[QUOTE=Dubslow;294155]Gah, I can't get anything beyond 270.xx to install properly on 11.04 :P[/QUOTE]

I had similar problems running the drivers package downloaded from NVIDIA.

I resolved stopping the gdm (sudo service gdm stop), from a console (ctrl-alt-F2) and issuing the following commands:

[code]
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates

sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install nvidia-current nvidia-settings

sudo service gdm start
[/code]

HTH :smile:

Luigi

Ah, I've been wondering why nvidia-current wasn't getting passed 270.xx. Thanks, I'll have to try that when I get back to my desktop.

[QUOTE=LaurV;294102]Another 1 DC success and 1 DC fail for v1.69 (26242253 and respective 26269081), first reported, second running TC. This makes the score 3 to 1. For the former version I had 12 to 2. The mismatches were caused by hardware (OC, memory, playing too much around, whatever).

Switching to v2.0. I will resume the current work done with 1.69, few checkpoints behind, to see what's going on, if I get same residues.

Theoretically I am now able to build my own exe, but I prefer to use the one provided by flashjh, as it is now recognized as well compiled and running without issues, until I would be confident with my play'around.[/QUOTE]

Got a match for the jobs started with 1.69 and resumed with v2.0, for exponent 26244851. So, the procedure works.

Aslo, my TC for [COLOR=Red][B]26269081[/B] [/COLOR](started with 1.69 and resumed with 2.0 after about 5M iterations) got the [B]same residue as my previous DC[/B] (done with 1.69 in full). Unfortunately I was enough stupid and reported it (copy/paste mistake) so we lost the assignment. But I can say almost 100% (the reserve is for an eventual software bug in CudaLucas) that my CL DC+TC residue is correct and the original P95 residue is wrong.

If one of you got this exponent, [B]don't run it with CudaLucas[/B]. I will add it to the "Don't DC..." thread too. I am curious to know the final result in case the expo will be cleared, but I can't P95-it by myself right now.

Huh...
That raises some very disconcerting questions about the accuracy of curtisc's tests... (unless cosmic ray?)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;294207]Huh...
That raises some very disconcerting questions about the accuracy of curtisc's tests... (unless cosmic ray?)[/QUOTE]
Not really, this is not the first time we meet a DC which is not conform with FC, and when run TC shows that DC was right and FC was wrong. That is why we do DC/TC, and historical error rate is not insignificant. There ARE exponents with wrong residue for the first LL test in the PrimeNet DB.

edit: in fact about 3 LL tests in 2 hundreds are wrong, and this is normal, according with last paragraph of [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php"]this[/URL]. It is not the first time for me too, see the "Don't DC them..." thread, and I still keep the residue chain for all of them till they are cleared. For the exponent in cause, I have all the checkpoint files every 100k, starting from 5M (the one done with CL2.0). If anyone is interested in repeating the test, please use P95, and put the line "InterimFiles=100000" and "InterimResidues=100000" into prime.txt file. I can post (or send) the list of residues, for confirmation.

[QUOTE=LaurV;294213]Not really, this is not the first time we meet a DC which is not confirm with FC, and when run TC shows that DC was right and FC was wrong. That is why we do DC/TC, and historical error rate is not insignificant.[/QUOTE]


I'm saying though, the first test was done by curtisc, and at the moment, it appears to be wrong. How many others of his are wrong? Or was it just a cosmic ray, not a hardware error?


[QUOTE=ET_;294159]I had similar problems running the drivers package downloaded from NVIDIA.

I resolved stopping the gdm (sudo service gdm stop), from a console (ctrl-alt-F2) and issuing the following commands:

[code]
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates

sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install nvidia-current nvidia-settings

sudo service gdm start
[/code]

HTH :smile:

Luigi[/QUOTE]

Oh my goodness, how did you figure out what to do? I've been floundering with this one since like last October. mfaktc 0.18, here I come!!!

On Debian unstable, I had a performance problem with 295.20 on mfaktc and gpu-ecm (performance was divided by more than 3), but it came back to the previous level (290.x) after installing 295.33.

When -t saves yer ass:

[CODE]
Iteration 18600000 M( 26276197 )C, 0xcfa7786f54f16d9b, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1348 (5:05 real, 3.0521 ms/iter, ETA 6:26:35)
Iteration 18700000 M( 26276197 )C, 0xc1f11399edd62632, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1348 (5:06 real, 3.0634 ms/iter, ETA 6:22:55)
Iteration 18800000 M( 26276197 )C, 0xfb97497ee5183685, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.1348 (5:08 real, 3.0807 ms/iter, ETA 6:19:57)
iteration = 18822701 >= 1000 && err = 0.498047 >= 0.35,fft length = 1474560 write checkpoint file and exit.(when enable -t option)
[/CODE]

by the way, I found out that the residue written to the name of the file in this case is not the last known good residue, but the last residue written to a file. This is not a big deal, anyhow I resumed few checkpoints before, just to be sure.

[QUOTE=LaurV;294242]by the way, I found out that the residue written to the name of the file in this case is not the last known good residue, but the last residue written to a file. This is not a big deal, anyhow I resumed few checkpoints before, just to be sure.[/QUOTE]
Please add log.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;294025]Thanks to those who have submitted data, but I need more data points, please. :smile:[/QUOTE]Thanks everyone who has submitted data, I now have a pretty good picture of CUDALucas throughput, and can current predict timings +/- 6% for pretty much any card.

[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/cudalucas.php[/url]

Performance depends on GFLOPS, FFT size, and compute version. As with mfaktc, compute 2.0 is best, 2.1 is second-best and 1.3 is slowest.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;294256]Thanks everyone who has submitted data, I now have a pretty good picture of CUDALucas throughput, and can current predict timings +/- 6% for pretty much any card.

[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/cudalucas.php[/url]

Performance depends on GFLOPS, FFT size, and compute version. As with mfaktc, compute 2.0 is best, 2.1 is second-best and 1.3 is slowest.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for putting this together.