I have a few questions about getting my GPU working for GIMPS
 

I just finished building a new rig. It runs an i5-4460 and an R9 280x. I have the i5 running first-time LL tests, and it's doing great. Seeing 4 cores crunch 4 exponents at 3.2 Gz over several days is very cool to watch, and I feel like that amount of computing power is a significant contribution. I even decided to set up my laptop, which runs a 2.2 Ghz single-core to run TF tests (I know that that clock speed warrents first-time LL tests, but I want to fix some stability issues with the machine before committing to long-term assignments). Anyways, my 280x isn't doing much while I'm away, and I'm using my colleges' electricity, so I figured I could put it to work. However, the GPU programs don't seem as straight forward as Prime95. I understand that results have to be manually sent in, but which program should I use? What kind of test is my GPU best suited for? Is the program as tolerant as Prime95 when it comes to throttling down when other things demand cycles and automatically picking up where it left off when the computer restarts? How efficient will the GPU be compared to the CPU? Will the GPU program demand enough CPU cycles to impact Prime95? Thanks.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]I just finished building a new rig. It runs an i5-4460 and an R9 280x. I have the i5 running first-time LL tests, and it's doing great. Seeing 4 cores crunch 4 exponents at 3.2 Gz over several days is very cool to watch, and I feel like that amount of computing power is a significant contribution. I even decided to set up my laptop, which runs a 2.2 Ghz single-core to run TF tests (I know that that clock speed warrents first-time LL tests, but I want to fix some stability issues with the machine before committing to long-term assignments). Anyways, my 280x isn't doing much while I'm away, and I'm using my colleges' electricity, so I figured I could put it to work.[/QUOTE]
Great!

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]However, the GPU programs don't seem as straight forward as Prime95.[/QUOTE]
True.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]I understand that results have to be manually sent in, but which program should I use? What kind of test is my GPU best suited for?[/QUOTE]
There are three major programs for GPUs right now:[LIST][*]mfaktc - TF for CUDA (NVIDIA)[*]mfakto - TF for OpenCL (AMD)[*]CUDALucas - LL for CUDA (NVIDIA)[/LIST]So your only (easy) option is [URL="https://github.com/Bdot42/mfakto"]mfakto[/URL]. Relative to CPUs, GPUs are far better at TF, anyway, and even with an NVIDIA GPU, TF would be the standard preference.
[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/misfit/"]MISFIT[/URL] will automatically retrieve and submit your TF work, so you don't need to do it manually.
I'd recommend you use that in conjunction with the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/"]"GPU to 72"[/URL] project to easily get optimal-depth TF assignments.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]Is the program as tolerant as Prime95 when it comes to throttling down when other things demand cycles and automatically picking up where it left off when the computer restarts?[/QUOTE]
I have experience with mfaktc with my Nvidia, not with mfakto, but I'd assume the same applies:
No, it's not as good as Prime95 in this way. You can tweak the configuration file to adjust UI responsiveness vs TF speed. I wrote a [URL="https://github.com/Mini-Geek/mfaktx-controller"]controller[/URL] to handle this for you automatically, pausing or running at slow, medium, or fast speeds in response to what you're doing with your computer (idle, running games, etc.).
It does, however, have great checkpointing. You can set it to checkpoint every few seconds (smaller checkpoint files than LLs means that's reasonable), so that it can continue from there when you restart.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]How efficient will the GPU be compared to the CPU?[/QUOTE]
Your CPU does [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/throughput.php?cpu1=Intel%28R%29+Core%28TM%29+i5-4430+CPU+%40+3.00GHz%7C256%7C6144&mhz1=3000"]about 4*11 (44)[/URL] GHz-Days/day of LL or 4*5 (20) GHz-Days/day of TF. Your GPU will do [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php"]about 375[/URL] GHz-Days/day of TF. Since GPUs are only well-suited to TF (as far as current GPUs, programs, and GIMPS work is concerned), it's not really reasonable to directly compare these numbers, but GPUs are certainly a big contribution to GIMPS! Their use allows us to TF to much greater depths (e.g. 73 bits instead of 68), and release CPUs from needing to TF at all.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382212]Will the GPU program demand enough CPU cycles to impact Prime95?[/QUOTE]
No. At one time this was the case, but since the sieving (eliminating some composite factors before seeing if they divide) can be done on the GPU, it will only use a trivial amount of CPU cycles.

How do I run mfakto? I downloaded the .zip and ran the mfakto.exe file, but it just runs a quick self test in command prompt and closes.

put a new text-file in the directory of mfakto, write

mfakto.exe -st
mfakto.exe -st2
pause

save it and rename the text-file to something.bat
now run the batch file

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382233]How do I run mfakto? I downloaded the .zip and ran the mfakto.exe file, but it just runs a quick self test in command prompt and closes.[/QUOTE]

If you run mfakto.exe from a command line or from MfaktX Controller, you will be able to see the output after it exits. (or use a batch file with "pause" at the end, as MatWur suggested - although that will only show the results if nothing crashes) Most likely, the problem is simply that you haven't gotten any work for it to do yet.

It tries to read a worktodo.txt file from its current directory, just like Prime95 (except that Prime95 will contact the server itself if there's no more work, and mfakto will not). Most likely, the problem is that you don't have any work here for it yet. Here's an example file (you won't find any factors; these are primes):
[QUOTE]Factor=N/A,43112609,70,73
Factor=N/A,57885161,70,73
[/QUOTE]
This is where MISFIT comes in: it will handle communicating with the server to get work, stick it in worktodo.txt, and then report the results when you're done.

You opened an accounts with GIMPS when you signed up your computer (nice rig, BTW) via the Prime95 software. You can make use of this to get TF work for your GPU by logging on to the PrimeNet page ([URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_500_tf/"]example[/URL]; see top left of page), and then clicking on the spot down the left side where it says "Manual Testing."

Next, click on the "Assignments" choice that will appear below Manual Testing. At that point you'll get a new screen offering you several options. I've never entered anything but the default 1 for "Number of CPUs." The interesting choices for our purposes here have to do with the "Number of assignments" and "Preferred work type." Click on the little arrow next to this last one, and select "Trial factoring" since that's what you want for MAFAKTO and your GPU.

As for the number of assignments, you have a fast graphics card, so unless you select a ton of assignments you will find yourself constantly running out of work to do. Go by trial and error; I'd start with 64 or so and then see how long it takes your card to race through them; then you can judge how often you want to submit factoring reports and, from that, how many factors you need to grab in order to report at the intervals you prefer. Copy and paste the exponents into your worktodo.txt file, save it, and start up MFAKTO again. (No special settings or flags are generally required, as over time the program has gotten better and better at automatically determining the optimal settings for a variety of cards. But it might be fun to read around the forum here as to the settings people have tried, and then to experiment with your own tweaks to the default settings.)

When the GPU finishes factoring the exponents, MFAKTO will stop. You can then go back into PrimeNet to submit the results via the same Manual Testing route, except that this time you'll select the "Results" sub-option. A big box will appear where you can paste in the contents of the worktodo.txt file. But bear in mind that there may be a limit to the amount of information that your browser can handle at one time. If you exceed it, you'll get an error message and then you'll have to copy-and-paste a smaller chunk from worktodo.txt. (In my experience, Internet Explorer 9/10/11 can handle somewhere north of 105 lines at a time without hiccuping.)

At the end of it, don't forget to get yourself a new batch of assignments.

(An alternative strategy for getting assignments is to grab several hundred at a time, and then report as often as you decide on the ones that have been done up to that point.)

All that said, a lot of people prefer to automate the process by using GPU to 72 and MISFIT, as Mini-Geek suggested. But I'd recommend starting out the manual way so that you get a sense of the process and how it works; when you then move on to the automated methods, you'll have a better understanding of what's going on.

I do recommend keeping an eye on your GPU's temperatures. If they get too high, performance might be throttled, crippling your throughput. MFAKTO (as well as MFAKTC) will keep you constantly updated on its performance, so you will be able to see at once if the output fluctuates significantly, which in my experience is a sign of cooling issues.

