20110214, 13:08  #1 
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
GMP ECM slow on my laptop?
Would someone compare their CPU times with the following:
Code:
GMPECM 6.3 [configured with GMP 5.0.1 and enableasmredc] [ECM] Input number is 41395211369606896878762271001715299418628538444891068431339891131233286833518837537078454323513136270166441222001636474306346761096507512180479117007959668872537359710374519637202679457204183583357 (197 digits) Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=47819535 Step 1 took 40132723ms Step 2 took 6371596ms Run 2 out of 300: Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=43712352 Step 1 took 40294996ms Step 2 took 6371876ms Run 3 out of 300: Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=2848791383 Step 1 took 40156436ms Step 2 took 6291052ms Run 4 out of 300: Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=194802029 Step 1 took 39571027ms Step 2 took 6356635ms Run 5 out of 300: Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=2015941534 Step 1 took 39904213ms Step 2 took 6184738ms Inputs were: gmpecm64 c 300 chkpnt file1 base2 1822 500000000 < inputfile 11 hours for step 1 seems slow. Is it? It is also clear that the Step 2 limit is too low. I need to set it near 10^15 or so. 
20110214, 22:42  #2 
Einyen
Dec 2003
Denmark
3·5·11·19 Posts 
64 bit gmpecm on 1 core of a penryn Q9450 2.66 Ghz:
Code:
GMPECM 6.3 [configured with GMP 5.0.1 and enableasmredc] [ECM] Input number is 4139521136960689687876227100171529941862853844489106843133989113 12332868335188375370784543235131362701664412220016364743063467610965075121804791 17007959668872537359710374519637202679457204183583357 (197 digits) Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1069381386 Step 1 took 8775181ms Step 2 took 1918750ms Stage2 with gmpecm built in B2 value is 1.58 times faster than stage1. The longer stage1 takes the faster stage2 is compared to stage1, see for example these timings: core264bittests.html 
20110214, 23:50  #3 
Sep 2008
Krefeld, Germany
E6_{16} Posts 
edit: these were accidently done without "base2 1822", I'll redo and post here later.
Here are some results from my machines, all running linux: 32bit GMPECM on a P4 2Ghz, B1=50M only, no stage 2 (not enough memory): Code:
GMPECM 6.2 [powered by GMP 4.3.2] [ECM] Running on node_s_15 Input number is 41395211369606896878762271001715299418628538444891068431339891131233286833518837537078454323513136270166441222001636474306346761096507512180479117007959668872537359710374519637202679457204183583357 (197 digits) Using MODMULN Using B1=50000000, B2=96215189086, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=1024836075 dF=65536, k=2, d=690690, d2=17, i0=56 Expected number of curves to find a factor of n digits: 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 2 5 16 59 263 1354 7921 51176 363393 2810305 Step 1 took 1800296ms Using 46 small primes for NTT Estimated memory usage: 257M ^C Phenom 2 @3.6Ghz, libgmp compiled with march=barcelona and O3 Code:
GMPECM 6.3 [configured with GMP 5.0.1 and enableasmredc] [ECM] Running on debian Input number is 41395211369606896878762271001715299418628538444891068431339891131233286833518837537078454323513136270166441222001636474306346761096507512180479117007959668872537359710374519637202679457204183583357 (197 digits) Using MODMULN Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1358602455 dF=524288, k=3, d=5705700, d2=17, i0=71 Expected number of curves to find a factor of n digits: 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 18 59 219 917 4234 21335 116936 683883 4265169 2.8e+07 Step 1 took 1776600ms Using 24 small primes for NTT Estimated memory usage: 2337M Initializing tables of differences for F took 3420ms Computing roots of F took 47140ms Building F from its roots took 35840ms Computing 1/F took 14350ms Initializing table of differences for G took 360ms Computing roots of G took 40460ms Building G from its roots took 36840ms Computing roots of G took 40500ms Building G from its roots took 36800ms Computing G * H took 7610ms Reducing G * H mod F took 7710ms Computing roots of G took 40480ms Building G from its roots took 36910ms Computing G * H took 7670ms Reducing G * H mod F took 7680ms Computing polyeval(F,G) took 66600ms Computing product of all F(g_i) took 250ms Step 2 took 432790ms Expected time to find a factor of n digits: 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 10.95h 1.50d 5.60d 23.44d 108.27d 1.49y 8.19y 47.91y 298.81y 1981y Code:
