Still modern?
 

Does it still make sense to do work in/for prime95? Or is it already too old, so the prime numbers in that are given out are already too small for a World Record/the program is slow compared to other newer ones....?

Just wanting to know if it still makes sense... ( I of course went as assignment for a World Record one on my 2.4 GHZ Dual Core (but jsut use one worker so I can do other stuff while the computer runs)...if I calculated it right the 49 Million Iterations will take me about 2 month?!?!, is that correct,does it make sense that I do it or should I rather do smaller assignments or nothing at all?

Demondog11

Also I heard I could get both of my Cores working on the same problem (number), how exactly do I do this? (I don't have a lot of knowledge about computers/mathmatics)

Sry for all my added stuff ;):

I figured out how to run multiple cores on one numbernwo, the problem I have right now is:

It automatically selects the one I had on my first core before (Worker 1). Is there a way, I can have it to use both cores on my second worker?

Welcome to GIMPS!
 

[quote=Unregistered;221343]Does it still make sense to do work in/for prime95?[/quote]

Just FYI, the project that you are working for is called GIMPS, which stands for "Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search". Prime95 is simply a program that allows you (your computer) to complete and contribute units of work (e.g. trial factoring, LL tests, etc.) to the GIMPS project. So it is more correct to say that you're working on GIMPS, rather than working on Prime95.

[quote]Or is it already too old, so the prime numbers in that are given out are already too small for a World Record/the program is slow compared to other newer ones....?[/quote]

The author of Prime95, and director of the GIMPS project, George Woltman is constantly refining and releasing new upgrades to Prime95. Since the project started in early 1996, there have been some 25 different major releases of Prime95, with a 26th on the way in the near future. Each release takes advantage of state-of-the-art CPU architectures, instruction sets, etc. Moreover, the underlying code for the multiplication of large integers is the fastest of its kind in the world. For the primality testing of Mersenne numbers (GIMPS' primary goal), you literally cannot come close to anything as fast as Prime95.

The current world record prime is 2^43,112,609-1, found by GIMPS in April 2009 (see mersenne.org for more information). There is no proof (yet) that infinitely many Mersenne primes should exist, but it "makes sense" that there could be. So if you're looking to set a world record, you would need to test numbers of the form 2^p-1 for p > 43,112,609. You can accomplish this by choosing to receive the worktype "World Record Tests" in your Prime95 client. In fact, even if you select "First Time LL", there is a good chance you will receive an exponent big enough for a world record, should it be returned prime.

In summary, Prime95 is as new and as state-of-the-art as you could ever hope to get, and there is no danger of running out of world record test candidates probably within the lifetime of anybody currently alive!

[quote]Just wanting to know if it still makes sense... [/quote]

Of course. Unless someone comes along with a proof that there are finitely many Mersenne primes, the sky is the limit for testing. In theory, you cannot currently test any exponent higher than 596 million on Prime95, but for most, that's not a big deal, as testing such an exponent would literally take decades.

[quote]( I of course went as assignment for a World Record one on my 2.4 GHZ Dual Core (but jsut use one worker so I can do other stuff while the computer runs)...[/quote]

Actually, you can use both cores without *any* loss of performance. Another great thing about Prime95 is that it is designed to use only your computer's *idle* CPU cycles - in between when you do useful work. Consider that 2.4 GHz means that your computer is running at 2.4 billion cycles *per second*! Out of this huge number of available cycles, your work likely takes only a small fraction of them - the rest of the time, your system is just sitting there, idling. But with Prime95 running in the background constantly, there is never an idle cycle wasted...your computer's processor is running at 100% all the time.

[quote]if I calculated it right the 49 Million Iterations will take me about 2 month?!?!, is that correct,does it make sense that I do it or should I rather do smaller assignments or nothing at all?[/quote]

This is absolutely normal. 49 million is a common assignment length right now, and takes about 1 1/2 - 2 months on most hardware in use today. Remember that if you hope to find a world record prime, as I mentioned above, you have to test exponents bigger than 43,112,609. You can use your second core either to run another test, or run two cores on your single 49 million test - this would allow you to finish in roughly 60% of the time it would take a single core (say, 30-40 days or so).