Hope this helps. Good luck, and have fun following your name as it shoots up in the rankings.

Rodrigo

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;382264] <SNIP>

But bear in mind that there may be a limit to the amount of information that your browser can handle at one time. If you exceed it, you'll get an error message and then you'll have to copy-and-paste a smaller chunk from worktodo.txt. (In my experience, Internet Explorer 9/10/11 can handle somewhere north of 105 lines at a time without hiccuping.)

<SNIP>[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

The other day, I wasn't paying much attention and I submitted ~350 results (only three factors sadly, if I recall...) in the big box instead of uploading the .txt. This is with the latest version of chrome (and the new-and-improved server), and it worked perfectly fine.

I think the 4 KB limit is an artifact.

[QUOTE=Rodrigo;382264]You opened an accounts with GIMPS when you signed up your computer (nice rig, BTW) via the Prime95 software. You can make use of this to get TF work for your GPU by logging on to the PrimeNet page ([URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_top_500_tf/"]example[/URL]; see top left of page), and then clicking on the spot down the left side where it says "Manual Testing."

Next, click on the "Assignments" choice that will appear below Manual Testing. At that point you'll get a new screen offering you several options. I've never entered anything but the default 1 for "Number of CPUs." The interesting choices for our purposes here have to do with the "Number of assignments" and "Preferred work type." Click on the little arrow next to this last one, and select "Trial factoring" since that's what you want for MAFAKTO and your GPU.

As for the number of assignments, you have a fast graphics card, so unless you select a ton of assignments you will find yourself constantly running out of work to do. Go by trial and error; I'd start with 64 or so and then see how long it takes your card to race through them; then you can judge how often you want to submit factoring reports and, from that, how many factors you need to grab in order to report at the intervals you prefer. Copy and paste the exponents into your worktodo.txt file, save it, and start up MFAKTO again. (No special settings or flags are generally required, as over time the program has gotten better and better at automatically determining the optimal settings for a variety of cards. But it might be fun to read around the forum here as to the settings people have tried, and then to experiment with your own tweaks to the default settings.)

When the GPU finishes factoring the exponents, MFAKTO will stop. You can then go back into PrimeNet to submit the results via the same Manual Testing route, except that this time you'll select the "Results" sub-option. A big box will appear where you can paste in the contents of the worktodo.txt file. But bear in mind that there may be a limit to the amount of information that your browser can handle at one time. If you exceed it, you'll get an error message and then you'll have to copy-and-paste a smaller chunk from worktodo.txt. (In my experience, Internet Explorer 9/10/11 can handle somewhere north of 105 lines at a time without hiccuping.)

At the end of it, don't forget to get yourself a new batch of assignments.

(An alternative strategy for getting assignments is to grab several hundred at a time, and then report as often as you decide on the ones that have been done up to that point.)

All that said, a lot of people prefer to automate the process by using GPU to 72 and MISFIT, as Mini-Geek suggested. But I'd recommend starting out the manual way so that you get a sense of the process and how it works; when you then move on to the automated methods, you'll have a better understanding of what's going on.

I do recommend keeping an eye on your GPU's temperatures. If they get too high, performance might be throttled, crippling your throughput. MFAKTO (as well as MFAKTC) will keep you constantly updated on its performance, so you will be able to see at once if the output fluctuates significantly, which in my experience is a sign of cooling issues.

Hope this helps. Good luck, and have fun following your name as it shoots up in the rankings.

Rodrigo[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I was having trouble getting MISFIT to link up to GPU to 72, so I started a single exponent manually and it's working. Since GPUs have so many "cores" is there any way of multithreading mfakto to crunch multiple exponents at once? I've never understood the thing where GPUs have a lot of "cores" and are good at parallel stuff.

Also, mfakto is taking up 25% of my cpu. How can I reduce this?

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382334]Thanks. I was having trouble getting MISFIT to link up to GPU to 72, so I started a single exponent manually and it's working. Since GPUs have so many "cores" is there any way of multithreading mfakto to crunch multiple exponents at once? I've never understood the thing where GPUs have a lot of "cores" and are good at parallel stuff.[/QUOTE]

Well, there's not much to it. GPU's have lots of cores which are individually quite slow, but there are LOTS (The GTX Titan Black has 2880). Rendering 3D graphics is essentially the crunching of a stupid amount of 4x4 matrices so it's all a bunch of linear algebra; juicy targets for parallel computing.

However, mfakto and mfaktc already make full use of the available hardware. If you monitor your GPU usage, it should be at 100% unless you're throttling the speed.

Back when the sieving was done by the CPU, it was possible that the CPU was "too slow" for the GPU and you would actually need to run two instances of mfaktc/o (each one with a different CPU core) to fully saturate the GPU, but now they're already running at full.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382337]Also, mfakto is taking up 25% of my cpu. How can I reduce this?[/QUOTE]

Uhh... Does mfakto not do its own sieving?

That question isn't directed to you, really. There *might* be an option that isn't configured properly which is causing the program to do CPU sieving instead of GPU sieving. If you have the time or inclination, you could look around for that option. It might be in a file named mfakto.ini? I use the NVidia version so I couldn't say for sure.

Look for a .ini file and open it with notepad. Do a search for sieving and see if you can find what you're looking for, while we wait for someone who knows a bit better. That's the best I can do for you, I'm afraid.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382337]Also, mfakto is taking up 25% of my cpu. How can I reduce this?[/QUOTE]

Make sure that you're running a recent version, and that SieveOnGPU is enabled (it is by default). This appears to be a good source:
[url]http://mersenneforum.org/mfakto/mfakto-0.14/[/url]
(GPU sieving was added in 0.13)

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382337]Also, mfakto is taking up 25% of my cpu. How can I reduce this?[/QUOTE]

25%? That seems like the AMD driver bug we've had a while back... not cpu-sieving. What driver version do you have?

[QUOTE=kracker;382343]25%? That seems like the AMD driver bug we've had a while back... not cpu-sieving. What driver version do you have?[/QUOTE]
+1 to this, you should have a 64 bit OS, install the new catalyst/drivers, and use the last mfakto, and sieve on gpu. It should not take CPU resources at all (well, almost. You will notify a small decrease in the performance when all the CPU cores are really busy, the GPU can not run totally by itself). You should reach [U]at least[/U] the [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd&noN=1"]numbers shown here[/URL], or better ("at least" because those numbers are a bit conservative) for your card. This as a check that your setup is right.

[QUOTE=LaurV;382345]+1 to this, you should have a 64 bit OS, install the new catalyst/drivers, and use the last mfakto, and sieve on gpu. It should not take CPU resources at all (well, almost. You will notify a small decrease in the performance when all the CPU cores are really busy, the GPU can not run totally by itself). You should reach [U]at least[/U] the [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd&noN=1"]numbers shown here[/URL], or better ("at least" because those numbers are a bit conservative) for your card. This as a check that your setup is right.[/QUOTE]

I have Catalyst 14.1. mfakto is version .15pre2.

I downloaded mfakto .14 and it barely uses the CPU. The "Wait" percentage, which seems to have something to do with sieving, is always at zero now, and it's finishing numbers in a few minutes where as .15pre2 took an hour to do one. What's going on? Are the results still correct?

(ignorant of AMD GPUs post deleted by sheepish poster.)

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382360]I downloaded mfakto .14 and it barely uses the CPU. The "Wait" percentage, which seems to have something to do with sieving, is always at zero now, and it's finishing numbers in a few minutes where as .15pre2 took an hour to do one. What's going on? Are the results still correct?[/QUOTE]
You must not have edited mfakto.ini to SieveOnGPU=1. 0.15pre2's default setting (ie. what comes with it in the .zip) is SieveOnGPU=0, while with 0.14 this value is 1.

As TheMawn said, open up mfakto.ini in notepad and Ctrl+F search for "SieveOnGPU", then change the 0 to a 1.

