mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Operation Billion Digits

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-08-14, 03:57   #1
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

13×71 Posts
Default CPU Time and Factors Found

Hello,

I've been poking around the GIMPS.IT site to learn a little more about OBD, and I found the following page:

http://www.moregimps.it/billion/users_p.php

The meaning of the columns on that table is mostly self-evident, except for "CPU time." What units are being measured there, and how are the totals arrived at?

Which leads me to a second question. If you compare the "CPU time" and the "Factors found" for the various participants, there seems to be little relation between the number of factors found and the amount of computing devoted to it.

For example, Uncwilly has found 162 factors in 56.345 -- umm, aahhh, 56.345 WHAT? -- whereas lavalamp has found just one factor in 38067.400 WHATs. So it would seem that Uncwilly's efforts have been some 109,000 times more efficient per WHAT than lavalamp's.

How does that compute (so to speak)? Isn't the assignment of exponents more or less random, such that you would get more or less similar efficiency at finding exponents among the participants?

I must be missing some factor here. (Pardon the second pun, I couldn't resist...)

And just to be sure -- I'm not casting aspersions on anybody here, I'm genuinely curious as to how this works.


Rodrigo

Last fiddled with by Rodrigo on 2010-08-14 at 03:57
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 06:51   #2
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

7×11×107 Posts
Default

Well, to speak to why I appear to be so good. When OBD was starting, there were many exponents that had never been tested. I went through and tested a whole bunch to low levels. I tested them en mass, a few bits at a time at first. Then I removed those with factors and repeated. The last few steps were a single bit depth at a time.

Most of the numbers that will be factored out will be in the lowest bit ranges, were it is easier to test (less CPU time) and the best chances of find a factor.


The units used are 'one year of a Pentium 90MHz' or P90 years.
See http://www.moregimps.it/billion/users_f.php
That had been the standard measure of effort for GIMPS for many years. Only recently has 'GHz days' been adopted.

Play with the calculator on :http://www.moregimps.it/billion/anni_cpu.php and see sort of effort I needed to take the numbers from 32 bits (the lowest possible for these numbers) to the level where factors where found.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 06:55   #3
S485122
 
S485122's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
Brussels, Belgium

22×383 Posts
Default

The unit used is P90 CPU years, the previous unit of work done in the GIMPS. It corresponds at the ammount of work an Intel P90 CPU could do with the then current version of the Prime95 software.

If you look at the "Users (by factor)" page you will see how Uncwilly found so many factors in so little time : he did the initial factoring to low levels, the great majority of the factors he found were below 50 bits. The probability of finding a factor decreases with bit level, the work implied increases.

The probability of finding a factor is very roughly inversely proportional to the size of the numbers tried as factors, for 34 bits exponents it is about 1 in 34 (of course there is a minimum factor length : 2*exponent for the Mersenne number.) The time it takes to trial factor a number to a bit level is proportional to 2 in the power of the bit level : it takes twice as long to trial factor a number from 34 to 35 bits as from 33 to 34 bits.

So the yield of trial factoring is roughly proportional to 1 / (bit level * 2bit level)

Jacob

Last fiddled with by S485122 on 2010-08-14 at 06:57 Reason: Uncwilly was quicker to respond than me
S485122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 11:44   #4
ET_
Banned
 
ET_'s Avatar
 
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

475510 Posts
Default P90 CPU years

Well, that's not completely true...

I calculated the effort in P90 CPU years using an older version of Factor, to have a measure to test my program's enhancements.

Numbers don't agree with Prime95 computation, I'm afraid, but it shouldn't be too hard translating them into Prime95 units. I've just been a bit lazy, and in all honesty, I didn't expect that the project could attract so many people, so I didn't care much about it.

Let me know if you want the results translated... just remember that people with low P90 CPU years values would suddenly see their credit shrunk to zero point zero something.

Luigi
ET_ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:09   #5
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

39B16 Posts
Default

Uncwilly,

Thanks for the links! It makes sense now. What I needed was to poke around the website some more.

So then having all these results at low levels casts you as an OBD pioneer.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:23   #6
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

13·71 Posts
Default

Jacob,

Thank you for the explanations. I understand now what the units are, and what accounts for the wide range of results.

Here's a question that, I hope, will show if I get it. Does this mean that, if a new OBD range is opened up, then there will be a ton of new exponents that need to be factored from low levels?

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 15:31   #7
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

11100110112 Posts
Default

ET,

Translating the numbers won't be necessary, at least not for me. Just knowing what they represent is great, thanks!

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 16:19   #8
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

200578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrigo View Post
Here's a question that, I hope, will show if I get it. Does this mean that, if a new OBD range is opened up, then there will be a ton of new exponents that need to be factored from low levels?
Sort of.
I worked from the top end of the then existing range 3321928999 all the way up to 3321999991. If I found a factor I stopped, else I took them all to the 60 bit depth. So, most of my work in that range does not yet show up in the stats.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-08-14, 20:36   #9
Rodrigo
 
Rodrigo's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Pennsylvania

13·71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Sort of.
I worked from the top end of the then existing range 3321928999 all the way up to 3321999991. If I found a factor I stopped, else I took them all to the 60 bit depth. So, most of my work in that range does not yet show up in the stats.
Wow, so your significance to OBD is even greater than it looks! Cool.

Rodrigo
Rodrigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How are such big factors found? (M1193) heliosh PrimeNet 7 2018-01-24 16:54
Biggest factors found by P-1 TheMawn Lounge 29 2014-12-14 12:43
No factors found aketilander PrimeNet 9 2011-05-17 11:32
How to find factors I found with TF? edorajh PrimeNet 3 2004-10-01 19:16
More factors found with a new program alpertron ElevenSmooth 8 2003-10-15 10:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:59.

Tue Jul 14 12:59:44 UTC 2020 up 111 days, 10:32, 1 user, load averages: 1.20, 1.47, 1.52

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.