Software suggestion:
 

I assume it's easy for prime95 to be able to check what percent of the computer's proc processing power is being used. I don't know about all of you, but my P-1 factoring doesn't use all of my processing power, so I set it to do trial factoring at the same time.

My suggestion is to make this a default: If Prime95 detects that some of the processing power isn't being used, then simultaneously do other work, like simultaneously trial factor the same number it's doing P-1 work on if there is trial factoring left to do, or do work on another number if there isn't.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;161737]I assume it's easy for prime95 to be able to check what percent of the computer's proc processing power is being used.[/quote]No, it takes the operating system to do that. Maybe there's a call an application can make to get that info from the OS, but aside from that an application can't know about all the stuff going on outside itself.

Now, there [U]is[/U] something an application can do to [I]guess[/I] that the system might be heavily loaded, but it only applies to applications with very predictable workloads like Prime95: periodically check the elapsed time needed for its iterations. When that time significantly increases from average, it's a good guess that there's a load on the system from something other than the application. But that's just an inference, not direct knowledge. (Prime95 already does that under certain circumstances.)

[quote]I don't know about all of you, but my P-1 factoring doesn't use all of my processing power, so I set it to do trial factoring at the same time.[/quote]... on a different worker thread, right?

That doesn't require knowledge of the system load or even have any relationship to it; it's just a setup option that already exists. In fact, Prime95/PrimeNet will do that automatically if the work type settings allow it (specify a default work type of TF for one thread, default work type of P-1 for another, ...).

[quote]like simultaneously trial factor the same number it's doing P-1 work on if there is trial factoring left to do[/quote]There's a reason for doing the sequence

TF-except-last-2-bit-levels,

then P-1,

then TF-last-2-bit-levels.

GIMPS throughput is slightly more efficient that way than if all TF bit levels were done before the P-1.

IIRC, PrimeNet won't even assign both TF and P-1 (or any two different work types) at the same time on the same exponent.

Furthermore, there is no convenience or savings anyway in doing TF on the same number that's being P-1'ed -- the algorithms, arithmetic, code paths and register utilizations are [U]very[/U] different for those two methods, and it's better (for the sequencing reason) to do TF on some different number than what is being P-1'ed. Even when hyperthreading might give you a few percent gain from partial overlap of code execution on the same CPU, there's still no advantage to doing TF and P-1 on the same exponent instead of on different exponents (and there's still the sequencing disadvantage).

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying there is a big load on my computer taking up processor power from prime95. I'm saying the system idol process has a number around 45% when doing stage 2 of P-1 testing.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161769]
... on a different worker thread, right? [/quote]

Right.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161769]
That doesn't require knowledge of the system load or even have any relationship to it; it's just a setup option that folks are already doing, as described elsewhere (check the "Prime95 Version 25.7", 25.8" threads).
[/quote]

I mean as a default option, dependent on how much processing power prime95 is taking vs how much the system idol process is taking.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;161769]
...there is no convenience or savings anyway in doing TF on the same number that's being P-1'ed...
[/quote]
There is if 50% of the processor cycles are not being utilized.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;161773]I think you misunderstood.[/quote]I re-edited my post several times. Read it again as it now stands.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;161773]I'm saying the system idol process has a number around 45% when doing stage 2 of P-1 testing.[/quote]So, if it's a dual-core system, maybe one is fully loaded (50% of system total) with the P-1, and the other is doing only 10% of its potential (5% of system total) on something else, with the system idle process soaking up the remaining 90% of the second core (45% of total).

[quote]I mean as a default option, dependent on how much processing power prime95 is taking vs how much the system idol process is taking.[/quote]Hunh? The system idle process simply uses whatever is not being used by any application on a given core. To fully use two cores, simply assign Prime95 work on both of them ... which I thought you're already doing ("my P-1 factoring doesn't use all of my processing power, so I set it to do trial factoring at the same time", "... on a different worker thread, right?", "Right"). If you have P-1 and TF assigned to two threads _on the same core_, well -- that's a mistake -- put them on different cores.