[QUOTE=Jayder;382370]You must not have edited mfakto.ini to SieveOnGPU=1. 0.15pre2's default setting (ie. what comes with it in the .zip) is SieveOnGPU=0, while with 0.14 this value is 1.

As TheMawn said, open up mfakto.ini in notepad and Ctrl+F search for "SieveOnGPU", then change the 0 to a 1.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I thought 1 was the default in both, so I didn't bother. I changed it in .15pre2, so when .14 is done with the batch of 50 TFs I just gave it I'll switch back over.

I'm realizing now that this GPU is crunching TFs much faster than my 2.2Ghz single core laptop, which takes days to crunch TFs. Should it be taking days? At this point I'll probably take it off GIMPS until I reinstall Windows 7.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382391]Oh, I thought 1 was the default in both, so I didn't bother. I changed it in .15pre2, so when .14 is done with the batch of 50 TFs I just gave it I'll switch back over.

I'm realizing now that this GPU is crunching TFs much faster than my 2.2Ghz single core laptop, which takes days to crunch TFs. Should it be taking days? At this point I'll probably take it off GIMPS until I reinstall Windows 7.[/QUOTE]
Depending on the bit level you're TFing to, it's certainly possible for your laptop CPU to take days to finish a TF job. The CPU is probably better off doing DC (LL double-check) tests or P-1 work, although there's no harm in having it do TF.

Rodrigo

That is completely normal, GPUs are extremely good at TF-ing compared to CPUs. CPUs can better be used for P-1 and LL/DC testing.

Yeah. I don't know why slow (laptops for example) CPUs default to TF.

There once was a debate where the conclusion was that 100.01 km/h is faster than 100.00 km/h but the wear and tear on your laptop that is resulting from crunching TF is completely not worth it.

I would recommend double-checks. If you have some RAM available, you could put one worker to P-1.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;382424]Yeah. I don't know why slow (laptops for example) CPUs default to TF.

There once was a debate where the conclusion was that 100.01 km/h is faster than 100.00 km/h but the wear and tear on your laptop that is resulting from crunching TF is completely not worth it.

I would recommend double-checks. If you have some RAM available, you could put one worker to P-1.[/QUOTE]

I'll switch it over to P-1 then. I don't want to run long-term tests on it until I get it a bit more stable. How do TF tests wear down the laptop?

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382434]I'll switch it over to P-1 then. I don't want to run long-term tests on it until I get it a bit more stable. How do TF tests wear down the laptop?[/QUOTE]

Doing anything that runs the CPU at 100% will cause wear and tear on fans, etc. TF is no exception (not significantly worse or better). And since a laptop will do so much less TF than a GPU, the cost/benefit ratio (for most people) tips in favor of "don't run TF". P-1 is a great idea!

[QUOTE=TheMawn;382424]Yeah. I don't know why slow (laptops for example) CPUs default to TF.[/QUOTE]

Probably because before the new assignment rules, slow machines would hold up milestones.

Personally I don't even use my Athlon II X4 640 for crunching because compared the other processors I have access to; it's just too inefficient.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;382438]Doing anything that runs the CPU at 100% will cause wear and tear on fans, etc. TF is no exception (not significantly worse or better). And since a laptop will do so much less TF than a GPU, the cost/benefit ratio (for most people) tips in favor of "don't run TF". P-1 is a great idea![/QUOTE]

Thanks. Given this and other info, I've taken my laptop off of GIMPS for the time being. I have to spend some time getting it stable again, after which I'll run P-1 or DC tests on it. It just wasn't worth it compared to my GPU cutting through batches of 100 TFs in a few hours and my CPU running 4 LL tests in a few weeks. Still, I know it can be of some benefit, but I want to re install Windows, clean out the fan, and downgrade the RAM to it's older, more stable 2GB kit first.

Thanks everyone, this has been very informative. I've already made a lot of progress with my GPU since you guys have helped me, and I hope to keep making contributions to the project from here on out.

I just have one more question. I'm a bit of a completionist, so how do I find out what range of numbers have been tested and double checked, and what has been done so far on other ranges? If possible, I'd like to help by starting at the lowest unchecked/un double checked numbers and filling in the gaps on the way up, regardless of what tests need to be done. I know that that won't always be the most efficient use of my hardware, but I'll only force it to run like that occasionally.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;382391]Oh, I thought 1 was the default in both, so I didn't bother. I changed it in .15pre2, so when .14 is done with the batch of 50 TFs I just gave it I'll switch back over.

I'm realizing now that this GPU is crunching TFs much faster than my 2.2Ghz single core laptop, which takes days to crunch TFs. Should it be taking days? At this point I'll probably take it off GIMPS until I reinstall Windows 7.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for using mfakto to help GIMPS. Please stick with version 0.14 for now. The XX[B]pre[/B]Y versions are pre-release test versions, sometimes for specific purposes. They typically produce correct results but are not yet fully tested. I may need to make that more obvious on the download location. 0.15pre2 is even slower than 0.14 in a few cases (I'm working on that).

[QUOTE=Bdot;382743]Thank you for using mfakto to help GIMPS. Please stick with version 0.14 for now. The XX[B]pre[/B]Y versions are pre-release test versions, sometimes for specific purposes. They typically produce correct results but are not yet fully tested. I may need to make that more obvious on the download location. 0.15pre2 is even slower than 0.14 in a few cases (I'm working on that).[/QUOTE]

Is it bad enough that you recommend I repeat the TFs that I've run so far? I don't understand why TF tests, or at least successful TFs, aren't double checked.

Successful TFs are double checked by the server on entry because the powering algorithm is so fast for a single q.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;383191]Is it bad enough that you recommend I repeat the TFs that I've run so far? I don't understand why TF tests, or at least successful TFs, aren't double checked.[/QUOTE]
There is no need to re-run any TF that was done with 0.15pre2. So far I did not find any bug in the sense of missing a factor during the test. But as mentioned, this version does not always select the optimal way to do the test.

There are no double-checks for no-factor results because of the impact of a missed factor. When mfakto fails to discover an existing factor, there is still some chance that a following P-1 test would discover the factor. If not, then two tests for primality (LL tests) will be done, proving the "no prime" result.

Therefore, missing a factor during TF primarily results in wasted electricity, but not in missed prime numbers.

Since I've had mfakto working correctly, I've run 1000 TF tests, found 18 factors, and have 1538 GHz Days (can someone explain that metric please?). I'm currently ranked 223 on the TF charts, and I'm crunching another block of 200 TFs at the moment. I haven't even been running my GPU the whole time. In fact, it's been idle for more than half the time since I've gotten mfakto running. I might consider trying to hit 10,000 TFs in a long haul before backing down to a slower rate; I want to help, but I also don't want to burn through my 280X's life span too quickly. My point is, the few minutes that you guys spent helping me out has already helped me get very far, and it's contributed what I would consider a significant amount of number crunching to the project. While I know it's a friendly competition, I very much enjoy the fact that I now own a GPU that can compete at such a level in this project. Thanks everyone!

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384445]Since I've had mfakto working correctly,

<snip>


While I know it's a friendly competition, I very much enjoy the fact that I now own a GPU that can compete at such a level in this project. Thanks everyone![/QUOTE]

It is NOT a competition. It is a team effort to reach a collective goal.
Each of us contributes what we can.

If you think that your 'ranking' matters, or your GHz days matter, then you
are participating for the wrong reason.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;384472]It is NOT a competition. It is a team effort to reach a collective goal.
Each of us contributes what we can.

If you think that your 'ranking' matters, or your GHz days matter, then you
are participating for the wrong reason.[/QUOTE]

More precisely, it is not a competition unless you want to see it as a competition, which is fine if you enjoy it as such.

I personally don't care about my or other peoples rankings. But we have those rankings and they are made available for whoever enjoys them.