GMPECM 6.3 [configured with GMP 5.0.1 and enableasmredc] [ECM] Running on node_n_11 Input number is 41395211369606896878762271001715299418628538444891068431339891131233286833518837537078454323513136270166441222001636474306346761096507512180479117007959668872537359710374519637202679457204183583357 (197 digits) Using MODMULN Using B1=500000000, B2=9535491365416, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=256865628 dF=524288, k=3, d=5705700, d2=17, i0=71 Expected number of curves to find a factor of n digits: 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 18 59 219 917 4234 21335 116936 683883 4265169 2.8e+07 Step 1 took 3335970ms Using 24 small primes for NTT Estimated memory usage: 2337M Initializing tables of differences for F took 6020ms Computing roots of F took 80860ms Building F from its roots took 56340ms Computing 1/F took 22900ms Initializing table of differences for G took 680ms Computing roots of G took 70780ms Building G from its roots took 56920ms Computing roots of G took 70770ms Building G from its roots took 56920ms Computing G * H took 11980ms Reducing G * H mod F took 12260ms Computing roots of G took 70770ms Building G from its roots took 56750ms Computing G * H took 11960ms Reducing G * H mod F took 12300ms Computing polyeval(F,G) took 105690ms Computing product of all F(g_i) took 390ms Step 2 took 706760ms Expected time to find a factor of n digits: 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 20.04h 2.74d 10.24d 42.89d 198.11d 2.73y 14.99y 87.67y 546.77y 3624y Last fiddled with by Syd on 20110215 at 00:04 Reason: typo 
20110215, 09:08  #4 
Sep 2008
Krefeld, Germany
2·5·23 Posts 
The same with "base2 1822":
P4, 2Ghz: Step 1 took 4370690ms Phenom 2, 3,6Ghz: Step 1 took 4584750ms Step 2 took 1073260ms Core 2, 2,66Ghz: Step 1 took 8830560ms Step 2 took 1788570ms 
20110215, 10:17  #5 
May 2009
Russia, Moscow
11·233 Posts 
Seems that ecm is much faster without 'base2' option.
Last fiddled with by unconnected on 20110215 at 10:18 
20110216, 13:03  #6 
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 

20110216, 13:30  #7 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
The algebraic factor is less than half the size of the full 2^18221. The base2 option forces arithmetic modulo 2^18221. It's not very surprising that working on a number of half the size is faster, even if that means a generic modulo reduction.

20110217, 14:16  #8 
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
"Wish List"
A useful feature (at least to me) would be to provide an input
to GMPECM that places a bound on CPU time. I'd like to be able to (say) run for 12 hours, save a checkpnt file, then quit. Failing that, is there any way for one Windows process to get the (1) PID of another process by looking up the NAME in some system process table? (2) Extract the CPU time associated with that PID? (3) then essentially do a kill 9 on the PID??? It is easy to do in Unix. But Windows does not have the same finegrained process control as Unix. (or maybe it does and I am ignorant) 
20110217, 14:40  #9 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
2×29×61 Posts 
If you're in a position to compile, then you can install a signal handler and add code like:
Code:
#ifdef WIN32 DWORD WINAPI countdown_thread(LPVOID pminutes) { DWORD minutes = *(DWORD *)pminutes; if (minutes > 0x7fffffff / 60000) minutes = 0; /* infinite */ Sleep(minutes * 60000); raise(SIGINT); return 0; } #else void *countdown_thread(void *pminutes) { uint32 minutes = *(uint32 *)pminutes; if (minutes > 0xffffffff / 60) minutes = 0xffffffff / 60; /* infinite */ sleep(minutes * 60); raise(SIGINT); return NULL; } #endif Code:
if (deadline) { #if defined(WIN32)  defined(_WIN64) DWORD thread_id; CreateThread(NULL, 0, countdown_thread, &deadline, 0, &thread_id); #else pthread_t thread_id; pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, countdown_thread, &deadline); #endif } It would surprise me if the windows task scheduler could not be made to do something like this... 
20110217, 14:57  #10  
Nov 2003
7460_{10} Posts 
Quote:
well. Even when I set a max time of 12 hours, I have seen it fail to halt a process that has run for longer than 12 hours..... 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
laptop  victorvicentim  Information & Answers  2  20090901 00:20 
Best Laptop ever?  hhh  Hardware  5  20070212 20:58 
$100 laptop  paulunderwood  Hardware  3  20051124 19:35 
laptop 24/7???  OmbooHankvald  Hardware  16  20051108 15:14 
Laptop CPU  ndpowell  Hardware  1  20050707 21:10 