Join PrimeGrid
Returning Participants
Community
Leader Boards
Results
Other
drummers-lowrise
|
1)
Message boards :
Sieving :
ppsieve/tpsieve CUDA testing
(Message 24949)
Posted 4706 days ago by vasm
Windows XP 32-bit, 8800GT.
ppsieve version cuda-0.1.3 (testing)
nstart=76, nstep=32, gpu_nstep=32
ppsieve initialized: 1201 <= k <= 9999, 76 <= n <= 2000000
Sieve started: 42070000000000 <= p < 42070003000000
Thread 0 starting
Detected GPU 0: GeForce 8800 GT
Detected compute capability: 1.1
Detected 14 multiprocessors.
42070000070587 | 9475*2^197534+1
42070000198537 | 3373*2^1046686+1
42070000300049 | 9139*2^461846+1
42070000464001 | 4179*2^1577462+1
42070001011573 | 7113*2^215532+1
42070002690167 | 2553*2^1888870+1
Thread 0 completed
Waiting for threads to exit
Sieve complete: 42070000000000 <= p < 42070003000000
Found 6 factors
count=95668,sum=0x37dacb7121ccffe4
Elapsed time: 5.73 sec. (0.03 init + 5.70 sieve) at 551580 p/sec.
Processor time: 0.33 sec. (0.06 init + 0.27 sieve) at 11842741 p/sec.
Average processor utilization: 2.00 (init), 0.05 (sieve)
The longer test gave 67 factors as expected.
Thread 0 completed
Waiting for threads to exit
Sieve complete: 42070000000000 <= p < 42070030000000
Found 67 factors
count=955289,sum=0x2dbc17167afb6a8d
Elapsed time: 56.09 sec. (0.02 init + 56.08 sieve) at 537581 p/sec.
Processor time: 1.31 sec. (0.05 init + 1.27 sieve) at 23819504 p/sec.
Average processor utilization: 3.00 (init), 0.02 (sieve)
There was a screen lag (indeed more than the collatz app). You wouldn't call it unusable but over a long running time it's certainly annoying.
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Alternative Platforms
(Message 23900)
Posted 4765 days ago by vasm
I actually just ran a comparison of the two....
cllr.exe -d -q"7843*2^134274+1"
Starting Proth prime test of 7843*2^134274+1
Using all-complex FFT length 12K, a = 3
7843*2^134274+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: B72949BC5FFC727A Time : 80.173 sec.
^^^That was on my i7-920 Win7 64-bit^^^
So considering that the i7 is clocked almost 1 GHz faster, with a difference of only ~30sec I feel like the G5 held its own...
Was any other process hindering the i7 test? For that number it looks too slow. My Win7 x64 2.66GHz Core2 Q9450 gave:
cllr.exe -d -q"7843*2^134274+1"
Starting Proth prime test of 7843*2^134274+1
Using all-complex FFT length 12K, a = 3
7843*2^134274+1 is not prime. Proth RES64: B72949BC5FFC727A Time : 29.368 sec.
I would expect a 2.66GHz i7-920 to be even quicker.
|
3)
Message boards :
Proth Prime Search :
Rediscovered Primes
(Message 20936)
Posted 4862 days ago by vasm
The issue with ranges that have been searched outside Primegrid and we're now double-checking has been discussed before. It's the workunits that have a fixed 600sec runtime and unknown (---) computer host.
What is discussed by Jeremy Posner above happened to me as well. Found a prime as an initial finder, another Primegrid user was the double-checker and apparently a third user has already submitted it crediting Primegrid.
Judging by the name in my case it also looks like it was Puzzle-Peter (PRPnet?). If it was PRPnet and a range was searched earlier and primes were found and reported then fair enough. A BOINC double-check could be done. But as it stands for 6813*2^485125+1 Primegrid has triple checked. And if that happens for a whole range it seems like wasted effort.
|
4)
Message boards :
Project Staging Area :
PRNet Discussion (Old)
(Message 20608)
Posted 4876 days ago by vasm
I set a 2.4.7 windows client for some GFN work and I got this:
[2010-01-28 11:09:53 GMT] PRPNet Client application v2.4.7 started
[2010-01-28 11:09:53 GMT] User name vasm at email address is ...
[2010-01-28 11:09:57 GMT] GFN1: Getting work from server prpnet.primegrid.com at port 12005
[2010-01-28 11:09:57 GMT] GFN1: PRPNet server is version 2.4.7
PRPNet Server version 2.4.6
GFN N=32768 1
GenefX64 2.2.0 (x86 - 64-bit - SSE3) Copyright (C) 2001-2003, Yves Gallot
Copyright 2009, Mark Rodenkirch, David Underbakke
A program for finding large probable generalized Fermat primes.
Start test of file 'work_GFN1.in' - 11:09:58
Testing 3092632^32768+1... 704512 steps to go
maxErr exceeded for 3092632^32768+1, 0.5000 > 0.4500
Genefer 2.2.0 (x86 - 32-bit - 64-b X87) Copyright (C) 2001-2003, Yves Gallot
Copyright 2009, Mark Rodenkirch, David Underbakke
A program for finding large probable generalized Fermat primes.
Continue test of file 'work_GFN1.in' at line 1.
Testing 3092632^32768+1... 704512 steps to go
maxErr exceeded for 3092632^32768+1, 0.5000 > 0.4700
Genefer80 2.2.0 (x86 - 32-bit - 80-b X87) Copyright (C) 2001-2003, Yves Gallot
Copyright 2009, Mark Rodenkirch, David Underbakke
A program for finding large probable generalized Fermat primes.
