Prime95 v30.4/30.5/30.6 - Page 13

axn · 2021-04-05, 15:15

I suspect that on a local system, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But anyways, George will have to confirm if this is even possible or not.

Prime95 · 2021-04-05, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by axn

George, Would it be possible to reduce the size of P-1 stage 2 checkpoint files? Using this with colab / google drive, it takes a very long time to stop/restart during stage 2 - it writes 100-200 MB of save file. I am guessing it is somehow saving the stage 2 prime bitmap or something? I think it would be faster to recompute the state, rather than load it from disk (with google drive).

Theoretically possible but I'm very afraid I'd make a mistake. Even the most subtle change in initial state can affect how the primes are paired.

You might try MaximumBitArraySize=n in prime.txt. This limits the maximum bit array size to n MB (default is 250). This will have some negative impact on performance, make a few runs yourself to see if it is significant.

axn · 2021-04-09, 06:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

You might try MaximumBitArraySize=n in prime.txt. This limits the maximum bit array size to n MB (default is 250). This will have some negative impact on performance, make a few runs yourself to see if it is significant.

Is it safe to change this in the middle of a Stage 2 run?

Prime95 · 2021-04-09, 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by axn

Is it safe to change this in the middle of a Stage 2 run?

Probably. Never tested.

Happy5214 · 2021-04-13, 08:40

P95/mprime really needs a way to manually force a proof upload. I periodically have Wi-Fi issues on my laptop (my primary GIMPS computer), and would like a way to upload proofs (I do PRP-CF, so there are quite a few of them) that have backlogged while the Wi-Fi has been out (especially if it will go out again soon). Perhaps add it to the manual communication menu?

Happy5214 · 2021-04-15, 05:39

An unrelated gripe. I have 5 workers on 8 cores on my laptop. They're never all running at the same time (I run 3 max at a time, 2 cores each). But the benchmarks still use all 5 workers on all 8 cores, a usecase that never happens and causes inaccurate timing due to the core overlap and throttling. It also causes issues on my desktop, as it runs benchmarks with 3 workers on 3 cores, an unused-in-practice scenario which causes it to overheat (it's an old Core 2 box). Can you add a setting to tune the automated benchmarking to a particular worker/core combination other than the full max?

axn · 2021-04-15, 05:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy5214

An unrelated gripe. I have 5 workers on 8 cores on my laptop. They're never all running at the same time (I run 3 max at a time, 2 cores each).

Then why not have just 3 workers (or 2 workers)? You're putting the program in an impossible situation. It'd be best to just turn off the benchmark altogether.

Happy5214 · 2021-04-15, 06:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by axn

Then why not have just 3 workers (or 2 workers)? You're putting the program in an impossible situation. It'd be best to just turn off the benchmark altogether.

Because I run 3 different work types in rotation (3 PRP-CF, 1 ECM, 1 P-1).

axn · 2021-04-15, 08:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy5214

Because I run 3 different work types in rotation (3 PRP-CF, 1 ECM, 1 P-1).

Why not have just three workers and change their worktype as and when you want to switch over? Should be just as easy as bringing workers up/down.

Or ... Have two instances of P95 and keep PRP workers in one, and ECM/P-1 in another.

Anyway, with the current setup, your best bet is to just turn off automated benchmarking.

Falkentyne · 2021-04-17, 06:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

Probably. Never tested.

I may have found a "bug" with the FFT speed or size or iterations.

I don't know if it's the same for 10900k (it probably is), but on 11900k, if you disable FMA3, AVX512F and AVX in local.txt and run a small FFT stress test, each loop (multiple loops per FFT size though) finishes in 1 minute. Example, small FFT -->48k, finishes each loop in 1 minute. After several loops it goes to the next FFT.

If you disable AVX512, AVX2 and AVX in the stress test options instead, each loop lasts I think 2 or 3 minutes.

So the loop speed is different if you disable all the AVX settings in local.txt (from undoc.txt) versus disabling them in the stress test options.

Is this intended?

Happy5214 · 2021-04-17, 08:17

I'm running a P-1 in stage 2, and it's saying it's 100% complete, but it's still running and printing "100% complete" reports at the normal rate. Is there a data issue or is this a problem with the printout that can be safely ignored without compromising the validity of the data until a fix is posted?

2021-04-05, 15:15	#133
axn Jun 2003 1001111011010₂ Posts	I suspect that on a local system, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But anyways, George will have to confirm if this is even possible or not.

2021-04-13, 08:40	#137
Happy5214 "Alexander" Nov 2008 The Alamo City 2²·5²·7 Posts	P95/mprime really needs a way to manually force a proof upload. I periodically have Wi-Fi issues on my laptop (my primary GIMPS computer), and would like a way to upload proofs (I do PRP-CF, so there are quite a few of them) that have backlogged while the Wi-Fi has been out (especially if it will go out again soon). Perhaps add it to the manual communication menu?

2021-04-15, 05:39	#138
Happy5214 "Alexander" Nov 2008 The Alamo City 2²·5²·7 Posts	An unrelated gripe. I have 5 workers on 8 cores on my laptop. They're never all running at the same time (I run 3 max at a time, 2 cores each). But the benchmarks still use all 5 workers on all 8 cores, a usecase that never happens and causes inaccurate timing due to the core overlap and throttling. It also causes issues on my desktop, as it runs benchmarks with 3 workers on 3 cores, an unused-in-practice scenario which causes it to overheat (it's an old Core 2 box). Can you add a setting to tune the automated benchmarking to a particular worker/core combination other than the full max?

2021-04-17, 08:17	#143
Happy5214 "Alexander" Nov 2008 The Alamo City 2²·5²·7 Posts	I'm running a P-1 in stage 2, and it's saying it's 100% complete, but it's still running and printing "100% complete" reports at the normal rate. Is there a data issue or is this a problem with the printout that can be safely ignored without compromising the validity of the data until a fix is posted?