![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5×2,351 Posts |
![]()
This is an Update-release of v20, but with enough changes as to warrant a minor-version number increment. As always, download via the README page.
*** I urge users to delete (or rename) the mlucas.cfg file they are using for runs and run the self-tests using the v20.1 build to generate a fresh one, due to the v20 suboptimal-radix-set selection issue mentioned in the list below. *** Changes include:
Last fiddled with by ewmayer on 2021-09-02 at 20:38 Reason: primenet.org -> mersenne.org |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5·2,351 Posts |
![]()
Brief post illustrating how users who hit the v20 assignment-borkage-due-to-missing-string-terminator issue mentioned in the above list can manually patch up affected assignments, which is preferable to the code skipping them due to "unable to parse" reasons. Here the original example sent to me by tdulcet:
Code:
cat worktodo.ini Pminus1=F3AC27E83049B4409813291299C836B3,1,2,113334787,-1,900000,32000000 Test=F3AC27E83049B4409813291299C836B3,113334787,76,1", "fft-length":5767168, "B1":900000, "factors":[188971360622975631014921], "program":{"name":"Mlucas", "version":"20.0"}, "timestamp":"2021-08-27 13:58:46 GMT", "aid":"74ECE80F64762AFE11E83B9818CF3A46"} 1 Long story short, if you end up with such a mangled Test= (or DoubleCheck=) assignment in your worktodo.ini file, delete everything following the "[TF bits]," and replace with a "1"; in the above example the fixed-up assignment would be Code:
Pminus1=F3AC27E83049B4409813291299C836B3,1,2,113334787,-1,900000,32000000 Test=F3AC27E83049B4409813291299C836B3,113334787,76,1 For PRP assignments mangled similarly, note that the trailing-digit convention is different than for Test/DoubleCheck: for PRP assignments, the trailing digit represents "PRP tests saved if a p-1 factor is found", thus a p-1/PRP assignment pair mangled like this: Code:
Pminus1=C57FF1C644A0CB16F5E2B5B3A9FC4E1D,1,2,98024161,-1,800000,29000000 PRP=C57FF1C644A0CB16F5E2B5B3A9FC4E1D,1,2,98024161,-1,77,[stuff leftover from previous write of char-buffer]0 Code:
Pminus1=C57FF1C644A0CB16F5E2B5B3A9FC4E1D,1,2,98024161,-1,800000,29000000 PRP=C57FF1C644A0CB16F5E2B5B3A9FC4E1D,1,2,98024161,-1,77,0 Apologies for the fubar - all my tests of the assignment-splitting code happened to be under debugger, which nulls everything including char-buffers from one run to the next. (I.e. the debugger was providing the needed string-terminating null.) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
24×281 Posts |
![]()
Yay, I found my first factor using the a73 of my Odroid N2: Found 77-digit factor in Stage 2: 126440940410782170073559 (of M105592247)
Clocks for stage 2 have gone from 00:25:14 (v20) to 00:23:39 (v20.1) ![]() Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2021-09-05 at 02:52 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
∂2ω=0
Sep 2002
República de California
5·2,351 Posts |
![]() Quote:
So only a 6-7% stage 2 speedup on Arm, vs the 15% I see on avx-512 on my Intel NUC - but still decent. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
112×61 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1CD516 Posts |
![]()
I've updated the Mlucas reference thread somewhat, and added a list of the last several versions, with links to the corresponding threads, and a wish list, and a bug list.
A couple minor issues have been discussed in PM with Ernst but not appeared in Mlucas forum threads before now IIRC: When there is a restart in P-1 stage 2, the following result record for P-1 stopped/restarted in stage 2 has 1970-01-01 midnight as time stamp, instead of the actual completion time. P-1 factors found at a GCD early in stage 2 are reported as if they were found in stage 1, with only stage 1 bound given, omitting whatever the effective stage 2 bound was. (Gpuowl v7.x also does this.) This may be considered feature-absence rather than bug. Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2021-09-19 at 14:00 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Jun 2003
153E16 Posts |
![]()
Due to the way the primes are paired, some of the smallest stage 2 primes are paired with some of the largest. So, at no point (until the very end), there might be a bound such that all smaller primes have been handled in stage 2.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
11100110101012 Posts |
![]()
Understood. If it's smallest and largest paired and processed first, a modest B2 claim may be valid. Up to the "largest smallest" of the pairs that none got skipped. It's not simple, but I believe it's under consideration to implement that.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mlucas v20 available | ewmayer | Mlucas | 9 | 2021-09-02 20:36 |
Mlucas v19.1 available | ewmayer | Mlucas | 46 | 2021-07-06 19:40 |
Mlucas v19 available | ewmayer | Mlucas | 89 | 2021-02-01 20:37 |
Mlucas v18 available | ewmayer | Mlucas | 48 | 2019-11-28 02:53 |
mlucas on sun | delta_t | Mlucas | 14 | 2007-10-04 05:45 |