mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Hardware > GPU Computing > GpuOwl

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-08-05, 17:44   #1
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

32·167 Posts
Default Pick Your Poisson: P-1 Bounds

My old friend, P-1 bounds, is tasking me again. I have an exponent in the area of 99,8xx,xxx which I am currently running. Below are the apparent default bounds based on the worktodo line:

Quote:
Prime95: 710,000 and 11,182,500.
James' probability calculator at 2.5%: 720,000 and 13,680,000
CUDAPm1: 910,000 and 18,427,500
gpuOwl: 1,000,000 and 30,000,000
I suppose what I am looking for here is a rule-of-thumb. Which should I use? Being a long-used and trusted application, I am using what Prime95 suggests in gpuOwl's config file. I am wondering is this enough; should they be larger. I really do not know.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 08:19   #2
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2×2,861 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
My old friend, P-1 bounds, is tasking me again. I have an exponent in the area of 99,8xx,xxx which I am currently running. Below are the apparent default bounds based on the worktodo line:

I suppose what I am looking for here is a rule-of-thumb. Which should I use? Being a long-used and trusted application, I am using what Prime95 suggests in gpuOwl's config file. I am wondering is this enough; should they be larger. I really do not know.
The faster P-1 runs compared to LL the larger the bounds should be.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 10:25   #3
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

5·239 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
My old friend, P-1 bounds, is tasking me again. I have an exponent in the area of 99,8xx,xxx which I am currently running. Below are the apparent default bounds based on the worktodo line:

I suppose what I am looking for here is a rule-of-thumb. Which should I use? Being a long-used and trusted application, I am using what Prime95 suggests in gpuOwl's config file. I am wondering is this enough; should they be larger. I really do not know.
I am just revisiting the P-1 probabilities.

Based on my intuition (which is based on a few articles, among others https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._probabilities which has a handy table on page 12);

The idea is that there is a lot of benefit from a very large B2. Either use the default GpuOwl bounds of 1M/30M, or lower the B1 to a value of choice between 500K and 1M, but keep B2 to 30M.

Recently PRP got "cheaper" (so P-1 got relativelly "more expensive"), so the P-1 bounds need not be increased if efficiency is the goal. That's why I suggested "lower B1" instead of "increase B2".

(the P-1 probability calculators we have now may be a bit off)

Last fiddled with by preda on 2020-08-07 at 10:41
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 14:51   #4
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

32×167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preda View Post
I am just revisiting the P-1 probabilities.

Based on my intuition (which is based on a few articles, among others https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._probabilities which has a handy table on page 12);

The idea is that there is a lot of benefit from a very large B2. Either use the default GpuOwl bounds of 1M/30M, or lower the B1 to a value of choice between 500K and 1M, but keep B2 to 30M.

Recently PRP got "cheaper" (so P-1 got relativelly "more expensive"), so the P-1 bounds need not be increased if efficiency is the goal. That's why I suggested "lower B1" instead of "increase B2".

(the P-1 probability calculators we have now may be a bit off)
Cost. This has to me a measurement of time. I am not sure what else it could be.

I looked a George's "Math" page on mersenne.org. Specifically, P-1. It is not written in a way which I can understand. Still, I tried.

Somebody here told me a couple of years ago that multiple factors can be found between 0 (zero) and B1, but only one above B1. Would lowering B1 not decrease the possibility?

I suppose what I have been looking for is a relationship between bound sizes and powers of two. It seems like there would be one somewhere. About a yer ago, I found a 39-digit factor in the process of running a really small exponent using a B1 of 1,000,000.

By the way. I decided to give my antique Core2Duo a shot with a PRP-CF by running it with Prime95. Only 11 hours each. I was expecting much more.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-07, 23:06   #5
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

10001001110102 Posts
Default

Use big enough bounds that PrimeNet will retire the need for P-1 from the exponent.
Otherwise, unless you find a factor, it's wasted cycles that someone else will have to duplicate in their run to big enough bounds to retire the P-1 need for the same exponent. The PrimeNet bounds on mersenne.ca are sufficient.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-08-07 at 23:07
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-08, 15:51   #6
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

32·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kriesel View Post
Use big enough bounds that PrimeNet will retire the need for P-1 from the exponent...
I have decided to pull away from running any more P-1's for a while. From what I gather and in the light of Prime95 v30.x being available, there will be some reevaluations done regarding bound sizes for P-1. It was James Heinrich who mentioned this in another topic.

