mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-06-13, 17:25   #232
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23×191 Posts
Default

As Q rises, our sec/rel performance falls. By the time we get to Q=200M, performance will be half of what it was at Q=20M.
That doesn't fully explain the performance difference, though, since we're only at 40M now (we started at 8M). It's possible that your current instance is sharing the machine with something that uses hyperthreads more; "CPU time" that CADO records doesn't to my knowledge know anything about HT, so running 8 HT threads on a 4-core will "look" 75% slower, but actually be 25% faster (not verified percentages).
Finally, you may be on an older architecture. Compare the performance of the machine "9800" (a 9800 processor, current generation) to "Supercomputer" (haswell i7-5820k), "TheMachine" (ivy bridge xeon, running only a few more threads than cores), or "z600" (sandy bridge xeon, running ~20 threads on 12 cores). My guess is your speed difference is 20% from larger Q values, 80% from different architecture / sharing the machine.

Workunits doubled in size around Q=20M. That's why all the "unlucky" badges are from people who began running before we changed WU size.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-13, 19:37   #233
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

22·33·29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lukerichards View Post
Code:
host			# of workunits	Relations		CPU-days	Last workunit submitted
instance-1		970		9236551 (2.8% total)	45.6		2019-06-05 23:27:08,078
lukerichards-pre1	175		3180220 (0.9% total)	21.9		2019-06-13 08:18:30,440
The first hasn't reported anything in a week.
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-13, 20:48   #234
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

25×32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichD View Post
The first hasn't reported anything in a week.
No, it isn't running any more.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-13, 20:54   #235
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23×191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichD View Post
The first hasn't reported anything in a week.
He changed from an always-on instance to an at-will 24-hr-max instance. Much cheaper; we're speculating about why it's also slower.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-13, 21:15   #236
lukerichards
 
lukerichards's Avatar
 
"Luke Richards"
Jan 2018
Birmingham, UK

12016 Posts
Default

Have tweaked some settings and using a clientid of lukerichards-pre1-test1 for a day or two. Will probably check in on Sunday to see how that has fared.
lukerichards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-14, 06:06   #237
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

22·7·132 Posts
Default

Anyone knows if it is quicker to run individual instances rather than multi threads ( call 8x with t 1 instead of t 8). TIA
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-14, 15:26   #238
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23·191 Posts
Default

The siever is designed to be multi-threaded, and the documentation explains that CADO defaults to -t 2 because there is no penalty.

I think there is a small penalty for running, say, 20 threads rather than 2 or 4, and I think that penalty is related to the size of the factor base/size of the job. I wouldn't run 4-threaded sievers for a C110, and my guess is that on this C207 multiple 4- or 8-threaded instances would be a bit faster than a single 16+ threaded instance. Fivemack did some testing on a C193 in the CADO thread, but I didn't see clear evidence of perfect scaling to megathreads; then again, he's smarter than I am, so perhaps he's convinced and this job is fine up to 16 or 20 threads per job.

It may be that they're the only ones making full use of HT and are also running older architecture, but I note that Vebis and birch4 are the slowest relations-per-cpuday on the stats, and both are running 16+ threads per instance.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-16, 04:51   #239
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

22·7·132 Posts
Default

Another question: how to run the client without having to have the terminal window open. This is very important
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-16, 09:26   #240
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

22×7×132 Posts
Default

From stats I’m also one of the slowest rels/sec running 8 threads per instance. Maybe I’ll try 6 or even stay with 4 since I suppose I’m reaching bandwidth limit. BTW, ETA will soon drop, stay tuned.

Edit: Not sure what happened, double posted. Upper one can be deleted.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2019-06-16 at 09:28
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-16, 15:36   #241
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23·191 Posts
Default

I use "screen" before the cado invocation, and then ctrl-a, ctrl-d to detach it from the terminal window.

8 threads on a HT 4-core machine is likely faster than 6 or 4; rel/CPU-sec appears slower, but rel/wall-clock-sec is faster. Seth detailed this early on- that using HT and 8 threads means about a 20-25% reduction in wall clock time (while CPU-time appears to rise by 75% because the CADO timer just counts threads * wall clock, I think)
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-06-17, 06:20   #242
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

2·7·13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
I use "screen" before the cado invocation, and then ctrl-a, ctrl-d to detach it from the terminal window.

8 threads on a HT 4-core machine is likely faster than 6 or 4; rel/CPU-sec appears slower, but rel/wall-clock-sec is faster. Seth detailed this early on- that using HT and 8 threads means about a 20-25% reduction in wall clock time (while CPU-time appears to rise by 75% because the CADO timer just counts threads * wall clock, I think)
Would it be better for me to use wall clock? or to guess at number of cores? or to remove rels/CPU-sec?

Also 15%!
SethTro is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Coordination thread for redoing P-1 factoring ixfd64 Lone Mersenne Hunters 50 2020-06-10 21:01
big job planning henryzz Cunningham Tables 16 2010-08-07 05:08
Sieving reservations and coordination gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 2 2008-02-16 03:28
Sieved files/sieving coordination gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 32 2008-01-22 03:09
Special Project Planning wblipp ElevenSmooth 2 2004-02-19 05:25

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:09.

Mon Oct 26 01:09:48 UTC 2020 up 45 days, 22:20, 0 users, load averages: 2.20, 2.12, 1.90

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.