some scheduled service working.
> How
One more idea--virus scanners.
_
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
Simon Burge writes:
Only runtime wisdom - Will didn't put tunefftw.c in the distribution.
If you or Will can send me a copy I'll try the tests again.
OK, I've ftp'd a new beta release that includes tunefftw.c and runs it
before doing the test of MacLucasFFTW.
I've kept a not-very-clos
12 matches
Mail list logo