- - -

Please post your local.txt, prime.txt and worktodo.txt files (after masking out info like passwords, IDs, ComputerGUID, assignment hex strings, & specific exponent numbers) so we can see your setup.

This is what I mean (see the attachment) :smile::

[quote=dominicanpapi82;161780]This is what I mean (see the attachment) :smile::[/quote]If it's a dual-core system, then it looks like one is practically fully loaded (47% of system total = 94% of one core) with Prime95. If it's a quad-core, then Prime95 is running threads on only two of them (e.g., 94% of one core plus 94% of another core plus 0% of the other two cores = 47% of total), so to get more Prime95 work done, you have to define two more worker threads and give each of them an assignment.

The problem occurs when you have one worker using two threads and that worker is busy with a single threaded task (P-1 or TF).

One can have three types of work assigne for one exponent : an exponent assigned for LL testing that has not beeen TF'ed to optimal limits and for wich no P-1 work has been done. There are at least two implied extra assignmens then : TF and P-1. From what I remember in such a case it does the TF in one run, not stopping for P-1 and finishing TF after an unsuccessful P-1.

Jacob

One can also get low CPU utilization if your configuration (memory allocation) causes excessive page file use; the CPU is idle while it waits for data from the HDD.

I think you all are looking for a solution to a problem without understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not saying it's a hardware or windows issue. It's not a page file issue, my processing power isn't being taken up by another program, and (if it comes up) I'm not throttling my system. It's not anything like that. Prime95 is running as fast as it's able to, and it's still leaving unused cycles.

Prime95 gives you the option to work on just one number because, well, you might want to work on just one number. I want to do work on just one number. Not that I need justification because many other people also want to work on just one number, but I want to work on just one number because I am working on a 100M digit mersenne that takes years to finish.

If it's true that P-1 testing can't take full advantage of multiple cores, then given that some multicore computers will be set up to work on just one number, it will definitely be an improvement in throughput (by weeks for 100M digit mersennes) if we are able to simultaneously P-1 test and trial factor the same number. I don't mean with separate code, or some slick engineering to try to save steps if that is at all possible. I mean, just do both on the same number simultaneously just like you could do P-1 testing on one mersenne and trial factoring on another simultaneously. The average PC would save time processing a single number if it simultaneously does P-1 factoring and trial factoring.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;161871]I think you all are looking for a solution to a problem without understanding what I'm saying.[/quote]But you haven't yet said anything that shows us we are wrong. We see no reason to think that you aren't simply overlooking a hardware, Windows, or setup cause of your complaints. Until you show us evidence that rules out a hardware, Windows, or setup cause, we're going to continue to suspect that one of those is the culprit rather than the more exotic and less-believable reason you're proposing.

(After all, you led off this thread by stating that you assumed something which isn't true, so from our points of view it seems reasonable to think that might not be the only mistaken assumption you're making. We [U]are[/U] trying to help you by challenging your apparent assumptions!)

[quote]I'm not saying it's a hardware or windows issue.[/quote]... and we're not claiming that you [U]are[/U] saying that. It's just that nothing you've posted so far rules those out, so we suspect that you're assigning blame to the wrong cause.

[quote]It's not a page file issue, my processing power isn't being taken up by another program, and (if it comes up) I'm not throttling my system. It's not anything like that.[/quote]Fine. Show us your local.txt, prime.txt and worktodo.txt files (after masking out info like passwords, IDs, ComputerGUID, assignment hex strings, & specific exponent numbers) so we can see your setup, and thus have information that might lead us to agree with you!

It's not that we don't understand what you're claiming; it's that you haven't shown us data that convinces us that you're not overlooking a hardware, Windows, or setup cause for your complaints.

[quote]Prime95 is running as fast as it's able to, and it's still leaving unused cycles.[/quote]But, so far, you haven't given us any data that proves it's not a hardware, Windows or setup issue -- Your complaints about performance can be explained by what we've said so far, so we don't see why we're necessarily wrong.

[I]You still haven't posted the information I requested in post #5, which would enable us to see how your setup might be different from what we're assuming or deducing and thus rule out a hardware, Windows or setup explanation![/I]