I think I'm being misunderstood. I care a lot more about the science than the rankings. It's just that my first machine, and the one I've been running on for the past 4 years, was a laptop with an Intel Celeron 900 2.2 GHz single-core processor and integrated graphics. Having a decent rank, even in the top 50%, is significant to me because it's like making a very high score on a benchmark. I'm still having a hard time believing I have a machine this powerful after watching people build ones like it for so long. My motivation for running GIMPS is purely scientific. I want to be an electrical engineer. But if those rankings give me a little extra motivation, I'm not going to feel shitty about myself as long as I keep them in perspective, which I do. If people want to make it a bit of a fun competition that spurs scientific research, that's great. Isn't that how the commercial science industry works anyways? I know GIMPS isn't commercial, but it still works for the industry, and I think it could work to come extent on the smaller scale.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384480]...GIMPS isn't commercial, but it still works for the industry, ...[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't.
It is purely for entertainment. (And for promotion of scientific education, as a byproduct.)

There is nothing wrong with entertainment. It doesn't help anyone to have false reasons for simply having fun.

[QUOTE=Batalov;384486]No, it doesn't.
It is purely for entertainment. (And for promotion of scientific education, as a byproduct.)

There is nothing wrong with entertainment. It doesn't help anyone to have false reasons for simply having fun.[/QUOTE]

I meant that competition works for industry, and it can work to a lesser extent for GIMPS. The comparison is only true on a shallow level though.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384488]I meant that competition works for industry, and it can work to a lesser extent for GIMPS. The comparison is only true on a shallow level though.[/QUOTE]

Your meaning was quite clear.

Heck, what are the XPrizes all about?

(Ummm... Competition?)

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384488]I meant that competition works for industry, and it can work to a [B]lesser[/B] extent for GIMPS. The comparison is only true on a shallow level though.[/QUOTE]
I agree with all three of these statements.
(I've read too fast and picked the wrong antecedent. Sorry! you are right.)

Competition is natural to most humans, and in some cases if the virtual "employees" are willing to compete among themselves on who is doing more work* or faster than others and take pride solely in that, then the "employer" wins (if all measures are taken against cheating; if not, then this is where pressure/competition hurts science/industry; it's not hard to find and read about the horrors of [I]some[/I] scientific sweatshops**). "Gamification" is all about the same, too; probably, with even more fun. The job gets done, the science arguably benefits (even if a little) from the results (the participants may learn no science but get a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've "won", or "earned some credits", etc).

It is important that if this is not all just a game of credits to [I]even a fraction[/I] of the participants (and they go on and learn something about what they are participating in), then GIMPS' true role is achieved.

__________
[SIZE="1"]*they don't even have to understand what that [I]work[/I] is.

**and even more horrors in industry, e.g. in pharma; think clinical trials... Dallas Buyers Club, The Constant Gardener, that sort of thing...[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384445] 1538 GHz Days (can someone explain that metric please?)[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you're having fun!

This metric is quite old but we still use it. Specifically, it is "Intel Core 2" GHz-Days, and a GHz-Day is what one core of an Intel Core 2 processor running at 1 GHz could produce in one day.

So, if you're running a Core 2 Quad @ 2 GHz for 3 days, you get 4 cores x 2 GHz x 3 Days = 24 GHz-Days.


Every job is standardized to the amount of time a Core 2 processor would take to do the job. You get that amount of credit regardless of the actual time it took you; [I]one core[/I] of my i5-3570k running at 4.5 GHz produces roughly 12 GHz-Days, if memory serves.

This is because the architecture of the newer CPUs is such that everything is run much more efficiently even on a per-clock basis. Think of a 30 year old car against a new car; same RPM, but a LOT more power (and less fuel consumed, to boot).


The metric is very unfairly biased toward GPU Trial Factoring as you have likely witnessed. The architecture of a GPU is such that Trial Factoring is ridiculously fast; my GPUs both crank through 260-290 GHz (that's 100 times more than one core of a Core 2 processor @ 2.6 GHz).

There has been talk of having a separate metric for TF because it skews overall competition, but as was pointed out by Silverman, nobody really cares. I just use it as a benchmark, too.

Hm.. A new guy is coming, fresh meat. He has resources (computing power), he wants to learn the routine, he doesn't care to pay for his own electricity, and most of all he is enthusiastic (as we all were, in some point of the near and/or far past). What do you do? Hit him in the face... Shame on you!

Bad management. Bad!

Hey Raven, I am here for credit, and I am not ashamed to say it. Don't look to RDS, except when he is talking math, when you have to listen, because he is really good to it, the rest of the time you can ignore him :razz:. If you want to compete, let's compete, you make a [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]gpu72[/URL] account, install [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/misfit/"]misfit[/URL], select "let gpu72 decide" in misfit's work scheduler, and you are ready to go. Let's see who finds the most factors in the following month.

(This is the spirit! :razz: Why doesn't god give us 5000 guys, all with 295x2 and willing to compete for the credit? Hehe...)

[QUOTE=LaurV;384529]Hm.. A new guy is coming, fresh meat. He has resources (computing power), he wants to learn the routine, he doesn't care to pay for his own electricity, and most of all he is enthusiastic (as we all were, in some point of the near and/or far past). What do you do? Hit him in the face... Shame on you!

Bad management. Bad!

Hey Raven, I am here for credit, and I am not ashamed to say it. Don't look to RDS, except when he is talking math, when you have to listen, because he is really good to it, the rest of the time you can ignore him :razz:. If you want to compete, let's compete, you make a [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]gpu72[/URL] account, install [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/misfit/"]misfit[/URL], select "let gpu72 decide" in misfit's work scheduler, and you are ready to go. Let's see who finds the most factors in the following month.

(This is the spirit! :razz: Why doesn't god give us 5000 guys, all with 295x2 and willing to compete for the credit? Hehe...)[/QUOTE]
Sounds like fun! It's even more interesting because it's by factors found, not numbers factored. I downloaded the GPU to 72 version of MISFIT and I have a GPU72 account. Before I try to get it running, how exactly does the primenet>GPU72>MISFIT>mfakto chain work, and does the results reporting chain work in the exact opposite order?

"My motivation for running GIMPS is purely scientific"
 

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384584]Sounds like fun! [/QUOTE]
Sounds like you found a match.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384584]It's even more interesting because it's by factors found, not numbers factored. [/QUOTE]
Say what? Next thing, you know, you will start searching for additional factors for the candidates with already known factors (just to get your "score" higher in this artificial competition); not that it's something new - you can join the club of people already running this. There are people who search for more factors than necessary -- for a tiny chance to have the input number 'completely factored' (with a disclaimer) - but this satellite project is not GIMPS . When is doubt, search the forum; don't expect that all you need to read is in this thread. "Learn, learn, and learn", to quote from one nowadays unpopular "classic".

Did you say that your motivation was purely scientific, or someone twisted your arm to say this, hmm? If science is on your mind, listen: GIMPS is only interested in one factor per candidate (because it eliminates the candidate from the pool of potential primes); for GIMPS, there is no difference "by factors found, not numbers factored". But of course, between the two of you, you can compete on anything your heart would desire, maybe the number of found coca-cola caps or something even more exciting. :razz:

Anyway, when either of you will find the first 2 million factors, wake me up, I will maybe get interested in this little competition.
[SPOILER]Yes, I've already found 2,056,000+ factors. It's all downhill from there, as they say. Life lost all its meaning... not.[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384584]Before I try to get it running, how exactly does the primenet>GPU72>MISFIT>mfakto chain work, and does the results reporting chain work in the exact opposite order?[/QUOTE]
Were these questions all answered in the post #2 or were they not?
Why is LaurV's post suddenly such a revelation? :-)
_________________

P.S. Final remarks:
1. Let me compare GIMPS to a charity that delivers Christmas gifts. And you are a volunteer with a car (or a truck, or maybe a generous taxicab company owner who gives a command to his fleet to run some deliveries in free time or along the way) and you work part time for this charity. The volunteering help is useful, [B]no matter how little[/B]. Of course, you are free to take any route to deliver a package, maybe all the way around town (maybe you want to enjoy the sunset on your way). You can even help when all you own is a bicycle, not a car. Of course you are free to stop for coffee, or even take a week off. It's a charity! And a kind of a charity that doesn't have "projections for the 3rd quarter of the year, and when they are not met, the corporation's stock crumbles on NYSE". No! You are free to deliver packages while standing on your head if you can (and like it). It is only up to you if you care to help GIMPS more by doing what is really wanted (the P95 program and GPU72+bridges will fully take care of what is currently wanted), or something partially wanted but what you like (for whatever reason), or something totally useless but what you like even more (but then it has nothing to do with GIMPS, you have to realize that).
2. I have no role in the "Bad management" of GIMPS. That "Bad management" only exists in your head, LaurV. Even George's yearly bonus doesn't depend on how many factors were found or that /god damn it/ no prime was found this year again (no prime, no bonus! ...wait, what bonus?). ;-)

[QUOTE=Batalov;384593]

Wrote some stuff[/QUOTE]

Hey Red Raven,

you can safely ignore anything the thinkpol writes...as you can RDS. I'm certainly here for the credits and have been for the last 18 years..