If you don't fancy the idea of waiting so long for the LL test to complete, there are many other shorter assignment types available (none of which, unfortunately, would enable you to possibly find a new Mersenne prime). Trial factoring assignments take from mere minutes to hours, and double-checking assignments (which are desperately needed right now - see some of the other threads) take only a couple of weeks or so. P-1 factoring, which seeks to eliminate candidate Mersenne numbers with relatively small factors, is another good choice, if you have a decent amount of available RAM. P-1 assignments take from 24-72 hours or so.

You have a nice machine and an interest in the project, which are the two most important things to get started. Try different worktypes out and see what interests you the most. Eventually you'll even get used to waiting for an LL test to finish - a couple of months goes by faster than you might expect - and once you finish your first test, it's easy to be hooked!

Welcome to GIMPS, and please don't hesitate to ask questions here on the forum, if we can be of any more help. Your contributions to the project are definitely appreciated!

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;221364]In summary, Prime95 is as new and as state-of-the-art as you could ever hope to get, and there is no danger of running out of world record test candidates probably within the lifetime of anybody currently alive![/QUOTE]Thanks for posting that. I didn't have the time to do the long explanation. Yours is great.

[quote=Unregistered;221357]Sry for all my added stuff ;):

I figured out how to run multiple cores on one numbernwo, the problem I have right now is:

It automatically selects the one I had on my first core before (Worker 1). Is there a way, I can have it to use both cores on my second worker?[/quote]

I'm not sure if you've sorted out this question yet or not, but I'm having a little difficulty understanding what exactly you're asking. When you first signed up for GIMPS with a dual-core system, the default would have been for GIMPS to assign you *two* exponents to test - one for each core. Now, given that you have two cores and two exponents to test, here would be your options:

(1) Run one exponent on each core (this is actually the most efficient way to do things)

(2) Pick a single exponent and let both cores work on it (this will get the test done faster, but it will not be exactly twice as fast, due to the fact that the computation of an LL test cannot be completely parallelized)

(3) If you choose option (2), you will need to decide whether or not you wish to keep the second exponent that you were assigned. If you don't want to keep it, you can unreserve the exponent from your GIMPS account assignments page. On the other hand, you could just keep the other assignment in your worktodo file to start on once your first assignment finishes.

There is no way, however, to use both cores to test your first exponent, while simultaneously using both cores to test your second exponent. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

[quote=NBtarheel_33;221364]Of course. Unless someone comes along with a proof that there are finitely many Mersenne primes, the sky is the limit for testing. In theory, you cannot currently test any exponent higher than 596 million on Prime95, but for most, that's not a big deal, as testing such an exponent would literally take decades.
[/quote]
Which i pretty certain would be contradicting an existing proof.

[QUOTE=henryzz;221481]Which i pretty certain would be contradicting an existing proof.[/QUOTE]

No, the infinitude of Mersenne primes has not been proven.

[quote=10metreh;221492]No, the infinitude of Mersenne primes has not been proven.[/quote]

That's right but it's most probable that they are.

thanks a lot for the replies it helped me a lot! :)

I now was running 2 Cores on one problem, without any problems (both running at 100% speed), but when I changed, the type of assignment they where supposed to do they both just run at 50% (as if there would be 1 core on 100%). I read the Thread about that in the FAQ but it didn't help me :S. It definately is running just on 50% and it doesn't just display it as such (since the Temp is far from maximum). Is there a way to fix this?

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;221435]

There is no way, however, to use both cores to test your first exponent, while simultaneously using both cores to test your second exponent. You can't have your cake and eat it too...[/QUOTE]

yeah I also didn't mean it like that. What I meant is that when I set the program so it would use both cores on one exponent. It automatically chose to use both cores on the first of the 2 exponents that were given to me, but I would have liked it better if it'd be working on the second one (since it already came further).

How would I unreserve exponents?

Thanks for all your answers, as you can see I'm not a computer (or math) guy...

Demondog11

P.s.: English also isn't my native tongue, therefore I want to apology for all the misunderstandings caused by my writing ;)

Wow, no one took the time to answer his last question? I'll give it a shot.

