mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > No Prime Left Behind

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-02-15, 17:03   #12
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
That will never go away as long as I'm one of the moderators anyway. I personally have limited machines that can be connected. But I have a much larger arsenal of machines that cannot be connected without great risk or expense.

My objective is to appeal to the most prime searchers possible in the long run but that those searchers understand things well enough to be able to talk about them.

Carlos and Anon and others if you're interested, there is ONE main thing that I could perhaps see BOINC being used for in the future and it would not be for NPLB (for the foreseeable future anyway). It would be for the extremely high n-ranges at CRUS. For instance, for n>2M for bases that are powers of 2 or for n>~500K for non-powers of 2 bases, I could see that being a possibility. For instance, I see base 6 as an extremely important base in the future to be proved; on par with base 5. But with 49 k's remaining at n=50K on the Sierpinski side, it's almost guaranteed that we'll be searching that well past n=1M (perhaps upwords of 10M or higher to knock out the very last one). And for a base that isn't a power of 2, we're looking at many hours per test at n=1M.

I feel that once testing gets into the many hours per test range, the more that we just need raw computing power. It becomes less fun and more work at that point. That's when I think BOINC becomes more useful.

My two cents anyway. Of course that's a long-time off yet. Any input is always welcome.


Gary
Yes, I agree, BOINC would be quite useful for high-n CRUS testing, more so than NPLB. As for how far we might need to go to prove some of the conjectures, just look at Riesel Sieve and SoB.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-02-17, 21:34   #13
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
...I feel that once testing gets into the many hours per test range, the more that we just need raw computing power. It becomes less fun and more work at that point. That's when I think BOINC becomes more useful.

My two cents anyway. Of course that's a long-time off yet. Any input is always welcome.


Gary
Yeah, about that...

You probably won't be too worried about that in the next 6 months to a year. There's this little thing called a graphics card LLR testing program that's in pre-alpha right now.

It's going to blow the present stuff out of the water.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-30, 11:26   #14
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

2·5·283 Posts
Default

A prime time challenge is underway on PrimeGrid Project so I decided to give it a try last Thursday on my Quad. The challenge is for Proth Prime search LLR beyond 340k for BOINC users.
One thing I noticed, for small numbers like the ones tested llrnet is far away better than BOINC. Here are the reasons:

1º - At least one core is wasted when downloading new tasks. Boinc.exe gets busy. This means that I had 3 cores at 25 % and the last one busy on Boinc.exe.
2º - You have at least 2 programs running at the background per core, the llr application and the wrapper. Double memory wasted when compared with llrnet.
3º - There's a delay of 3-4 seconds everytime a new test is started because the previous programs have to shutdown and restart. On llrnet the delay can be minimized by increasing the cache size to at least 2.
4º - They have a limit of candidates to cache so you can't make huge dumps (DPC way)

I suppose for big numbers the sum of delays by the end of the day is much much smaller.

Carlos

Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 2008-11-30 at 11:30
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-01, 06:28   #15
Lennart
 
Lennart's Avatar
 
"Lennart"
Jun 2007

25·5·7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by em99010pepe View Post
A prime time challenge is underway on PrimeGrid Project so I decided to give it a try last Thursday on my Quad. The challenge is for Proth Prime search LLR beyond 340k for BOINC users.
One thing I noticed, for small numbers like the ones tested llrnet is far away better than BOINC. Here are the reasons:

1º - At least one core is wasted when downloading new tasks. Boinc.exe gets busy. This means that I had 3 cores at 25 % and the last one busy on Boinc.exe.
2º - You have at least 2 programs running at the background per core, the llr application and the wrapper. Double memory wasted when compared with llrnet.
3º - There's a delay of 3-4 seconds everytime a new test is started because the previous programs have to shutdown and restart. On llrnet the delay can be minimized by increasing the cache size to at least 2.
4º - They have a limit of candidates to cache so you can't make huge dumps (DPC way)

I suppose for big numbers the sum of delays by the end of the day is much much smaller.

Carlos
You can't compare like that on a challange

I dont think you understand the amount of work in two days !!

We have done all odd k 5-1199 from n=393k to n= 435k !!! In 2 days !!
and all is dubblechecked !

How many LLRNet server do you think you need todo that in 2 days


No First of all you need to have a cache You cant download wu every time they are finnished.

I think you have to see this in another point of wiev when we run a challange

/Lennart
Lennart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-01, 07:02   #16
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

2×5×283 Posts
Default

I am talking about the behave of BOINC application. Open the task manager and watch the waste of processing time when you test small candidates.
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-01, 07:15   #17
Lennart
 
Lennart's Avatar
 
"Lennart"
Jun 2007

46016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by em99010pepe View Post
I am talking about the behave of BOINC application. Open the task manager and watch the waste of processing time when you test small candidates.

Even if you have some delay its much faster then LLRNet becuse we use a later version of LLR. I have never thought that Boinc should do LLR faster and i don't see a way to get Boinc LLR faster then LLR. We use same LLR that you use when you run manuell LLR.

I do use LLR 371 when i do test and i cant see that its faster.

/Lennart

Last fiddled with by Lennart on 2008-12-01 at 07:16
Lennart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-01, 10:25   #18
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

2×5×283 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lennart View Post
Even if you have some delay its much faster then LLRNet becuse we use a later version of LLR. I have never thought that Boinc should do LLR faster and i don't see a way to get Boinc LLR faster then LLR. We use same LLR that you use when you run manuell LLR.

I do use LLR 371 when i do test and i cant see that its faster.

/Lennart
Once again I am talking about the waste of CPU time. If llrnet gets 3.7.1c version boinc is beaten.

Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 2008-12-01 at 10:26
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NPLB Database IronBits No Prime Left Behind 177 2009-10-10 09:00
NPLB.net down Mini-Geek No Prime Left Behind 17 2009-09-25 18:51
Why NPLB and RPS should merge. cipher Riesel Prime Search 1 2009-06-07 20:19
two ideas for NPLB Mini-Geek No Prime Left Behind 16 2008-03-01 23:32
One month of NPLB em99010pepe No Prime Left Behind 5 2008-02-24 14:37

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:39.

Tue Mar 31 10:39:59 UTC 2020 up 6 days, 8:13, 0 users, load averages: 1.00, 1.18, 1.16

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.