Prime95 version 29.3 - Page 5

rudi_m · 2017-09-15, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

I'll look at restarting the 12-hour Jacobi timer after a benchmark is run.

BTW shouldn't these timers be somehow related to the "running-time"?

For me it looks like the benchmark runs daily even on machines which only run 1 hour mprime per day. This means the 3-minute benchmark costs 5% throughput.

GP2 · 2017-09-15, 16:31

One very minor point... I'm running mprime, so I don't know what the Prime95 GUI does in 29.3, but do the Advanced/P-1 and Advanced/ECM options still offer the exponent 1061 by default, as version 28 did?

That exponent is fully factored, so maybe the default could be changed to 1277.

Prime95 · 2017-09-22, 17:45

With no serious errors reported, I've made 29.3 the official release.

Mark Rose · 2017-09-22, 20:50

So I put this on three machines, and it seems mprime is assigning the helper threads to the same core:

Code:

[Main thread Sep 22 16:30] Mersenne number primality test program version 29.3
[Main thread Sep 22 16:30] Optimizing for CPU architecture: Core i3/i5/i7, L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 8 MB
[Main thread Sep 22 16:30] Starting worker.
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Worker starting
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Setting affinity to run worker on logical CPUs 0 (zero-based)
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Setting affinity to run helper thread 3 on logical CPUs 0 (zero-based)
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Setting affinity to run helper thread 2 on logical CPUs 0 (zero-based)
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Setting affinity to run helper thread 1 on logical CPUs 0 (zero-based)
[Work thread Sep 22 16:30] Running Jacobi error check.  Passed.  Time: 13.966 sec.
[Work thread Sep 22 16:31] Resuming primality test of M44491127 using FMA3 FFT length 2400K, Pass1=320, Pass2=7680, clm=2, 4 threads
[Work thread Sep 22 16:31] Iteration: 2767230 / 44491127 [6.21%].

I simply extracted the new tar over the existing directory, to keep my local.txt and prime.txt. If I moved worktodo.txt and the various assignment files to a clean install, the clean install resumes processing with the cores assigned correctly.

It seems the following legacy stanza, from when I was using affinityscramble2, was causing the issue:

Code:

[Worker #1]
Affinity=0

I hope this helps anyone else who runs into this problem.

storm5510 · 2017-09-23, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Rose

...It seems the following legacy stanza, from when I was using affinityscramble2, was causing the issue:

Code:

[Worker #1]
Affinity=0

I hope this helps anyone else who runs into this problem.

I had a related issue when I started using this i7. After some experimentation, I ended up with this:

Code:

CoresPerTest=4
WorkerThreads=1

[Worker #1]
Affinity=0,1,2,3

Going beyond four threads was a bit self-defeating for a single worker and slowed everything slightly. I did not have an affinity scramble at the time. I didn't see the need.

I keep 29.2 B3 and 29.3 in the same folder by using modified file names. I found that using separate folders caused a bit of confusion, in my case.

mackerel · 2017-09-23, 18:00

I think I've seen this on older versions also, but thought I'd post now as I'm doing more testing with 29.3. What I did was run benchmark mode, setting HT off, and size 64 to 8192. Results come back at different FFT sizes on my Ryzen 1700 system, than the Intel 6700k and 7800X systems. I don't know if it might be number of core related (the Intels are 4 and 6 core, Ryzen 8 core), or something else to do with CPU type.

Following table colums middle left is Ryzen 1700, middle right is Intel (6700k or 7800X). The ones on either side are just copies of the sizes performed on that system but not on the other. Is this expected behaviour?

Each system had a fresh download of 29.3 with no configuration outside the benchmark. If it makes a difference, the Ryzen system defaulted to testing 1, 2, 8 workers, and I removed 2 leaving only 1 and 8.

Code:

Prime95 · 2017-09-23, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by mackerel

Following table colums middle left is Ryzen 1700, middle right is Intel (6700k or 7800X). The ones on either side are just copies of the sizes performed on that system but not on the other. Is this expected behaviour?

This is normal.