[QUOTE=Batalov;384593]Sounds like you found a match.


Say what? Next thing, you know, you will start searching for additional factors for the candidates with already known factors (just to get your "score" higher in this artificial competition); not that it's something new - you can join the club of people already running this. There are people who search for more factors than necessary -- for a tiny chance to have the input number 'completely factored' (with a disclaimer) - but this satellite project is not GIMPS . When is doubt, search the forum; don't expect that all you need to read is in this thread. "Learn, learn, and learn", to quote from one nowadays unpopular "classic".

Did you say that your motivation was purely scientific, or someone twisted your arm to say this, hmm? If science is on your mind, listen: GIMPS is only interested in one factor per candidate (because it eliminates the candidate from the pool of potential primes); for GIMPS, there is no difference "by factors found, not numbers factored". But of course, between the two of you, you can compete on anything your heart would desire, maybe the number of found coca-cola caps or something even more exciting. :razz:

Anyway, when either of you will find the first 2 million factors, wake me up, I will maybe get interested in this little competition.
[SPOILER]Yes, I've already found 2,056,000+ factors. It's all downhill from there, as they say. Life lost all its meaning... not.[/SPOILER]


Were these questions all answered in the post #2 or were they not?
Why is LaurV's post suddenly such a revelation? :-)
_________________

P.S. Final remarks:
1. Let me compare GIMPS to a charity that delivers Christmas gifts. And you are a volunteer with a car (or a truck, or maybe a generous taxicab company owner who gives a command to his fleet to run some deliveries in free time or along the way) and you work part time for this charity. The volunteering help is useful, [B]no matter how little[/B]. Of course, you are free to take any route to deliver a package, maybe all the way around town (maybe you want to enjoy the sunset on your way). You can even help when all you own is a bicycle, not a car. Of course you are free to stop for coffee, or even take a week off. It's a charity! And a kind of a charity that doesn't have "projections for the 3rd quarter of the year, and when they are not met, the corporation's stock crumbles on NYSE". No! You are free to deliver packages while standing on your head if you can (and like it). It is only up to you if you care to help GIMPS more by doing what is really wanted (the P95 program and GPU72+bridges will fully take care of what is currently wanted), or something partially wanted but what you like (for whatever reason), or something totally useless but what you like even more (but then it has nothing to do with GIMPS, you have to realize that).
2. I have no role in the "Bad management" of GIMPS. That "Bad management" only exists in your head, LaurV. Even George's yearly bonus doesn't depend on how many factors were found or that /god damn it/ no prime was found this year again (no prime, no bonus! ...wait, what bonus?). ;-)[/QUOTE]

I only plan on doing work that helps GIMPS find Mersenne primes. However, I am curious as to why there isn't a database that contains every known prime ever discovered period. For completeness' sake, it should have lists of every factor of every number found by GIMPS and other projects. In other words, is there a database that contains all known data on primes and factors? Also, does GIMPS use data from other projects to check numbers off of the list? And no, no one twisted my arm. I know that GIMPS has a limited scope, but it's still science, it seems like one of the easier projects to get involved in, and I think the results of your personal efforts in GIMPS are more apparent than in other projects.

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384616]However, I am curious as to why there isn't a database that contains every known prime ever discovered period. [/QUOTE]
Expand on that thought.
Every known prime ever discovered?
Do you know that you can discover new primes faster than you will be able to write them to disk, let alone read them back?

The largest 5000 primes numbers known to man are [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/search.php?Number=5000"]here[/URL]. If you have a couple weeks to spare, I suggest reading the whole [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/primes/"]website[/URL].

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384616]In other words, is there a database that contains all known data on primes and factors? [/QUOTE]
Like [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=2000000&exp_hi=2000100&full=1"]this one[/URL] (in Mersenne-only space)?
Or maybe [URL="http://factordb.com/"]this one[/URL] (any prime or composite known to man :-0 ...well, potentially)?

________________________

Hey, Gordon, find a million digit prime, then we can talk. Find a two million digit prime, then we can talk seriously. This is me returning you [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=379806#post379806"]the same token you dispensed plenty already[/URL].

[QUOTE=Batalov;384593]Next thing, you know, you will start searching for additional factors for the candidates with already known factors (just to get your "score" higher in this artificial competition);[/QUOTE]
How can ye do this if taking the assignments from GPU72? (did ye actually READ my post?). How the enthusiasm and "competing for credit" is hurting GIMPS here? You (and RDS too) better threat your SIWOTI syndrome and let us "live and be wrong" :yucky:
With my "credit whore" style (real or just simulated, who cares?) I brought more people to GIMPS than you ever contributed :razz: (hehe)
[COLOR=White]
(So what? [/COLOR][COLOR=White]who gives a shit? let them find factors!)[/COLOR]

I have read your messages. They feature some slurred speech (which worries me: Raman's symptoms started similarly, complete with white text, too), disconnected ideas jumping around like fleas, non-sequiturs, not answering questions that were asked, answering "questions" that were never asked, bragging and factual errors.
Let me see: how can you beat (with all people who you allegedly brought to GIMPS) 2 million eliminated candidates times 10,000-25,000 saved GHz-days each? That's by my modest estimate somewhere above 30 billion saved GHz-days. You are a factor guy, isn't this the way you count the value of the found factors? :rolleyes: Counting just the number of factors is also fine with me. Just catch up with me first and I will take a good nap in the meantime, like in that hare-and-tortoise fable. Surely, there were dozens of people who eliminated even more candidates, but I've not competed with them, I only modestly did what anyone would have done in my place.

But have you read my message? "The volunteering help is useful, [B]no matter how little[/B]. Of course, you are free to take any route to deliver a package, maybe all the way around town (maybe you want to enjoy the sunset on your way). You can even help when all you own is a bicycle, not a car..." all that stuff. Ah, I hear you. Who has to time to read? Who has time to follow links? Who has time for fact-checking? Sure, shake the tree instead. By all means go around and brag about how much charity work [I]you[/I] have done, and how little others have done. That's just the right spirit at any such volunteer based enterprise and makes wonders to the working atmosphere.

Now, your new competition is very exciting. Nowhere did I say that you shouldn't run it; I only asked not to wake me up too early - I simply must see the finish line and who will cross first. Your competition seems to go like this: you take two three-liter jars, fill them up with water, and put in a 1KW boiler spiral element in one (a R9 280x) and 1.5KW spiral in the other (a R9 290x or a 790, whatever). Then you plug them into the socket and boil the water. When you are done, you refill and boil some more. Ooooh, I cannot contain the excitement that overflows me! It is even better than watching the paint dry. Really. I love it! It's a great invention, nobody ever thought of that. And you are saying that people who [I]you[/I] invited -- line up for that? Dude, good for you! Congratulations. And you set up all these competitions? Outstanding. Oh, wait a minute! I thought it was George and Chris, but thank you for correcting me.

