mersenneforum.org ecm with Fermat numbers
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2016-07-17, 14:36 #1 ET_ Banned     "Luigi" Aug 2002 Team Italia 2×2,383 Posts ecm with Fermat numbers Question: with regard to both mprime and gmp-ecm, is it faster running the Fermat number "as-is", or divided by its known factors? IIRC, mprime was faster using the standard notation and providing the known factors either on the worktodo.txt line or on the lowp.txt file, while gmp-ecn was faster as the number to test grew smaller. Is it still correct? Luigi Last fiddled with by ET_ on 2016-07-17 at 14:37
 2016-08-02, 19:40 #2 GP2     Sep 2003 22×3×5×43 Posts As an experiment, I decided to run mprime twice on the same machine, once with the known factors and once without. This was using the latest version, 28.9 In other words: Code: ECM2=1,2,4096,1,800000000,80000000000,1,"114689,26017793,63766529,190274191361,1256132134125569,568630647535356955169033410940867804839360742060818433" versus Code: ECM2=1,2,4096,1,800000000,80000000000,1 Stage 1: The two versions ran absolutely identically. The second version was maybe 0.1% faster. Stage 2: The first version completed stage 2 in 42% of the time that stage 1 took. The second version "discovered" a composite factor after stage 1 and stopped without doing stage 2. PS, when I run ECM exponents I always add: Code: ScaleOutputFrequency=1 to prime.txt for convenience, to avoid excessively rapid output for small exponents. See undoc.txt for explanations. You can also add Code: ContinueECM=1 if you like. Last fiddled with by GP2 on 2016-08-02 at 19:46

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ATH Operazione Doppi Mersennes 2 2015-01-25 06:27 ET_ Programming 4 2008-06-23 07:59 jasong Math 39 2007-10-27 23:11 T.Rex Math 4 2005-05-07 08:25 devarajkandadai Math 8 2004-07-27 12:27

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:54.

Sun Sep 20 14:54:47 UTC 2020 up 10 days, 12:05, 1 user, load averages: 1.34, 1.52, 1.50