1)
Message boards :
Problems and Help :
multiple GPUs
(Message 161336)
Posted 16 hours ago by  Grebuloner
Looking at your host, all the times are about the same. Where are you seeing the 6x difference?
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to optimize the number of threads
(Message 161184)
Posted 10 days ago by Grebuloner
To me the numbers suggest that LLR is quite specific, but GFN something else?
Good question! Michael, is there a reason GFN21 and GFN22 both have a 40.5MB cache size?
What about AP27?
Thanks for doing this. It's nice to have an easy way to get FFT sizes without mining through others' tasks.
Could you perhaps include a blurb or two for those trying to figure out their cache sizes? E.g. "Look up your CPU on Wikipedia, find L3." (Although most recent AMD and some recent Intel chips are L2+L3...I know, it's not easy). Some other wording might help those with the split-cache multi-CCX CPUs from AMD.
|
3)
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
Simple explanation for Genefers and task size?
(Message 160172)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
I'm sure one of us would volunteer to run one of each app, just to get a general idea. No it won't be 100% accurate, because as you've said every PC is different. But it would give a vague idea of this app takes 15 times longer than this one, and a vague idea of someone with a CPU 3 times faster than the test machine will take a third of the time. A static page could then be made with these figures, so anyone coming along and wishing to run something which will take an hour on their particular GPU can make a pretty good guess.
Why can't it be you? You seem the most eager for it.
How would you determine relative run times from a single information point? If the benchmark is an AMD Ryzen 2700 at 4 GHz running an LLR2 subproject WU in 1 hour with one thread, how long should my Intel Core i9 10980XE at 4 GHz take to run the same WU? Or my Intel X5675 at 4 GHz?
I would also like to point out (because it's something I do) that it's pretty easy to just go to the top participants or computers pages and just click through the visible hosts/tasks to find systems of the same family or CPU and see how fast they are working through them.
|
4)
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
Simple explanation for Genefers and task size?
(Message 160152)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
Thanks Michael for the detailed answers. That makes a lot more sense to me now. I think you answered before I edited the post and added two more questions. Does the project itself have an opinion on which are the most important ones to search for? And is there anything useful to come from these numbers - presumably any correlation of things in maths is asking for a eureka moment and the furthering of everything in general. Somebody once said to me "maths is the basis of physics is the basis of everything".
Grebuloner: I picked the smallest genefers for 3 reasons - 1) to "tidy up" the lower numbers (I go onto Private GFN for that too), 2) because my multiple GPUs on multiple computers fly through them which looks cool on my Boinctasks list spread across 3 monitors, and 3) because I use antique GPUs which often screw up sometimes needing dismantled and repaired [1]. It's very irritating to have wasted a few days computation on a corrupted genefer extreme.
To both of you, are the numbers in a range infinite or not? You seem to disagree.
[1] Broken/old/unreliable GPUs accepted greatfully! I like repairing stuff! I'm in the UK if anyone has stuff they don't want....
My range reference was specifically to Primegrid and the software we run. As noted in other threads as software has been updated, there are technical upper limits to the numbers we can currently test. Ending a range/search might be because of a software limitation (like WW).
The great thing about PG is we have the opportunity to pick our projects for whatever reasons we want. I want to eliminate some k's in the conjectures, but I also love running up the badges so I change my focus around that (and my power bill...). Glad you found yours! :)
|
5)
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
Simple explanation for Genefers and task size?
(Message 160150)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
It's b^15 and b^20.
Do you mean b^32768 respectively b^1048576? /JeppeSN
Oops! Yes. I blame early Sunday morning brain fog.
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Tour de Primes 2023
(Message 160148)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
Just went to the basement to start some laundry and turning on the basement lights tripped a breaker. Oops.
Time to shuffle some systems around the house and maybe redistribute some GPUs.
That would be very scary if it was a single LED bulb in the basement. :)
Fortunately (or unfortunately?) there's a bit more than that. A few fluorescent tube hangers do the bulk of initial surging.
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Tour de Primes 2023
(Message 160116)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
Just went to the basement to start some laundry and turning on the basement lights tripped a breaker. Oops.
Time to shuffle some systems around the house and maybe redistribute some GPUs.
|
8)
Message boards :
Generalized Fermat Prime Search :
Simple explanation for Genefers and task size?
(Message 160115)
Posted 53 days ago by Grebuloner
It's b^15 and b^20.
1) Each increase in exponent requires some multiple of calculation (4x? Can't quite remember). The number of digits involved in each are also monumentally different. 15 is 500k, 20 is 6.6M which increases resource requirements and therefore time. Each WU is for one prime candidate, no task splitting.
2) While the number of primes per exponent is infinite, the density of primes is greater at lower exponents. The range of search is absolutely enormous (many millions of tasks even after sieving) thanks to the great programming efforts of the PG devs and is being constantly expanded so we can keep searching.
Lower GFNs complete much faster and therefore more tasks need to be available for users than larger ones that take much longer.
3) Really depends on the individual's preference. All the primes will eventually be found for a given available searching range. If any GFNn were to end, then more resources would go to looking at other values, etc.
4) These aren't useful for cryptography given their special and known nature, and nothing special physics wise has been found, yet. I do it for the fun of finding primes and hoping to help solve the conjectures. And who wouldn't love to have their name attached, even if briefly, to the largest prime of a certain type (or ever) known?
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Tour de Primes 2023
(Message 160076)
Posted 55 days ago by Grebuloner
Why some tasks are validated without DC WUs?
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=862638390
You said "tasks", plural. I could not find any examples other than the one you provided. Are there more?
Did some digging through my own tasks. Here's more:
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=862469592
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=862461430
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=860977837
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=860883400
https://www.primegrid.com/workunit.php?wuid=860585188
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Tour de Primes 2023
(Message 160024)
Posted 56 days ago by Grebuloner
Got on the board on day 1 with an older GPU. Yay!
Finally able to buy an unscalped 4090 after lots of saving up and months of trying. Double yay!
It's a good TdP this year :-)
|