I am sure you remember M1277. In 2017, someone ran a P-1 on it with B1 at 5-trillion and B2 at 400-trillion. I suppose whoever did not mind the wait.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-10, 02:56   #7
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

5×239 Posts
Default

Of course "optimal bounds" depends on the "factored up to" bits. A first approximation for 100M exponents may be:
factored-to, B1, B2, chance
77: 1.2M 40M 4.2%
78: 1M 35M 3.6%
79: 1M 30M 3.2%
80: 0.9M 25M 2.7%

So, if you use 1M/30M (the default) you should be "just fine" for any bit-level :)


PS: and don't use my previous recommended values of 500K/30M, B1 too low relative to optimal.

Last fiddled with by preda on 2020-08-10 at 03:01
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-14, 16:58   #8
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

101110111112 Posts
Default

It appears first-time P-1 tests from Primenet have passed 100,000,000 in magnitude. So, I have decided to run a test to see what the time cost would be with gpuOwl:

Quote:
B1 = 1000000
B2 = 35000000
I put the same exponent into the newest Prime95 just long enough to see what bounds it would use:

Quote:
B1 = 770000
B2 = 13475000
These do not seem to be much different than what I saw 5 years ago. It seems to me, that as the exponents grow in size, P-1 bounds should follow along. Nothing would please me more than finding a nice big fat factor. My record is 39 digits.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-17, 11:49   #9
preda
 
preda's Avatar
 
"Mihai Preda"
Apr 2015

119510 Posts
Default

There is a new P-1 calculator in the pm1/ folder in GpuOwl. It comes as a python script ("pm1.py") and a C++ executable ("pm1"). The C++ version is very simple and only outputs the computed probability of a factor given the exponent, factored-to bits, B1, B2. The python script has an effort model (that can be tweaked in the source if desired), and based on that can propose some sort of "good" bounds. Example:

Code:
~/gpuowl/pm1$ ./pm1 100000000 77 1000000 30000000
3.91% (first-stage 1.53%, second-stage 2.38%)
Code:
/gpuowl/pm1$ ./pm1.py 100000000 77                 
Min: B1=  260K, B2=  7000K: p=2.38% (0.80% + 1.58%), work=0.96% (0.45% + 0.52%)
Mid: B1=  600K, B2= 20000K: p=3.38% (1.22% + 2.16%), work=2.41% (1.04% + 1.40%)
Big: B1= 1000K, B2= 34000K: p=4.01% (1.53% + 2.47%), work=3.99% (1.73% + 2.31%)
What you see in the above output is the chance of finding a factor, and also the cost of running the P-1 with those bounds. Personally I would go with "big" bounds above -- even if they provide not much time benefit vs running just the PRP, they do provide a significant chance of a factor which is cool.

Last fiddled with by preda on 2020-08-17 at 11:54
preda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-17, 13:52   #10
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

5DF16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preda View Post
There is a new P-1 calculator in the pm1/ folder in GpuOwl...
That's very interesting. Not in my downloaded archive though. v6.11-364-g36f4e2a. Windows x64. Unless you have something newer...
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-08-17, 15:38   #11
kriesel
 
kriesel's Avatar
 
"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2·32·5·72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
That's very interesting. Not in my downloaded archive though. v6.11-364-g36f4e2a. Windows x64. Unless you have something newer...
I have not incorporated any of the tools folder in the Windows builds I've posted. Until recently it was all python or shell script, no c. I haven't identified a python compilation method yet that both (a) succeeds and (b) produces code small enough to fit in a forum attachment. (But I have eliminated several candidate approaches.)

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-08-17 at 15:39
kriesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poisson Distribution pepi37 Miscellaneous Math 6 2018-08-28 02:10
What Bounds to choose, and what are Bounds 144 Information & Answers 5 2017-03-15 13:36
Poisson processes prescription, please? Fusion_power Information & Answers 5 2007-08-15 14:20
Help me pick a math course. jasong Math 9 2005-03-11 21:04
Pick a stone, or two, .... or three Wacky Puzzles 5 2003-06-24 16:11

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:05.

Mon Sep 21 09:05:05 UTC 2020 up 11 days, 6:16, 0 users, load averages: 0.83, 1.25, 1.23

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.