Seriously, the guy (who you nicely branded "fresh meat" ...dude! you really have a way with words. Other people "hit them in the face", but you truly embrace him - "hey! welcome! we've been waiting for you! Fresh meat!") actually seems to be asking about science. He asks "how do these apples grow in that beautiful orchard of yours?" and you don't answer questions (that's for the eggheads), you helpfully tell to him that "you just shake trees really hard, and apples will fall!! C'mon, I'll beat you to the number of apples that you and I will shake down! There's no time to waste! Shake them right now!!" Right?

Amazingly, you also seem to think that thinking about the science behind GIMPS actually makes people worse "tree shakers" for GIMPS. Or frightens them away? Sheesh! This is not one of the threads where a person asks "how do I find more factors" and gets a response "you shouldn't be doing it". No, see what he asked, and what answers he received. He might learn something. That, of course, if he follows through with his self-declared interest in science (interest is always good; if you've lost yours, don't block the road of others, ok?).

___________
[SIZE=1]Note for USDA: this message is not related to agricultural workers whose literal job is to shake apple trees, and should not be construed as criticism or as disparaging remarks about that fine profession.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Batalov;384663]...[/QUOTE]
:tu: :hat::bow::ouch2:
(can't argue with you!)
[COLOR=White](and you didn't detect the irony, someone who asks if there is a database with all known primes is hopeless, let them invest their time and resources in TF :P)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=White](we agree about Raman disease :P)
[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Batalov;384623]

Hey, Gordon, find a million digit prime, then we can talk. Find a two million digit prime, then we can talk seriously. This is me returning you [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=379806#post379806"]the same token you dispensed plenty already[/URL].[/QUOTE]

Hey - nice of you to remind our newer readers that I belong to that very small, select group of people who have actually discovered a Mersenne prime...

..remind me again, how many have you found?

and before RDS chips in about someone else's code blah blah blah, it was MY computer, using MY electricity or will the claim now be that Curtis didn't actually find the ones he did...

[QUOTE=Gordon;384675]Hey - nice of you to remind our newer readers that I belong to that very small, select group of people who have actually discovered a Mersenne prime...

..remind me again, how many have you found?

and before RDS chips in about someone else's code blah blah blah, it was MY computer, using MY electricity or will the claim now be that Curtis didn't actually find the ones he did...[/QUOTE]

So? Why should anyone be impressed? Finding a Mersenne prime is
like winning a lottery. Why should others be impressed simply because
one gets lucky??? Why should others be impressed because one spends money to buy a ticket?

Especially when one uses black box code designed and
written by others for which one is too lazy to learn how it works?

It takes virtually no intellectual effort to run black box code that one
does not understand and for which one can't even be [i]bothered[/i] to
understand. If one is somehow proud of this "accomplishment" one
sets the bar very low. I don't see winning the lottery as an "accomplishment".

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;384677]Especially when one uses black box code designed and
written by others for which one is too lazy to learn how it works?[/QUOTE]

I have to give you credit here. Part of the reason why I delved fully into mfaktc code was to fully understand how it works. LL testing is still beyond my knowledge level, but perhaps I will learn that, too, in time.

[QUOTE=Batalov;384593]Say what? Next thing, you know, you will start searching for additional factors for the candidates with already known factors (just to get your "score" higher in this artificial competition); not that it's something new - you can join the club of people already running this. There are people who search for more factors than necessary -- for a tiny chance to have the input number 'completely factored' (with a disclaimer) - but this satellite project is not GIMPS .
[/QUOTE]

Well, what is the problem with that? For the record, I do not receive credits for the P-1 runs on Mersenne composite numbers where no factors are found (which are most of the attempts), so you can see that not everybody is here for the credits. I want to see if the statistics I computed in [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=379831&postcount=190[/url] are OK or not.

[QUOTE=alpertron;384683]Well, what is the problem with that? For the record, I do not receive credits for the P-1 runs on Mersenne composite numbers where no factors are found (which are most of the attempts), so you can see that not everybody is here for the credits. I want to see if the statistics I computed in [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=379831&postcount=190[/URL] are OK or not.[/QUOTE]
There is no problem with what you are doing. I was just giving the newcomer "proper" tools for the "battle" with LaurV. ;-)

[QUOTE=Gordon;384675]Hey - nice of you to remind our newer readers that I belong to that very small, select group of people who have actually discovered a Mersenne prime...

..remind me again, how many have you found?[/QUOTE]
Ah, but that's easy.
But for the intellectually lazy - here's [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/bios/page.php?id=1994"]the link[/URL]. Click the current primes?

I like the Eisenstein-Mersenne prime and a couple of Gaussian-Mersenne primes best, personally. But more than anything, I like variety. Not one of the people who order the same Chicken Piccata every time they go to an eatery. Or those who ate Chicken Piccata once in their life and then tell about it for the rest of their life.

Mr Batalov is in rare form in this thread- good for quite a few laughs, and useful instruction besides. Thank you!

I apologize in advance if this not the appropriate thread.
I recently rescued a Dell 690, Tesla D870 (still looking for two appropriate PCI graphics cards for the unit) and a Tesla C1060. The Dell has 64 GB Ram and 2 Xeon 5355's and has a Quadro FX 5600. I'm running it with Mageia 5 (alpha 2) using the most recent Cado-nfs and gmp-ecm. I have a custom build, ASUS P9X79, 64 GB and a 6 core oc'd 3960 with a GTX 580 running Mageia/Win7 Pro. I have two other boxes holding 32 GB
and 16 GB. I intend on obtaining a Cuda enabled graphics card, highest cc and lowest cost, that will allow me to write/test gpu programs within
one of the latter boxes compiling the working versions so they will work on the cc 1.0 and cc 2.0 gpu's.

One of the questions I have is, can a polynomial file be created with the appropriate parameters that matches an integer perfectly. To restate,
working in reverse, given a polynomial, what numeric values can it represent, as exactly as possible, relative to the parameters provided.

I can use many CAS systems but prefer Maple and FORM; I have used Knuth's Stanford Graphbase over 20 years ago on a 486 dual booting Win95/RHL 4.1x - I have his AoCP and have read many of his books/papers. I prefer to delve into state-of-the-art theory by studying the most current papers and learning from those professionals (many exist within this forum) who have hands-on experience with the concepts/implementations and limitations thereof.

The distribution of prime numbers and general integer factorization are two things I have been studying as an amateur - certain forum
members have been a great help while others have been complete assholes. So to all concerned, having received invaluable assistance as well as unbridled scorn for dumb questions, I've learned from both.

Again, if anyone has used the deprecated hardware I intend to revitalize and can provide a pointer on the best graphics cards to use I would
sincerely appreciate it - I don't know if I can run those boxes and Christmas lights at the same time later this year.;)

[QUOTE] I don't know if I can run those boxes and Christmas lights at the same time later this year.;) [/QUOTE]I have only looked at a couple of pieces of your power equation. First, the twin Xeons. [URL="http://ark.intel.com/products/28035/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5355-8M-Cache-2_66-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB"]This[/URL] shows that you might end up well north of 200 W just for the CPUs running hard.

Nvidia rates the Tesla C1060 at 187.8 W, the Quadro at 171 W. Figure out a few more components, including PSU efficiency estimate, and you could get a reasonably good idea what the whole thing will draw.

EDIT: If you live in a place where it is going to get really cold, remember that computers make dandy space heaters, so you might be consuming that energy with a dumb device that only puts out heat, instead of one which does calculations as a byproduct. :)

Oh, and Batalov, I know the chain was already explained, that's how I know the order, but I'm looking for more details. IE, right now I think GPU 72 automatically takes a block of assignments from primenet and doles it out to GPU 72 users, but is that true? How does MISFIT decide what a GPU will be most effective at? Does MISFIT report back to GPU 72 with the results, which GPU 72 uses to remove the corresponding exponents from the block it reserved? Does GPU 72 the report the results to primenet, or does MISFIT send them to both GPU 72 and primenet? Or does it just send them to primenet and GPU72 automatically removes exponents from its list once it assigns them? In that case, primenet would make the exponents available again if their results were never reported, and I'm guessing GPU72's algorithm for choosing exponents would them up from primenet again and restart the cycle. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out how the path of exponents and results between primenet and mfakto works with GPU72 and MISFIT involved. I'm also trying to figure out what happens to exponents that become expired with this setup.

