![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5×223 Posts |
Hi,
I'm playing with the GPU and mfaktc again, and I've noticed that if I adjust SievePrimes down from the default 25000 to 5000, I get a significant speedup. Is there any downside to reducing SievePrimes? Can this cause factors to be missed? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
"Oliver"
Mar 2005
Germany
21278 Posts |
Hi,
Quote:
Significant speedup... how much faster is it? Keep in mind that the avg. rate doesn't really matters. What matters is the time per class/assignment. Perhaps you want to dedicate another core to mfaktc. SievePrimes=5000 usually tells you that not enough CPU resources are available. Just start another copy of mfaktc in a separate directory working on different exponents. Oliver Last fiddled with by TheJudger on 2011-10-07 at 20:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3×29×83 Posts |
What is avg. rate then if it doesn't really matter? I notice the same thing, where the speed up is in avg. rate. (the auto adjust doesn't up it from 5000 if that matters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5·359 Posts |
Oliver, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Average Rate refers to the rate at which the GPU takes candidate factors (output from the prime sieve running on the CPU, which at sieveprimes = 5,000, is doing a relatively worse job of eliminating things that can't be factors) and determines whether the candidates are or are not factors.
Classes, on the other hand, represent a fixed division in the population of all possible factors, so you want those to fly by as fast as possible. A low sievePrimes indicates that the CPU core is saturated, and you *may* want to add another CPU to the job by running a second copy of mfaktc on a different core. (But possibly not, as this other core could be doing P-1 or LL tests) |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
88510 Posts |
Mfaktc on my system always adjusts sieveprimes down to 5000 after a few seconds of operation. I tried shutting off the automatic adjustment and using higher values, but 5000 always gives me the best performance (least amount of total time spent).
I am running two instances of mfaktc, two LL tests, one DC and one P-1 on a six-core system (core-i7, hyperthreading off). Chuck |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5×359 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
15658 Posts |
Quote:
Chuck |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Dec 2010
Monticello
5·359 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3×29×83 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Jun 2005
3×43 Posts |
This might be telling you that there's a benefit to running a 3rd instance of mfaktc to keep the card fed with data?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
May 2011
Orange Park, FL
37516 Posts |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| SievePrimes is too big for the current assignment | mattmill30 | GPU to 72 | 21 | 2017-02-01 00:20 |
| 4000 < k < 5000 | otutusaus | Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) | 5 | 2012-03-07 20:01 |
| 5000 < k < 6000 | justinsane | Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) | 26 | 2010-12-31 12:27 |
| Factoring on a 5000+ | jasong | Hardware | 3 | 2006-06-17 08:50 |
| Top-5000 List | edorajh | Riesel Prime Search | 17 | 2006-03-28 21:57 |