I haven't made any changes to the code.

There was a version available for a few days about a year ago that used that format. People preferred the M (xxxxxxxx) C format for various reasons so it got changed back.

I've a request:

A user recently submitted the final line of screen output and then later submitted the line from results.txt. The screen output did not contain the offset=XXX value. Consequently, the server thought this was 2 separate CUDALUCAS runs (one with offset zero, one with a non-zero offset) and marked the exponent verified.

Could the screen output be changed to match the results.txt output?

It could, but exactly what the output is now depends on how the user sets it up. I haven't talked with Jerry about this, but personally I would prefer to see something more along the lines of what mprime does for verification of results.

I'm with owftheevil here.
That [edit: I think he talks about the CRC/secret stuff] would also allow us to "more accurately" validate LL and DC from the same machine, assuming the shift is not the same.
The user must still be able to adjusts the format of its screen output. Not all people like 150 characters wide cmd prompt windows.
For right now (James?), I would just reject lines that come without shift value, or not consider them a valid DC; all current versions of cudaLucas have the shift value in the reports.

Hi,

I upgraded from [i]CUDALucas-2.04 Beta-4.1-sm_21-x64[/i] to [i]Release_CUDALucas_205Beta_CUDA4.2-x64_r68[/i] and now my display driver bombs after a few hours under CudaLUCAS.

I get “Display driver nvlddmkm stopped responding and has successfully recovered” message in the events log.

Perhaps I use wrong combination of libraries? Would you please recommend the exact version numbers of CudaLUCAS and CUDA dlls for [i]GTX580[/i] under [i]64-bit Windows 7[/i]?

Thank you.

This is an old issue, the "stability" depends on your card and driver versions.
It was discussed in the past in this thread or relatives. No matter which drivers and compute capability you use, it will still crash occasionally, especially if you have "mixtures" of CC in your system (like I have gtx580 and Titan, CC 2.0 and 3.x), or when some other application makes a large video memory request, regardless what you do.

My solution is to pick up the drivers and libraries which give me the fastest speed, and launch cudaLucas from a batch like

[CODE]
:label
start cudalucas /low /blahblah /alltheotherparameters
goto label
[/CODE]
In this way, when it crashes, it only loses the work done from the last checkpoint. The loop ensures that the work is resumed according with the worktodo and the ini file, and the card doesn't stay idle until you have time to attend to it. Of course, if it crashes too often (I would say that two times per a 65M LL test is "too often") then you have to look for better drivers.

You can stop it with ctrl/c as usual.

Is there a common benchmark for CUDALucas?

I just ran './CUDALucas -d 0 -threadbench 1024 8192 1 0' on my reference/stock GTX 980.[LIST][*]CUDALucas r71[*]NVidia driver 343.22[*]CUDA toolkit V6.5.12[/LIST]Attached is the full screen output.
Summarized output (FFT sizes {5..8} * 2[SUP]n[/SUP])
[CODE]
------- DEVICE 0 -------
name GeForce GTX 980
Compatibility 5.2
clockRate (MHz) 1215
memClockRate (MHz) 3505
[...]
fft = 1024K, min time = 1.7851 ms, square: 128, splice: 512
fft = 1280K, min time = 2.3391 ms, square: 32, splice: 128
fft = 1536K, min time = 2.7773 ms, square: 32, splice: 64
fft = 1792K, min time = 3.2179 ms, square: 32, splice: 64
fft = 2048K, min time = 3.3182 ms, square: 32, splice: 128
fft = 2560K, min time = 4.5310 ms, square: 32, splice: 128
fft = 3072K, min time = 5.4528 ms, square: 128, splice: 32
fft = 3584K, min time = 6.2656 ms, square: 64, splice: 128
fft = 4096K, min time = 6.6292 ms, square: 128, splice: 64
fft = 5120K, min time = 8.9248 ms, square: 32, splice: 128
fft = 6144K, min time = 10.7820 ms, square: 32, splice: 256
fft = 7168K, min time = 12.4605 ms, square: 256, splice: 512
fft = 8192K, min time = 13.4926 ms, square: 64, splice: 64
[/CODE]

Oliver

[QUOTE=TheJudger;383727]Is there a common benchmark for CUDALucas?
[/QUOTE]
Might not be the most thorough of benchmarks(since FFT benchmark will show timings for different FFT sizes), but may I suggest running CUDALucas against M(6,972,593) ?
It's small, so the prime verification process will not take long.

Is there a way to, in essence, back off the speed of CUDALucas? I get crashes pretty constantly using the latest NVIDIA drivers, and my GPU temperatures venture into the upper 80s. I would like to run CUDALucas during the day when I'm not using the computer, but I don't want to be pushing my GPU into high temperatures for hours at a time. Thanks!

Run with -polite [I]n[/I] where [I]n[/I] is an integer to 'delay' CUDALucas. Try 50 to start and adjust from there :smile: