In my testing phrot for these numbers is faster on P4 and Core 2 Duo. What CPUs are you running on? Also, IIRC you are using Geoff's build. It might be slower then the CygWin build.

[QUOTE=rogue;159153]In my testing phrot for these numbers is faster on P4 and Core 2 Duo. What CPUs are you running on? Also, IIRC you are using Geoff's build. It might be slower then the CygWin build.[/QUOTE]

I'm using Geoff's build, but on my Q6600 2.4 GHz Phrot was actually also slower than LLR for Sierp. base 63. Not sure if it has something to do with the build by Geoff but untill someone can come up with a .exe build that is actually faster than LLR then I'm for a fact not going to use Phrot on any of my testings.

Thanks for your investigative efforts. Hope you come up with a solution eventually because it would be nice to gain some use of the 40% speed increase compared to LLR that everyone is in fact talking about :smile:

Kenneth!

[quote=rogue;159153]In my testing phrot for these numbers is faster on P4 and Core 2 Duo. What CPUs are you running on? Also, IIRC you are using Geoff's build. It might be slower then the CygWin build.[/quote]
I have used Geoff's Linux builds for all the recent Phrot versions (I didn't test his Windows builds) and they seem to be as fast as they're supposed to be. :huh:

Possibly this is a problem limited to Geoff's non-Cygwin Windows build? KEP, have you tried using Rogue's Windows build?

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;159162]I have used Geoff's Linux builds for all the recent Phrot versions (I didn't test his Windows builds) and they seem to be as fast as they're supposed to be. :huh:

Possibly this is a problem limited to Geoff's non-Cygwin Windows build? KEP, have you tried using Rogue's Windows build?[/QUOTE]

I've attached a build that I have made with MinGW. See if there is any difference.

Of note, it might be that phrot is running at a lower priority, thus is not getting as much CPU as LLR.

BTW, the speed increase of phrot over LLR is related to the base. Some base are 20% faster with phrot, others only a few percent.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;159162]I have used Geoff's Linux builds for all the recent Phrot versions (I didn't test his Windows builds) and they seem to be as fast as they're supposed to be. :huh:

Possibly this is a problem limited to Geoff's non-Cygwin Windows build? KEP, have you tried using Rogue's Windows build?[/QUOTE]

No haven't tried Rogues windows build. However I may look into it tomorrow since it is getting kind of late here where I'm seated :smile:

Thanks for all your help to both you and Rogue!

Hope the version Rogue has attached is actually faster because even a few percent increase in speed is going to make a huge difference in the long run :smile:

KEP

EDIT: For base 63 n=25000 k=888 the attached Phrot version using MingW made no difference on the Q6600 32-bit Windows Vista. It used 12 seconds more compared to LLR to do the test :(

There is some throttling in phrot that prevents it from being more aggressive, which could trigger maxerr. Some of that throttling appears to no longer be necessary as there was a bug (integer overflow) that has been fixed. I can eliminate that throttling, but it will help only with smaller bases. With these changes I think that bases > 50 will probably be faster with LLR. I need to do some more testing before I can release a build.

[quote=mdettweiler;159148]Hmm...that's odd. What version of Phrot are you using on 32-bit Windows?[/quote]


64-bit version that was the most recent about a month ago. Guys, I've tried downloading the newest version Phrot, both 32-bit and 64-bit, several times for my 32-bit Windows machines. Every time LLR is faster for base 3...by just a small amount but it is slightly faster. The timings that Kenneth got are very consistent with my own...slightly faster for LLR.

Max, why don't you test base 3 LLR and Phrot on your Linux machine? I haven't tried base 3 on my Linux machines yet. I have a feeling you are going to find the same thing that Kenneth and I unless it's a Window's vs. Linux (or 32-bit vs. 64-bit) thing.

Machines where LLR is faster than base 3 on Phrot:
32-bit Hewlett-Packard AMD laptop 1.6 Ghz running Windows Vista. (bought in May 2007)
32-bit Dell Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz running Windows XP. (bought in April 2004)

Both machines are current with O.S. updates.

I really like my desktop. It totally screamed when I got it and STILL...even though it's only a single core and nearly 5 years old, that single core runs only about 15-20% slower than a single core of my new quads. It's never had a problem except when it's gotten a virus. (lol)

Max or Rogue, if you want to attach the screamenest :smile: most state-of-the-art most recent version of Phrot think you think will run faster vs. LLR on base 3 on one or both of these machines, I'll give it yet another try.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;159185]64-bit version that was the most recent about a month ago. Guys, I've tried downloading the newest version Phrot, both 32-bit and 64-bit, several times for my 32-bit Windows machines. Every time LLR is faster for base 3...by just a small amount but it is slightly faster. The timings that Kenneth got are very consistent with my own...slightly faster for LLR.

Max, why don't you test base 3 LLR and Phrot on your Linux machine? I haven't tried base 3 on my Linux machines yet. I have a feeling you are going to find the same thing that Kenneth and I unless it's a Window's vs. Linux (or 32-bit vs. 64-bit) thing.[/quote]
Hmm...interesting. I'll do a few trial runs sometime tomorrow...stay tuned. :smile:

[B]Riesel base 39 tested to 1k.[/B]

Just 15097 ks remaining.
Should be proven in the lifetime of a Pinus longaeva.

It's nearly 2mb, do you want the zip file Gary?

(Sorry, I haven't removed the algebraic-factor-thingys because I couldn't think of an easy way to do it.)

[quote=Flatlander;159432][B]Riesel base 39 tested to 1k.[/B]

Just 15097 ks remaining.
Should be proven in the lifetime of a Pinus longaeva.

It's nearly 2mb, do you want the zip file Gary?

(Sorry, I haven't removed the algebraic-factor-thingys because I couldn't think of an easy way to do it.)[/quote]


Yes, please send it along. By "it's nearly 2mb", do you mean the primes file(s) and the k's remaining? If so, no problem. I definitely would not need a results file at such a low n-range. At times, I've dealt with much larger files on Sierp base 31 with a conjecture of k>6.3M.

Although the web page will be quite long, I'll get the 15097 remaining k's minus k's with algebraic factors shown in the usual comma-deliminted format. Since I've already generallized the k's with algebraic factors, it will be no problem to quickly remove them all.

My personal limit: I won't list anything that has more than 100,000 k's remaining on the web pages. If you are searching a base with that many remaining, you better just search it higher until less are remaining. :smile:


Gary

[B]Riesel base 58 tested to 10k. Unreserving.[/B]

My program I wrote for removing a list of primes from a list of candidates has broken. (How can that happen??? I've recompiled it but it gets stuck in a loop now. :huh: I won't say which program it's written in or you will all laugh. :blush:)

There are three files. Primes with n <=1000, primes with n>1000 and a file of remaining ks at n=1000 (not 10,000).
In other words, the primes >1000 need to be subtracted from the remaining-k file. Sorry.
[edit: Reference to algebraic factors removed, wrong base!]

I tested from 1 to 999, then 999 to 9999, then 9999 to 99999 then 99999 to the end, so the primes > 1000 are in a strange order. Sorry again.

I'm definitely having a bad head day. :loco: