mfaktc: a CUDA program for Mersenne prefactoring

[Xyzzy]

And there's another confounding/confuzzling factor: Xyzzy, are you counting successes of of your stats page, or from your "results.txt" file?

We keep track of all our work locally. Our results are attached. We plan to submit a very large batch of work in the next day or so, so it will be interesting to see if the trend continues.

[nucleon]

Originally Posted by Christenson

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: What a broken operating system!
What if we made mfaktc more like P95 and gave it a window and all, rather than ran it from the console? Or are we still back to hacking the drivers?

It's got nothing to do with the OS. Conspiracy theories aside, it apparently works with tesla products but not GT/GTX cards.

It's a software call. Regardless of how it's called (cmd line app or win gui app). With the current drivers, there's _no_ (zero zilch nada) work around other than vnc. Much more knowledgeable people than me have said this.

Remoting in with VNC works (albeit slower than mstsc), I have VNC server on 4x Win boxes (2x WinXP and 2x Win7). I can restart mfaktc remotely at a whim. No problemo. VNC is free for private use.

Move onto another subtopic. Case closed.

-- Craig

[ATH]

Originally Posted by Batalov

I've already tried launching "sleep 30; mfaktc" in a Cygwin shell and then disconnect. Some time later you connect and see the same result.
My guess is that the other driver is not initiated (lazily, which is I guess usually a good thing), until I would go and login there physically.

Use TeamViewer http://www.teamviewer.com/ instead of remote desktop. It's free for private use, and I just connected from work to my home computer and started mfaktc.

[drh]

Originally Posted by Prime95

That is concerning. What hit rates are others getting for single bit levels of TF?

Here are the stats from my last 1448 tests, 76M range:

From 66 to 67 - 16 tests, 0 factors
From 67 to 68 - 123 tests, 1 factor
From 68 to 69 - 124 tests, 2 factors
From 69 to 70 - 310 tests, 1 factor
From 70 to 71 - 303 tests, 5 factors
From 71 to 72 - 286 tests, 4 factors
From 72 to 73 - 272 tests, 1 factor

So that's 14 factors in 1448 tests, adjusted for mfaktc reporting TF's as P1's.

Doug

[Prime95]

Originally Posted by drh

So that's 14 factors in 1448 tests

Like Xyzzy 1 in 100 hit rate instead of the expected 1 in 70. It's way too soon to conclude there is a bug, keep the data coming.

[kjaget]

From the machine I have access to right now ::

From 65 to 66 - 27 tests, 0 factors
From 66 to 67 - 14 tests, 0 factors
From 67 to 68 - 15 tests, 0 factors
From 68 to 69 - 45 tests, 1 factors
From 69 to 70 - 26 tests, 0 factors
From 70 to 71 - 15 tests, 0 factors
From 71 to 72 - 4 tests, 0 factors

Too few results to be useful as-is, but maybe helps in the aggregate?

[S34960zz]

mfaktc, 0.16, 0.16p1, 0.17; Win7-x64 with cudart64_32_16.dll, i7-840QM.

From 65 to 66 - 136 tests, 2 factors found, 2.1 = 136/65 expected, 82457xxx to 82481xxx.
From 66 to 67 - 151 tests, 6 factors found, 2.3 = 151/66 expected, 78417xxx to 82481xxx.
From 67 to 68 - 146 tests, 1 factors found, 2.2 = 146/67 expected, 79014xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 68 to 69 - 148 tests, 1 factors found, 2.2 = 148/68 expected, 79583xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 69 to 70 - 130 tests, 1 factors found, 1.9 = 130/69 expected, 80086xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 70 to 71 - 127 tests, 4 factors found, 1.8 = 127/70 expected, 81234xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
From 71 to 72 - 123 tests, 0 factors found, 1.7 = 123/71 expected, 81234xxx to 82481xxx and one 26062xxx.
--------------------------------------------
total - 961 tests, 15 factors found, 14.2 expected more-or-less.

small sample size, but seems reasonable(?).

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Like Xyzzy 1 in 100 hit rate instead of the expected 1 in 70. It's way too soon to conclude there is a bug, keep the data coming.

Yep.
We "expect" 16 hits in 1120 tests. Standard deviation 4 hits.

But isn't there much more data accessible now?

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Christenson

But, anything we can do to reduce the pfaffing around needed to run mfaktc increases the available TF testing. Then we can think about P-1, and seeing if its worth doing multiple LLs in parallel on GPUs.

Oliver has modestly described mfaktc as a "proof of concept".
Since it is obviously more than that, someone should surely
ensure it is bug-free, and is incorporated into GIMPS in a user-friendly way.

David

PS Or even "optimize" it?

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Oliver has modestly described mfaktc as a "proof of concept".
Since it is obviously more than that, someone should surely
ensure it is bug-free, and is incorporated into GIMPS in a user-friendly way.

David

PS Or even "optimize" it?

I'm working on that user-friendliness, just not as quickly as we all might like. P95, how do we get the server to recognize a "factor found" result from mfaktc on the manual testing page?

[Ungelovende]

Originally Posted by Prime95

keep the data coming.

M222xxxxxx from 2^64 to 2^71
mfaktc 0.17
Win7 64/gtx570x2
ca 7750 tests - 121 factors found