I just read the recent replies, and I honestly don't understand why there's so much conflict. I'll try to clear things up a bit.

1) I'm here for the science. More knowledge, even if it's use isn't totally understood yet, is always good.
2)Competition makes the science a bit more interesting, so I embrace it. I know it doesn't actually matter, but it makes me a bit more invested in the project, which I'm fine with.
3) I know the competition is essentially pointless. Successful TF tests happen randomly, so the faster GPU setup will have a better chance of winning. That's why I consider it to be a friendly competition, and don't take it seriously.
4) The competition is pretty much like waiting for the grass to grow, but people have competed over dumber things with less purpose.
5) I am interested in learning more about how the project works at a mathematical level, but at the moment I'm also a full time freshman college student trying to push through the gen ed classes so I can study electrical engineering. I don't mind not having the spare time to learn how Prime95's math works though, because the university gives me as much electricity as I want to run Prime95 with my tuition fee. That means I'll be adding my laptop's down time and possibly an old Dell with a P4 I left at home to the project.
6) Everyone has their own reasons for participating in the project. No particular reason is bad, unless you plan to use the data from the project to hurt someone, somehow. It's probably unlikely that anyone is, so there's no reason to attack people for their reason in joining the project.

Now, I'm going to go download Prime95 to my laptop so I can have it crunch so numbers while I for my Intro to Music Enjoyment test tomorrow. Clearly, I need to be told how to enjoy music despite my 17+ GB library because it doesn't include music from the Baroque or Classical eras. It's an essential skill for making circuits that I can guarantee won't kill people.

@RedRaven et al...

I'm just out of one meeting, heading into another. But to try to answer your questions quickly...

1. Large blocks of candidates are imported into GPU72 manually from time-to-time if they have been sub-optimally TF'ed. These will appear as being assigned to "GPU Factoring" as TF.

2. Some low candidates which aren't imported in step #1 above are sometimes automatically "recaptured" if we have the firepower available, and have been sub-optimally TF'ed. These will appear as being assigned to "For Research", my personal account which is "trusted", as either LL or P-1.

3. Candidates which are reserved via the spider described in step #2 are done first.

4. GPU72 never submits results itself; it is always by the worker's machine. GPU72 simply observes the status of Primenet to determine what work has been done, and who to credit.

5. Yes, this is all rather convoluted. Consider it "Evolution in action"...

I hope that makes sense....

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384710]Oh, and Batalov, I know the chain was already explained, that's how I know the order, but I'm looking for more details. IE, right now I think GPU 72 automatically takes a block of assignments from primenet and doles it out to GPU 72 users, but is that true? How does MISFIT decide what a GPU will be most effective at? Does MISFIT report back to GPU 72 with the results, which GPU 72 uses to remove the corresponding exponents from the block it reserved? Does GPU 72 the report the results to primenet, or does MISFIT send them to both GPU 72 and primenet? Or does it just send them to primenet and GPU72 automatically removes exponents from its list once it assigns them? In that case, primenet would make the exponents available again if their results were never reported, and I'm guessing GPU72's algorithm for choosing exponents would them up from primenet again and restart the cycle. Basically, I'm just trying to figure out how the path of exponents and results between primenet and mfakto works with GPU72 and MISFIT involved. I'm also trying to figure out what happens to exponents that become expired with this setup.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Red Raven;384712]2)Competition makes the science a bit more interesting, so I embrace it. I know it doesn't actually matter, but it makes me a bit more invested in the project, which I'm fine with.[/quote]

Likewise. I've learned some math from participating, but participating in the mammoth project is the real fun for me. Some people only care about the math. No reason we can't all participate.

[quote]3) I know the competition is essentially pointless. Successful TF tests happen randomly, so the faster GPU setup will have a better chance of winning. That's why I consider it to be a friendly competition, and don't take it seriously.[/quote]

Random, but predictable. There's something like a 1% chance of finding a factor each TF level. Don't ask me to explain the math because I don't know it ;)

[quote]5) I am interested in learning more about how the project works at a mathematical level, but at the moment I'm also a full time freshman college student trying to push through the gen ed classes so I can study electrical engineering. I don't mind not having the spare time to learn how Prime95's math works though, because the university gives me as much electricity as I want to run Prime95 with my tuition fee. That means I'll be adding my laptop's down time and possibly an old Dell with a P4 I left at home to the project.[/quote]

Borg the labs when no one else is using the machines. I've done that, but not for GIMPS.

[QUOTE=Mark Rose;384717]Random, but predictable. There's something like a 1% chance of finding a factor each TF level. Don't ask me to explain the math because I don't know it ;)[/QUOTE]As far as I know it's to do with distribution of primes and factors.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mainly because of how each prime as you go up has less chance of being a factor and also because of the distribution of primes - every factor tested with the powering algorithm has less chance of being prime because of this. Every factor tested tested with the powering algorithm has less chance of being a factor the larger the factor. The best way I can explain this is like this:
If testing a number for divisibility by 2 (obviously general rather than for Mersennes) then it can either be 0 or 1 (mod 2) so it has a 1/2 chance of being a factor. However, if testing a number for divisibility by 1279, it can be anywhere from 0 to 1278 (mod 1279), so there is only a 1/1279 chance of it being factor because n + 1 (mod k) = (n mod k) +1 (mod k), basically because they're in sequence and there's nothing random about 2 adjacent integers mod k.

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;384722]As far as I know it's to do with distribution of primes and factors.

.[/QUOTE]

Mertens' Theorem.

[QUOTE=legendarymudkip;384722]As far as I know it's to do with distribution of primes and factors.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's mainly because of how each prime as you go up has less chance of being a factor and also because of the distribution of primes - every factor tested with the powering algorithm has less chance of being prime because of this. Every factor tested tested with the powering algorithm has less chance of being a factor the larger the factor. The best way I can explain this is like this:
If testing a number for divisibility by 2 (obviously general rather than for Mersennes) then it can either be 0 or 1 (mod 2) so it has a 1/2 chance of being a factor. However, if testing a number for divisibility by 1279, it can be anywhere from 0 to 1278 (mod 1279), so there is only a 1/1279 chance of it being factor because n + 1 (mod k) = (n mod k) +1 (mod k), basically because they're in sequence and there's nothing random about 2 adjacent integers mod k.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks!

[QUOTE=LaurV;384671]Referrring to Batalov - (and you didn't detect the irony, someone who asks if there is a database with all known primes is hopeless, let them invest their time and resources in TF :P)
[/QUOTE]

That's what happens when someone sets them self up as arbiter of what is good and proper and they don't fully understand the language they are spouting off in.

[QUOTE=Batalov;384689]Ah, but that's easy.
But for the intellectually lazy - here's [URL="http://primes.utm.edu/bios/page.php?id=1994"]the link[/URL]. Click the current primes?

I like the Eisenstein-Mersenne prime and a couple of Gaussian-Mersenne primes best, personally. But more than anything, I like variety. Not one of the people who order the same Chicken Piccata every time they go to an eatery. Or those who ate Chicken Piccata once in their life and then tell about it for the rest of their life.[/QUOTE]

I've looked at your link, still don't see any [U]Mersenne [/U]primes on there...

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;384677]So? Why should anyone be impressed? Finding a Mersenne prime is
like winning a lottery. Why should others be impressed simply because
one gets lucky??? Why should others be impressed because one spends money to buy a ticket?

Especially when one uses black box code designed and
written by others for which one is too lazy to learn how it works?

It takes virtually no intellectual effort to run black box code that one
does not understand and for which one can't even be [i]bothered[/i] to
understand. If one is somehow proud of this "accomplishment" one
sets the bar very low. I don't see winning the lottery as an "accomplishment".[/QUOTE]

Pavlov says hello :smile:

[QUOTE=Gordon;384775]I've looked at your link, still don't see any [U]Mersenne [/U]primes on there...[/QUOTE]

I don't get it. I agree with ..him... what's so special about finding a new mersenne prime? It's all luck. Why should you be very "different" because you got lucky?

