20200107, 10:32  #1717  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
7360_{10} Posts 
Quote:
0 two or more primality tests have already been done, or sufficient P1 factoring has already been done, make no effort on P1 factoring 1 one primality test has already been done, make any P1 effort that makes sense for that 2 no primality test or sufficient P1 factoring done yet, make any P1 effort that makes sense for that In other usages, such as CUDAPm1, values higher than 2 up to 9 mean try harder to find a P1 factor, with larger bounds. See also https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...4&postcount=17 If I recall correctly, inputs above 9 get effort capped equivalent to 9. George's description of the optimization process is in the P1 Factoring section of https://www.mersenne.org/various/math.php. It's there to read in the source codes also. Why do you ask; are you thinking of adding automatic bounds selection to gpuowl? If so, please go for the PrimeNet bounds so the P1 task is retired. The exponent in question had more than optimal TF applied and less than optimal P1 bounds, and the net effect fell short of optimal factoring probability. https://www.mersenne.ca/exponent/91157779 Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200107 at 10:54 

20200107, 11:26  #1718  
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
5A1_{16} Posts 
Thanks Ken for the explanation.
I'm thinking of adding "implicit preliminary P1" for PRP assignments for exponents that didn't have any P1. So I obtain from PrimeNet one PRP assignment with one AID. I run both P1 and PRP, now I have two results. With what AID should I submit the "implicit" P1 result? Quote:


20200107, 11:55  #1719  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
7360_{10} Posts 
Quote:
If a factor is found, don't run the PRP, and try reporting the P1 factor with its AID. What do you mean by preliminary? Hopefully not a reducedbounds P1 run, which I've determined by test even if optimized for most factors per gpu hour, is a waste of resources. See https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpo...9&postcount=20 But not to worry: P1 is covered on that one. https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...1157779&full=1 Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200107 at 12:08 

20200107, 15:19  #1720  
"6800 descendent"
Feb 2005
Colorado
1011100000_{2} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
{"exponent":"103464293", "worktype":"PM1", "status":"F", "program":{"name":"gpuowl", "version":"v6.11112gf1b00d1"}, "timestamp":"20200106 06:01:49 UTC", "user":"pfrakes", "computer":"i74790", "fftlength":5767168, "B1":50000, "B2":50000000, "factors":["2419588148340043449947153"]} 

20200108, 11:04  #1721  
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015
2641_{8} Posts 
Quote:
About the bounds I propose an extremly simple heuristic for the defaults: B1 = exponent / 100, rounded to a multiple of 100'000 B2 = 30 * B1 

20200108, 19:10  #1722  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
2^{6}×5×23 Posts 
Quote:


20200108, 20:40  #1723 
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
2^{3}·3·461 Posts 
Ummm... Just to put on the table, GPU72 doesn't /have/ P1 bounds. Our only dimension is TF "depth" (and range, of course).
Are you instead talking about the B1/B2 values chosen by Prime95/mprime based on the depth the candidate has already been TF'ed to? Sorry... Juggling lots of different stuff, but your above confused me. 
20200108, 21:28  #1724  
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
2^{6}·5·23 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by kriesel on 20200108 at 21:28 

20200108, 21:33  #1725  
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
25470_{8} Posts 
Quote:
James: rational? I'm sure it's sane, knowing you... 

20200108, 22:53  #1726 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest
1110011000000_{2} Posts 

20200109, 12:23  #1727  
"William Garnett III"
Oct 2002
Langhorne, PA
2×43 Posts 
Quote:
However it seems to have CPU usage (and I checked Task Manager to verify). Whenever I have it running on the GPU and Prime95 on the CPU the iteration time on Prime95 slows down. Once I stop gpuowl Prime95 goes back to its normal iteration time, but as soon as I restart gpuowl Prime95 slows back down. This is my first real usage of gpuowl (I am "doublechecking" a PRP number just to test the software out). This never happened when I doublechecked LL for CudaLucas  CudaLucas (or mfaktc for TF) running on the GPU never affected Prime95 running simultanosly on the CPU. Can someone tell me why this happens? EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 SC GAMING (2GB GDDR5) Part number: 02GP46152KR Dell Desktop Tower with Windows 10 Intel i34150 @ 3.5GHz Memory: 8.00 GB 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
mfakto: an OpenCL program for Mersenne prefactoring  Bdot  GPU Computing  1719  20230116 15:51 
GPUOWL AMD Windows OpenCL issues  xx005fs  GpuOwl  0  20190726 21:37 
Testing an expression for primality  1260  Software  17  20150828 01:35 
Testing Mersenne cofactors for primality?  CRGreathouse  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  18  20130608 19:12 
Primalitytesting program with multiple types of moduli (PFGWrelated)  Unregistered  Information & Answers  4  20061004 22:38 