mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Lone Mersenne Hunters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-06-12, 17:41   #111
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

3×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
However, it is clear that rather than run a SINGLE ECM curve to high limits (which is what P-1 to high limits accomplishes)
it is much better to run MANY ECM curves with lower limits.
This is what I thought, too, but Ernst and I did some calculations a few years back that indicated it was generally worthwhile to spend on the order of 5-6% or so of your total ECM effort on Mersenne or Fermat numbers to run P-1 to high limits. I was surprised that the percentage was that high, but the fact that some factors of P-1 were already known boosted the success probability considerably. I would guess that for generic numbers this percentage would be lower.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-06-13, 03:18   #112
Madpoo
Serpentine Vermin Jar
 
Madpoo's Avatar
 
Jul 2014

D0516 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
A better question:

Why would you want to? If people would ever bother to READ my ECM paper they might actually learn something.

Running P-1 is equivalent to running a single ECM curve. If it is known a priori that P-1 is divisible by (say) q, then one
simply reduces the size of the factor you are looking for by log(q) and then chooses the ECM parameters appropriately
for running just one curve.

However, it is clear that rather than run a SINGLE ECM curve to high limits (which is what P-1 to high limits accomplishes)
it is much better to run MANY ECM curves with lower limits.

This @&*!&*#%^ fascination with running P-1 to high limits is simply WRONG-HEADED. [unless of course, ECM is not
available]
A colorful reply as always.

I only asked because I was lurking on the forum where they were talking about the 332M-333M range (or whatever...I'm sure that's not exactly right). The concept of factoring some grandfathered LL assignments in that range came up, and I'd noted that quite a few of those assignments hadn't had any P-1 done at all. They were going to do some extra TF work on them up to 79 bits or something and I just wondered about the feasibility of doing the P-1 work on some of my systems with lots of RAM.

I have zero built-in idea of how long it takes to run P-1 work at all in that range, for any B1/B2 values, so I thought I'd first see if GMP-ECM would be advantageous.
Madpoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-03, 16:12   #113
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

23·73 Posts
Default

I am currently running stage 1 ECM on M22543 with B1=3M with 9 workers.


I noticed they all write their residues to results.txt. I then checked GMP ECM's loop option and found that it specifically is incompatible with -resume.


So how do I run several instances of GMP-ECM parallel for stage 2? Or isn't this possible? If not, can I salvage the stage 1 residues for an mprime stage 2 run? Doing 4000 curves on one core would take a bit too long... :)

Last fiddled with by bur on 2022-07-03 at 16:13
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-03, 19:52   #114
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

26×17 Posts
Default

You would need to divide the stage 1 residues into n seperate files, then start n processes of GMP-ECM, each with their own file. Please be beware that this might use more memory than you have! In this case, you would need to use the -maxmem switch.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-04, 06:09   #115
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

23·73 Posts
Default

Your reply sounds like this is not usually done, I can imagine due to the additional manual work. I'm wondering if splitting work over prime95/gmp-ecm is worth it for small numbers of curves and small B1.

Is there a table or similar for timings difference of prime95 vs gmp-ecm?
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-04, 12:16   #116
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

26×17 Posts
Default

In this case, I can only comment on how frequent I am doing it like this, but when I have a lot of curves that should go to GMP-ECM, I will definitely do it the way I described for the reasons you mentioned. If it is more than one or two days of work on a single core, I would deem it beneficial. For less than that, I would not care to spend manual work on it. But this is my personal preference.

Since we now got 30.9 as a (pre?) beta or alpha, such a table would change drastically. For 30.8 and older, I had better stage 2 even with exponents as large as 200k. In this case, one should experiment, but as George said, up to 50k, GMP-ECM is definitely the better choice.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-04, 16:43   #117
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

23×73 Posts
Default

Ok, thanks, that leaves the question of how to report the results. In the early posts of this thread the solution was "mail it to George" who already then was understandably reluctant.


Can I just tailor a report.json.txt entry?

Last fiddled with by bur on 2022-07-04 at 16:53
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-04, 16:52   #118
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

26·17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post
In the early posts of this thread the solution was "mail it to George" who already then was understandably reluctant.
This would suprise me since mailing everything to George is the default way to report GMP-ECM results.

Edit: Your JSON would have a wrong/missing checksum.

Last fiddled with by kruoli on 2022-07-04 at 16:53 Reason: Additions.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-07-04, 18:19   #119
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

1A1116 Posts
Default

For reporting gmp-ecm ECM results manually, see http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23143 posts 2, 5, 8
post 2 (Prime95):
"You have to reformat the results to look like it came from prime95. The manual results web page will then complain that the checksum isn't right. However, I can add you to the trusted users list and have that web page accept your results anyway."
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GMP-ECM & Prime95 Stage 1 Files Gordon GMP-ECM 3 2016-01-08 12:44
Stage 1 with mprime/prime95, stage 2 with GMP-ECM D. B. Staple Factoring 2 2007-12-14 00:21
Need help to run stage 1 and stage 2 separately jasong GMP-ECM 9 2007-10-25 22:32
P4 Prescott - 31 Stage Pipeline ? Bad news for Prime95? Angular Hardware 18 2004-11-15 07:04
Stage 1 and stage 2 tests missing Matthias C. Noc PrimeNet 5 2004-08-25 15:42

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:14.


Tue Aug 16 05:14:43 UTC 2022 up 40 days, 2 mins, 1 user, load averages: 1.49, 1.54, 1.39

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