EDIT: Other than satisfaction or accomplishment mostly [I]only [/I]on your part..

[QUOTE=kracker;384782]I don't get it. I agree with ..him... what's so special about finding a new mersenne prime? It's all luck. Why should you be very "different" because you got lucky?

EDIT: Other than satisfaction or accomplishment mostly [I]only [/I]on your part..[/QUOTE]

Because this is a project to find [U]MERSENNE[/U] primes maybe?

By the same token his input into finding the large primes against his name should by necessity then also be discounted as he just "got lucky"?

According to RDS logic if you didn't do the geological survey with equipment you built yourself, mine the ore with equipment you designed and built yourself, smelt it with....

...design the chips with computer chips that you designed and fabbed yourself, built the software with software you entirely designed coded and built yourself...

...using algorithms that don't build on anybody else's work ever in history...

then you deserve no credit or recognition at all :devil:

[QUOTE=Gordon;384819]Because this is a project to find [U]MERSENNE[/U] primes maybe?

By the same token his input into finding the large primes against his name should by necessity then also be discounted as he just "got lucky"?[/QUOTE]

If we're talking about "credit" (for the ten hyperbolillionth :censored: time) then the argument he makes all the time becomes perfectly valid.

The difference between you finding a Mersenne Prime and him finding all his big primes is that you have allegedly provided nothing of use to the software end of it (developing the math, improving the software, etc) where I would assume RDS has contributed a very hefty amount.


[QUOTE=Gordon;384819]
According to RDS logic if you didn't do the geological survey with equipment you built yourself, mine the ore with equipment you designed and built yourself, smelt it with....

...design the chips with computer chips that you designed and fabbed yourself, built the software with software you entirely designed coded and built yourself...

...using algorithms that don't build on anybody else's work ever in history...

then you deserve no credit or recognition at all :devil:[/QUOTE]

This is a grossly evident Straw-Man; misinterpreting (in this case massively exaggerating) the opinion and arguing against the mutated version of his point and not the original point itself.


The real issue is that RDS is confusing "credit" with "achievement" or at the very least assuming that everyone around him is considering them to be the same thing.


If I discover a Mersenne Prime, then of course I should be [B][I]credited[/I][/B] with the discovery. I don't think RDS is arguing the contrary (Bob; if I have misunderstood you in this, I am sorry).

The question RDS poses instead is what the "value" of that credit is. It is of course completely worthless. It isn't an "achievement" in any way.


Consider this: If you discovered a Mersenne Prime, would that go onto your Resume (assuming you're applying in a +/- pure mathematics environment)? "Discoverer of the 49th Mersenne Prime" doesn't really carry much weight.

The strongest mathematics software I even know about is Matlab and it maxes out at 10^308 roughly (2^1024-1 exactly) so I haven't the slightest clue how to write a program to test any Mersennes bigger than M1024. In other words, I couldn't explain what's going on besides the Lucas Lehmer algorithm.

On the other hand, if you put "Developed the code used in Prime95 / mprime which found the largest 11 currently known Mersenne Primes" that would get you [B][I]way[/I][/B] further. That is an actual achievement.

TheMawn-
I think you're comparing Gordon to RDS, while the post you quoted was Gordon asking about the value of Batalov's finds.

Batalov has a few times taken interest in a prime of special type, written software to sieve or generate candidates, and found primes with a significant application of resources. His computation 'credit' is higher than nearly everyone on top 5000, AND he contributes to mathematics or software RDS-style.

(another day, another philosophical diatribe...)
 

The following is not for anyone in particular.

[YOUTUBE]ShdmErv5jvs[/YOUTUBE]

Let me, too, restate my assumptions:
1. Everyone is free to do what they want for a hobby.
2. After doing a certain hobby for, say, five years, you may get bored to tears.
(Why am I saying this? Because I have been there. You may think that you will happily do TF for many more years and still enjoy it as if it was all new. And good for you, that's fine too. Read on only if, or when you will have reached that boredom point. I am Dilbert-from the future talking to you, Dilbert of today.)
3. You may be afraid, however, that it is too difficult to change your hobby.
4. You may be afraid also that learning too much math (or programming) will change your character. Maybe you will get easily irritable at any slight imperfection of presentation or argumentation (like someone you may know), or maybe you will even go insane like Nash. Don't worry.

[YOUTUBE]OGKPmBtBpBo [/YOUTUBE]

My answer to #4. Yes, it is possible. It is also possible as years go by to become nuts or a jerk while straining your mind with absolutely nothing. Also, Nash's disorder did not stem from math; rather his interest in math stemmed from his disorder that he had since early adolescence.

My answer to #3. Not necessarily difficult, especially if you don't try to take in everything at once. Look. The modern world of programming has been "objectified" and "interfaced". You don't need to debug, crack existing or write your own programs to use them well; but it is best to learn the interfaces in and out, in great detail.
Take NewpGen as if it was Hungarian language and learn every option and use it in a sentence. The same with OpenPFGW and LLR. And srsieve, gcwsieve or course, etc. Each option. Now combine them in ways nobody (or at least very few people) did before. Explore. Enjoy.
Optionally, and maybe only later, check what LLR looks inside. Compile it from source once. Then find what you need to change and change it. Recompile, check that it works, rinse, repeat.

Anyway, what do I mean by combining programs in a new way? Examples: try x^y+y^x primes. What is the right tool? Search the forum, in particular keep an eye on Mark's latest GPU xyyxf sieves.
Take Cullen or Woodall -- they are done to a very high degree of difficulty. Anyway, it might be still a good idea to join (for 25% of the cores, for example) PrimeGrid for them, leave the rest of cores with GIMPS; then leave after a few done WUs (same maybe with TRP - see, they just had two marvelous primes, what's not to like?).
But what's beyond Cullen/Woodalls - there are generalized Cullen/Woodalls, see the special subforum in "And now for something completely different".
Then, for example, what about repunits (base-10 "Mersennes")? There's a project for them too. What's beyond, let's see: near-repunits (one digit away from monotonous repunits) and then quasi-repunits? M.Kamada's site is a trove of information for those.
Where else is fun? Mills' primes? Fermat factors, maybe (but careful - they are very deeply dug as an old gold mine). Generalized Fermat factors, perhaps? There's CRUS. There are aliquots. And more and more.

Or say, you are really well invested in GPUs and not so much in CPU. There are interesting projects for GPUs. Heretically, I will dare to say, that it might be more fun to use the GPU for a potential b^2^20+1 prime, or even the b^2^22+1 (in a world record territory for a long time now. The chances of course are slim. For any single person that is. Don't raise your hopes too high). This is being run in the PrimeGrid. Nobody (almost nobody) LLs Mersennes on a GPU anyway, and if someone switches from TFing billion digit Mps to WR GFNs on PG, GIMPS won't feel a difference for maybe 20-30 years (when it will reach billion digits :smile:) The GFN geneferOCL, especially the latest version, is truly excellent bang for cycle.

[YOUTUBE]7-C1cpG6TLc[/YOUTUBE]

Anyway, to quote the Sunscreen speech, "Do one thing each day that scares you. Sing. Dance."

Or don't. There's always fun in just jealously watching your growing or waning rank on GPU72 or GIMPS.
But that's like the size of the ****s (or as the water boiling that I used previously for some political correctness sake; of course whoever has the bigger boiler will boil more water; if you have any doubts about that, then ...you wasted your time reading this). It's not the size that matters. It's how you use it.

That's just my opinion anyway, I might be wrong, as Dennis used to say.

*A footnote for those who may not know Dilbert as far back as 2000.
Dilbert once invented a machine that bought his future self into 2000.

Multiple tragedies followed:

This is becoming a soapbox thread. Please keep it on topic or move to a new thread in the Soapbox. </mod>