Continue test of file 'work_GFN1.in' at line 1.
3092632^32768+1 is a probable composite. (RES=24e8b32a67d1cf63)
(212676 digits) (err = 0.0013) (time = 0:24:49) 11:34:52
Recognized ABC Sieve file:
ABC File
1*3092632^32768+1 is composite: RES64: [BBF8CF0AD3E2CC48] (3480.6513s+0.0194s)
[2010-01-28 12:32:53 GMT] GFN1: 3092632^32768+1 is not prime. Residue BBF8CF0AD3E2CC48
[2010-01-28 12:32:53 GMT] Total Time: 1:23:01 Total Tests: 1 Total PRPs Found: 0
[2010-01-28 12:32:55 GMT] GFN1: Returning work to server prpnet.primegrid.com at port 12005
[2010-01-28 12:32:55 GMT] GFN1: INFO: Test for candidate 3092632^32768+1 accepted
[2010-01-28 12:32:55 GMT] GFN1: INFO: All 1 test results were accepted
If I read it correctly GenfX64 and Genefer exceed maxErr so the number goes to Genefer80 that completes the test. Then it looks like pfgw picks up the number and completes the same test again. Why is that?
Based on the timings it took about an extra hour for processing something that doesn't seem necessary.
This happens repeatedly on port 12005 but not on 12003 were tests are completed by GenefX64 and returned as normal.
|
5)
Message boards :
Project Staging Area :
Primorial Prime Search
(Message 19118)
Posted 4952 days ago by vasm
Is the Primorial 12008 port down?
I keep getting
[2009-11-13 10:18:27 GMT] prpnet.primegrid.com:12008 connect to socket failed
Also the User and Server Stats pages are not accessible.
(using linux 2.4.5 client)
|
6)
Message boards :
Project Staging Area :
PRNet Discussion (Old)
(Message 19056)
Posted 4955 days ago by vasm
I have an issue with the Windows 2.4.5 client.
When I try to enable 3 or more subprojects the client refuses to start claiming the percentage total is not 100 (though I'm pretty sure that it is). If I set only 2 or 1 subproject it works fine.
for example when the .ini file contains this
server=GCW13:60:1:prpnet.primegrid.com:12004
server=PRS:20:1:prpnet.primegrid.com:12008
server=FPS:20:1:prpnet.primegrid.com:12002 the client responds with
Total percent of servers does not equal 100. Exiting
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Harvest Festival Challenge
(Message 18348)
Posted 4992 days ago by vasm
Hello, I want to draw your attention to the low level of organization challenges in the project PrimeGrid. If participate, I want a challenge, then I have to delete all the other tasks PrimeGrid, otherwise the server will not give me new ones. Production at the break does not help. At this time I had to cut many jobs 321llr, which were considered more than one hour. Should such sacrifices your challenge, I still think about it...
Err...? Is my english that lousy? I can't figure out the bottom line...
English in that post isn't that good, yet if I read it correctly what he describes happened to me as well. But it's not PrimeGrid's fault nor an indication of poor challenge organisation. The problem is with BOINC itself.
If you run a variety of PrimeGrid's sub-projects and you have long-running WUs in-progress, then before a challenge you would normally suspend them (plenty of time to finish them after the challenge) and expect to free resources for the challenge. But it doesn't work because BOINC will not get new WUs if a WU of the same project is suspended.
On Friday, I had a single PSP LLR running (with 24hrs remaining). I suspended it and all 4 cores were free and available for Proth LLR, but BOINC would not request new work no matter what.
So you really have two options. Abort those WUs (a lot of work wasted, what he did, hence the use of the word sacrifice) or let them finish (and lose challenge points because resources are diverted elsewhere).
Unless/until the BOINC work fetch behaviour is reprogrammed, the solution I see is to micro-manage your hosts before the challenge so that you end up with an empty cache when the challenge is about to start.
|
8)
Message boards :
AP26 - AP27 Search :
Need Testers new Linux32 SIMD-SSE/SSE2 app
(Message 18200)
Posted 4999 days ago by vasm
Test Computer: Pentium M750 1.86GHz Ubuntu 8.10 32bit
Primegrid 32bit 1.02 app: 12m 59s
New 32bit SIMD app (SSE2): 10m 27s
Results files match.
|
9)
Message boards :
AP26 - AP27 Search :
Need Testers new Linux64 SIMD-SSE2 app
(Message 18112)
Posted 5006 days ago by vasm
Any idea what temperatures the CPU is running?
just checked my 3 hosts and I have one wu that had a similar error.
The CPU was running at about 72C (quite hot, but during this summer I've seen it peak at 77-78C doing LLR and didn't give any errors).
I set it single-core and let it run for 24 hrs (at 63-64C) and there were no errors.
I guess I'll give the fan a good clean-up, re-enable both cores and see if the errors return or not.
|
10)
Message boards :
AP26 - AP27 Search :
Need Testers new Linux64 SIMD-SSE2 app
(Message 18092)
Posted 5008 days ago by vasm
Since this new app was introduced I've started getting some errored out workunits (roughly 1 every 20).
process exited with code 193 (0xc1, -63)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
SIGSEGV: segmentation violation
Is anyone else noticing something similar or is my laptop cracking up?
|
Next 10 posts
|
