At 07:47 AM 3/11/2003 -0500, Richard Woods wrote:
However, any difference in FFT size between a P4 and other CPU, because
of SSE support/nonsupport, could make a difference to the algorithm
because it _does_ take FFT size into account.
There was a bug in calculating the the FFT size (bytes of memor
Nick Glover wrote:
> Maybe the P-1 bounds calculation accounts for the slightly slower
> than normal iteration time that 8907359 would have on a P4 because
> of the roundoff checking (since it is very close to the P4 512K
> FFT limit).
I doubt it. As I explained last July 17 (Mersenne Digest #981
At 01:16 AM 3/11/2003 +, Daran wrote:
I don't think George's '1 or 2 extra temporaries' theory stands up.
Sure it does. I fired up the debugger and the P4 has 5541 temporaries
and the x86 has 89 temporaries.
Hmmm, maybe I'd better look into it a little bit further
---
Checked by AVG anti
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 09:05:41PM +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> On Monday 10 March 2003 07:49, Daran wrote:
> I just tried Test=8907359,64,0 on two systems - an Athlon XP 1700+ and a
> P4-2533, both running mprime v23.2 with 384 MB memory configured (out of 512
> MB total in the system). Th
Daran wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate it if you
> or someone else could try starting a P-1 on the same exponent (not in one of
> the ranges where it would get a different FFT length) on two different
> machines, with the same memory allowed.
P4:
M8769809 completed P-1, B1=45000, B2=72, E=12, WY2: E
At 13:05:41, Monday, 3/10/03, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> I just tried Test=8907359,64,0 on two systems - an Athlon XP 1700+ and a
> P4-2533, both running mprime v23.2 with 384 MB memory configured (out of 512
> MB total in the system). These were fresh installations, I did nothing apart
> from add
At 09:05 PM 3/10/2003 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2003 07:49, Daran wrote:
> Or is there some
> reason I can't think of, why higher values might be appropriate for a P4?
George?
The Athlon system picked B1=105000, B2=1995000 whilst the P4 picked
B1=105000, B2=2126250. So it s
On Monday 10 March 2003 07:49, Daran wrote:
>
> B1 and B2 are supposed to be chosen by the client so that the cost/benefit
> ratio is optimal. Does this mean that P4s is choose B2 values which are
> too high? Or does everything else choose values too low? Or is there some
> reason I can't think
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 09:51:33PM -0800, Chris Marble wrote:
> Daran wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0800, Chris Marble wrote:
> >
> > > Daran wrote:
> I like my stats but I could certainly devote 1 machine out of 20 to this.
If you're going to use one machine to feed the o
Daran wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0800, Chris Marble wrote:
>
> > Daran wrote:
> > >
> > > Whichever machine you choose for P-1, always give it absolutely as much
> > > memory as you can without thrashing. There is an upper limit to how much it
> > > will use, but this is pro
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:23:59PM +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> On Thursday 06 March 2003 13:03, Daran wrote:
> > However, some time ago, I was given some information on the actual P-1
> > bounds chosen for exponents of various sizes, running on systems of various
> > processor/memory configu
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:12:31PM -0800, Chris Marble wrote:
> Daran wrote:
> >
> > Whichever machine you choose for P-1, always give it absolutely as much
> > memory as you can without thrashing. There is an upper limit to how much it
> > will use, but this is probably in the gigabytes for exp
Daran wrote:
>
> Whichever machine you choose for P-1, always give it absolutely as much
> memory as you can without thrashing. There is an upper limit to how much it
> will use, but this is probably in the gigabytes for exponents in even the
> current DC range.
So I should use the PIII with 1 3
On Thursday 06 March 2003 13:03, Daran wrote:
>
> Based upon what I know of the algorithms involved, it *ought* to be the
> case that you should do any P-1 work on the machine which can give it the
> most memory, irrespective of processor type.
... assuming the OS allows a single process to grab t
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Marble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Mersenne: P-1 on PIII or P4?
> I've got a couple of P4s that I can use on weekends. I've been using them
> to f
I've got a couple of P4s that I can use on weekends. I've been using them
to finish off exponents that my PIIIs were working on. Is that the right
order? P-1 on the PIII and then the rest on the P4. I want to maximize
my output.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - HMC UNIX Systems Manager
My opinions a
16 matches
Mail list logo