In terms of your percentage problem, it might not actually be a problem at all. I'm assuming you're using a version of Windows, which I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with to know how it deals with cpu percentages. But, to explain what I THINK is going on...

You have a cpu with 2 cores, or sub-cpus. So, you could either count the whole cpu as 1(100%), or you could count each core as 1. If you count each core individually, then you get the interesting situation of a Task Manager that can list a process(running computer program) as using more than 100% cpu. Myself, I have a Linux box, and I've seen another program(it was the distributed.net client) running with a listed cpu usage of 395%. It was because I have a quad-core and it was rather efficienty using all 4 cores.

In your particular case, I think the computer program considers your entire cpu as 100%. If you're running 1 exponent per core, then each core is at 100%, but each program is only using 50% total power because it's only maxing out it's 1 core. So 1 core is 50% of the available power, and you have 2 cores in your computer, adding up to 100%, or a little less because it has to take care of other stuff at the same time.

I've probably totally confused you since you're foreign, but I suck at explaining stuff. Just didn't want the thread to trail off without an answer.

[quote=jasong;222161]Wow, no one took the time to answer his last question? I'll give it a shot.

In terms of your percentage problem, it might not actually be a problem at all. I'm assuming you're using a version of Windows, which I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with to know how it deals with cpu percentages. But, to explain what I THINK is going on...

You have a cpu with 2 cores, or sub-cpus. So, you could either count the whole cpu as 1(100%), or you could count each core as 1. If you count each core individually, then you get the interesting situation of a Task Manager that can list a process(running computer program) as using more than 100% cpu. Myself, I have a Linux box, and I've seen another program(it was the distributed.net client) running with a listed cpu usage of 395%. It was because I have a quad-core and it was rather efficienty using all 4 cores.

In your particular case, I think the computer program considers your entire cpu as 100%. If you're running 1 exponent per core, then each core is at 100%, but each program is only using 50% total power because it's only maxing out it's 1 core. So 1 core is 50% of the available power, and you have 2 cores in your computer, adding up to 100%, or a little less because it has to take care of other stuff at the same time.

I've probably totally confused you since you're foreign, but I suck at explaining stuff. Just didn't want the thread to trail off without an answer.[/quote]
FYI, Windows never has CPU percentages go over 100%. On a dual-core system like the OP's, it will work like this:

-For a single-threaded application (like v24 Prime95) using one core, Task Manager will say that application is using 50% CPU. Likewise, if you have two concurrent programs using one core each, it will show each using 50% for a total of 100% CPU utilization.

-For a multi-threaded applicaton (like v25 Prime95, the current version that the OP has) using both cores, Task Manager will say the application is using 100% CPU (or close to it).

In the OP's case, his setup is like the second case described above. He has Prime95 set to run both cores on the same exponent, which should produce a figure close to 100% for Prime95.exe in Task Manager.

Demondog11, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're seeing a figure of 50% for Prime95.exe in Task Manager, which would indicate that Prime95 is not configured the way you want it to be. Can you post a screenshot of Task Manager (sorted by the CPU % column) to confirm this?

Thanks again for the answers... (it is me Demondog, I now registered^^)

I had the computer work on a 100M+ exponent which I then had to sdee was useless (didn't want to wait till August 2022 just for LL Test). After I unreserved the exponent I made both Cores work on one World Record-size. THat'll just take about a 5weeks now that I'm done with all factoring,P-1....

It now is working at 100% (99%) again, so I guess something went wrong when I configured them 100M+worker. Since the problem is solved I think the thread can be closed?!?

Thanks to all helpers (and yes I did understand all the explanations ;) )

Demondog11/Little Kid

[QUOTE=Little Kid;222204]Thanks again for the answers... (it is me Demondog, I now registered^^)

I had the computer work on a 100M+ exponent which I then had to sdee was useless (didn't want to wait till August 2022 just for LL Test). After I unreserved the exponent I made both Cores work on one World Record-size. [/QUOTE]

World Record-size of what????

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;222215]World Record-size of what????[/QUOTE]

I think this is rather obvious given the context in which "world record" appears.