mersenneforum.org 64-bit gnfs-lasieve*
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2009-05-29, 05:54   #34
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

593810 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Batalov According to Greg (and me, I guess, from limited experience) - there should be hardly any difference. (Optimization of the C glue code is not significant, but the assembly code is common.) These binaries run great on Core2 (I've run them myself, too - under ubuntu and the speed was great; but most of the time my that computer is in Windows mode for the kid's homework use) and on K8/K10 alike.
brilliant
i have completed a small factorization with them and was impressed by their speed

 2010-01-19, 23:56 #35 Joshua2     Sep 2004 13·41 Posts so is there a windows x64 optimized siever for core2? can someone link me the best binary to use? is linux still much faster? Last fiddled with by Joshua2 on 2010-01-19 at 23:57
2010-01-20, 00:25   #36
frmky

Jul 2003
So Cal

1000101100002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joshua2 so is there a windows x64 optimized siever for core2? can someone link me the best binary to use? is linux still much faster?
No. I'm not an ASM guy, but I'm told calling conventions are different and a lot of ASM would need significant modification. The speedy 64-bit code is Linux only right now.

2010-01-20, 01:21   #37
Jeff Gilchrist

Jun 2003

3×17×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joshua2 so is there a windows x64 optimized siever for core2? can someone link me the best binary to use? is linux still much faster?
You could always get Virtual Box, install 64bit Linux and run that inside Windows to sieve.

Jeff.

2010-01-20, 10:46   #38
cjohnsto

Jun 2005

3×5 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky No. I'm not an ASM guy, but I'm told calling conventions are different and a lot of ASM would need significant modification. The speedy 64-bit code is Linux only right now.
The calling conventions are quite different, however most of the time it is pretty trivial to convert between the two conventions. I have found the interesting differences in the conventions don't apply that often.

In the past I have used a simple ifdef in my assembler at the start and end of the function to convert the input and results.
This method works well if there is one function that takes most of the computation time.

2010-01-20, 13:28   #39
Jeff Gilchrist

Jun 2003

3×17×23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cjohnsto The calling conventions are quite different, however most of the time it is pretty trivial to convert between the two conventions. I have found the interesting differences in the conventions don't apply that often.
Does that mean you are volunteering to convert the code to work in Windows then?

2010-01-23, 05:22   #40
cjohnsto

Jun 2005

F16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jeff Gilchrist Does that mean you are volunteering to convert the code to work in Windows then?
If you point me at a copy of the code with some build instructions for Windows I can take a look.

2010-01-24, 11:03   #41
Jeff Gilchrist

Jun 2003

49516 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cjohnsto If you point me at a copy of the code with some build instructions for Windows I can take a look.
The main source tree is in SVN trunk here:
http://ggnfs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ggnfs/

The experimental 64bit sieving code you would need to translate is here:
http://ggnfs.svn.sourceforge.net/vie...l/lasieve4_64/

The windows VS2008 project and code is here:
http://ggnfs.svn.sourceforge.net/vie.../build.vc/vc9/

Specially load ggnfs.sln and build the solutions to get the regular 64bit code compiled, you would have to add a new project for your translated 64bit sieving code.

 2010-02-11, 02:58 #42 cjohnsto   Jun 2005 3·5 Posts I haven't disappeared. I'm having trouble with getting GMP to build for Windows. I'm thinking I might just do the conversions blind (without building/testing) and pass them back to for someone to build, test and make small fixes.
 2010-02-11, 07:27 #43 ltd     Apr 2003 22×193 Posts Instead of GMP you can use the mpir package. http://www.mpir.org/ This comes also with Visual Studio solutions. Last fiddled with by ltd on 2010-02-11 at 07:28
 2010-02-16, 18:38 #44 chris2be8     Sep 2009 219810 Posts Having finally got the experimental version to run on one of my systems I've benchmarked it against the C version. 64 bit assembler version yielded 340020 relations in 01:02:31 The C version yielded 340026 relations in 01:54:17 ie 1.828 times as fast. Nice. Both with the following poly sieved from q=2750000 to q=2850000 Code: n: 15200438395829673822887270747334456300081381814070181365670614122000527807575298698572727198863263298646427259781616606952751 skew: 149765.83 # norm 3.27e+17 c5: 34200 c4: -47685613354 c3: 173727493738605 c2: 708460243134031910960 c1: -19147218280457427952169760 c0: -2082763077173939661276956379976 # alpha -6.97 Y1: 13931002448209 Y0: -850291789984003411307205 # Murphy_E 1.61e-10 # M 10722983998325608485314324921895133003712347944750948590020548179373615865209960488935822420329521367862576842656966919610242 type: gnfs rlim: 5500000 alim: 5500000 lpbr: 27 lpba: 27 mfbr: 53 mfba: 53 rlambda: 2.5 alambda: 2.5 qintsize: 100000 Has anyone any suggestions as to what to change polySelTimeMultiplier to? At the default it spends too long searching for polynomials related to the now shortened sieving time. But what should I reduce it by? Chris K

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 0 2014-12-24 19:13 pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 34 2014-04-01 21:27 fivemack Factoring 8 2010-04-27 18:59 Shaopu Lin Factoring 3 2009-11-18 18:42 Andi47 Msieve 5 2009-01-26 18:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:25.

Sun Dec 5 08:25:50 UTC 2021 up 135 days, 2:54, 0 users, load averages: 1.47, 1.64, 1.59