Hi Jason,

[QUOTE=jasonp;217102]Maybe you could include the same kernel compiled two different ways, then choose which one to use based on the number of GPU registers as reported by the Nvidia driver.[/QUOTE]

I would say that this is not needed. The 71bit kernel uses 16 registers with and without the limit to 16 registers.
The 75bit kernel uses 17/16 (limit off / on) and the 95bit kernel uses 18/16 registers. 17 or 18 is basically the same since registers are allocated in groups of 4.
I made some tests on my GTX 275 (compute capability 1.3, 16384 register per multiprocessor) and didn't notice any difference in performance. With and without limit to 16 registers it runs a the same speed.
On my 8400GS (compute capability 1.1, 8192 register per multiprocessor) it runs [B]~1% faster[/B] with the limit to 16 registers! It think this is related to the fact that the occupancy is higher.
16 registers * 256 threads per block = 4096 registers per block ==> two blocks can run at the same time one the same multiprocessor!
(With 192 threads per block I could use 20 registers per block an run 2 blocks at the same time...)

[QUOTE=TheJudger;217497]
(With 192 threads per block I could use 20 registers per block an run 2 blocks at the same time...)[/QUOTE]

less than 0.1% faster than 256 threads per block and limit to 16 registers on GS8400. Definitely not worth the extra work/code.

Hi David,

[QUOTE=henryzz;217260]Currently at OBD all the available assignments are taking numbers on from 75 bits or more. Based on testing upto 70 bits 75-76 will take me ~8.4 hours. I can't often guarantee that my pc will be running that long at once but I would like to help out a bit. Is there any chance of making partial bit levels available or having some sort of saving feature.[/QUOTE]

mfaktc 0.08 has resume capability. Release is planned for the next few days.

Oliver

[quote=TheJudger;217566]Hi David,



mfaktc 0.08 has resume capability. Release is planned for the next few days.

Oliver[/quote]
Brilliant news.
I wait expectantly.

How do I force Prime95 to bench a exponent with fixed bounds like bit_min and bit_max similar to mfaktc ?
How should worktodo.txt file look like inside?

[QUOTE=Karl M Johnson;217898]How do I force Prime95 to bench a exponent with fixed bounds like bit_min and bit_max similar to mfaktc ?
How should worktodo.txt file look like inside?[/QUOTE]

worktodo.txt:
Factor=bla,exponent,bitmin,bitmax

Luigi

Prime95 doesnt like that bla. I assume feeding a random hash of required length will calm it. Here's an example from PrimeNET : hash,49653607,69,0. Now, why is bitmin 69 and bitmax 0 ? Is bitmax = 0 = infinity ?

[QUOTE=Karl M Johnson;217968]Prime95 doesnt like that bla. I assume feeding a random hash of required length will calm it.[/QUOTE]

If you don't have an assignment key (that's what's supposed to go in place of the "bla"), leave it blank with no leading comma, (Factor=exponent,bitmin,bitmax) or put "N/A" (Factor=N/A,exponent,bitmin,bitmax).
[QUOTE=Karl M Johnson;217968]Here's an example from PrimeNET : hash,49653607,69,0. Now, why is bitmin 69 and bitmax 0 ? Is bitmax = 0 = infinity ?[/QUOTE]

Is that example line from an LL test or DC and not a TF assignment? For Test= and DoubleCheck=, the last part there (the ",0") isn't bitmax, it's has_been_pminus1ed (1 if the number has had a P-1 run, 0 if it hasn't).

[QUOTE=Karl M Johnson;217968]Prime95 doesnt like that bla. I assume feeding a random hash of required length will calm it. Here's an example from PrimeNET : hash,49653607,69,0. Now, why is bitmin 69 and bitmax 0 ? Is bitmax = 0 = infinity ?[/QUOTE]

Personally, I use "DEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEF" for "bla". It's legitimate hexadecimal.

Hi,

find attached mfaktc 0.08. :smile:

Highlights:
- 2 new GPU kernels for factors up to 2^75 and 2^95 (above 2^90 isn't tested very well :sad:)
- resume capability

For details take a look at Changelog.txt and README.txt.

Thank you Luigi (ET_) and Kevin (kjaget) for testing and comments! :smile:

Oliver

Hi Karl,

[QUOTE=Karl M Johnson;217968]Prime95 doesnt like that bla. I assume feeding a random hash of required length will calm it. Here's an example from PrimeNET : hash,49653607,69,0. Now, why is bitmin 69 and bitmax 0 ? Is bitmax = 0 = infinity ?[/QUOTE]

I think you have to override the factor defaults. Prime95 automatically sets the upper limit unless you override it. I would take a look into undoc.txt and search for "factor override" in the forum/web.

Oliver