Go Back > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing

Thread Tools
Old 2014-09-11, 14:52   #1
patrik's Avatar
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

52×17 Posts
Default CUDALucas not redoing iterations with larger FFT

I just had the following problem with CUDALucas v2.04 Beta:

Iteration 24020000 M( 36163033 )C, 0x47f4b44347a56afb, n = 1920K, CUDALucas v2.04 Beta err = 0.2812 (1:07 real, 6.7233 ms/iter, ETA 22:40:21)
Iteration 24030000 M( 36163033 )C, 0x5f9ad444634e1734, n = 1920K, CUDALucas v2.04 Beta err = 0.2734 (1:08 real, 6.7129 ms/iter, ETA 22:37:07)
Iteration = 24037901 >= 1000 && err = 0.35938 >= 0.35, fft length = 1920K, not writing checkpoint file (because -t is disabled) and exiting.
In this case Prime95 would increase the FFT length and restart from the last checkpoint with a larger FFT size, but CUDALucas just fails at the same point after every restart.

Is there a way I can manually set it to use a larger FFT to get past this point?

(I know this is not the lastest version of CUDALucas, but if I run a later version I use on another computer I just get:
./CUDALucas-2.05-Beta-r64-Linux-x86-64: error while loading shared libraries: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory )
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-09-11, 20:00   #2
patrik's Avatar
"Patrik Johansson"
Aug 2002
Uppsala, Sweden

42510 Posts

I managed to get past the point using the same fft size by changing 0.35 in the source to 0.40, and recompiling the program. (I compiled it from source when I first started using this version.)

I used the new version only for 12651 iterations, then stopped it and switched back to the original version.

In a day or so I will se if this double-check matches the original test.
patrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-09-12, 00:56   #3
owftheevil's Avatar
"Carl Darby"
Oct 2012
Spring Mountains, Nevada

1001110112 Posts

If I remember correctly 2.04 can take a command line parameter eg, -f=4000k to use a particular size fft. On the other hand, I don't see any reason that what you have done will give an incorrect result.

Last fiddled with by owftheevil on 2014-09-12 at 00:57
owftheevil is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coordination thread for redoing P-1 factoring ixfd64 Lone Mersenne Hunters 81 2021-04-17 20:47
Redoing work? MooMoo2 Riesel Prime Search 2 2010-09-15 17:33
larger L2 cache, slower iterations? ixfd64 Hardware 3 2008-05-19 20:46
P-1: poorly P-1'd exponents that need redoing James Heinrich Marin's Mersenne-aries 54 2008-04-07 20:27
5.98M to 6.0M: redoing factoring to 62 bits GP2 Lone Mersenne Hunters 0 2003-11-19 01:30

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:52.

Sat Oct 23 19:52:05 UTC 2021 up 92 days, 14:21, 0 users, load averages: 0.56, 0.85, 1.10

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.