>> why is f(0) in an ll test = 4
The value of f(0) must be such that f(0)-2 is a quadratic residue mod Mp
and f(0)+2 is a quadratic nonresidue mod Mp. 4 is the smallest value
which works for all p; 10 is the next, followed by 52. You could use
f(0) = 3 provided that 5 is a quadratic nonresidue mo
I have a P-II/233 running NT 4.0 that I think is severely
underperforming. It has 256 MB of RAM, and much of it remains free. Some
applications take literally MINUTES to load, and I suspect a CPU problem,
although PrimeNT reports no calculation errors. I suspect that the CPU is
simply unde
I have a Pentium 232 running NT 4.0 with only 96 MB of RAM that is getting
about 0.6 seconds per iteration for an exponent in the 8,490,000 range.
It might be worthwhile to look in the Task Manager to see what is using the
CPU time. My CPU is typically mid-90% of the time w/ Prime95.
Rich
My 233 is running much better than your 1.788 as well. A few million
things come to mind...
First, are you running the newest software? Prime95 is up to, what...
19.0.2? Something like that... I'm sure it's on the page. Also, if
you're in a Microsoft environment, Richard's right... check for
Thanks to all who answered!
At 10:23 PM 12/7/99 +, you wrote:
>Assuming the processor in your 233 system really is a PII, you would
>seem to have a slow clock (perhaps it's running in doze mode?
This seems to have been it. Check
>the BIOS settings & disable power-saving) or another applic
Suppose Blue Gene were to be turned on the task
of GIMPSing. To my knowledge, there is no way to
get a million one-gigahz processors to work as one
petaflop machine, so we would not get a residual
of a ~2^8E6 Mersenne in 1.5 seconds, but we *could*
theoretically give it a million exponents and ge
No, it shows the NTPrime service taking 98% of the CPU time. I've run
benches on it, too, and it is just plain running slow, like a 66 Mhz or
slower machine I'll be looking for that compatibility mode thing shortly.
At 03:11 PM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Jeff Woods w
DING! Give that man a ceegar! While I didn't find a setting for
anything like that anywhere in the BIOS, I took a risk and let the BIOS
reconfigure itself for "optimal settings" in the hopes it wouldn't FUBAR
everything and the system is back to its snappy old self
again... Thanks, J