Take 160K FFT. The testing I did indicated the 160K FFT is slower than the 168K FFT on Intel CPUs. On Ryzen though the 160K is faster than the 168K (using the benchmarks emailed to me). Thus, in a default install, the Intel user will not see a 160K FFT selected, the Ryzen user will.

If your particular CPU does not behave like the typical Intel or Ryzen, then the throughput benchmarks that are run every 20 hours or so will decide whether the 160K FFT is useful.

Citrix · 2017-09-30, 06:25

Is there a way to write conditional work in worktodo.txt?

For example run 100 ECM curves with bounds B1 and B2 and if no factors are found, run a PRP test.

Thanks.

Prime95 · 2017-09-30, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citrix

Is there a way to write conditional work in worktodo.txt?

For example run 100 ECM curves with bounds B1 and B2 and if no factors are found, run a PRP test.

Sorry, there is no way to do that.

bayanne · 2017-10-01, 05:03

Are PRP tests likely to appear as an option in the Workers Windows box ...

Prime95 · 2017-10-01, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by bayanne

Are PRP tests likely to appear as an option in the Workers Windows box ...

Yes, in 29.4.

2017-09-23, 18:00	#50
mackerel Feb 2016 UK 2⁵·13 Posts	I think I've seen this on older versions also, but thought I'd post now as I'm doing more testing with 29.3. What I did was run benchmark mode, setting HT off, and size 64 to 8192. Results come back at different FFT sizes on my Ryzen 1700 system, than the Intel 6700k and 7800X systems. I don't know if it might be number of core related (the Intels are 4 and 6 core, Ryzen 8 core), or something else to do with CPU type. Following table colums middle left is Ryzen 1700, middle right is Intel (6700k or 7800X). The ones on either side are just copies of the sizes performed on that system but not on the other. Is this expected behaviour? Each system had a fresh download of 29.3 with no configuration outside the benchmark. If it makes a difference, the Ryzen system defaulted to testing 1, 2, 8 workers, and I removed 2 leaving only 1 and 8. Code: 64 64 72 72 80 80 84 84 96 96 100 100 112 112 120 120 128 128 144 140 160 144 160 160 168 168 192 192 200 200 224 224 240 240 256 256 280 280 288 288 320 320 336 336 384 384 400 400 448 448 480 480 512 512 560 560 576 576 640 640 672 672 720 720 768 768 800 800 864 864 896 896 960 960 1024 1024 1120 1120 1152 1152 1200 1200 1280 1280 1344 1344 1440 1440 1536 1536 1600 1600 1680 1680 1728 1728 1792 1792 1920 1920 2016 2016 2048 2048 2240 2240 2304 2304 2400 2400 2560 2560 2688 2688 2800 2800 2880 2880 3072 3072 3200 3200 3360 3360 3456 3456 3584 3584 3840 3840 4096 4096 4480 4480 4608 4608 4800 4800 5120 5120 5376 5376 5600 5600 5760 5760 6144 6144 6400 6400 6720 6720 6912 6912 7168 7168 7680 7680 8000 8000 8064 8064 8192 8192

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Prime95 version 27.3	Prime95	Software	148	2012-03-18 19:24
Prime95 version 26.3	Prime95	Software	76	2010-12-11 00:11
Prime95 version 25.5	Prime95	PrimeNet	369	2008-02-26 05:21
Prime95 version 25.4	Prime95	PrimeNet	143	2007-09-24 21:01
When the next prime95 version ?	pacionet	Software	74	2006-12-07 20:30

2017-09-15, 16:31	#46
GP2 Sep 2003 2587₁₀ Posts	One very minor point... I'm running mprime, so I don't know what the Prime95 GUI does in 29.3, but do the Advanced/P-1 and Advanced/ECM options still offer the exponent 1061 by default, as version 28 did? That exponent is fully factored, so maybe the default could be changed to 1277.

2017-09-22, 17:45	#47
Prime95 P90 years forever! Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 11·673 Posts	With no serious errors reported, I've made 29.3 the official release.

2017-09-30, 06:25	#52
Citrix Jun 2003 1579₁₀ Posts	Is there a way to write conditional work in worktodo.txt? For example run 100 ECM curves with bounds B1 and B2 and if no factors are found, run a PRP test. Thanks.

2017-10-01, 05:03	#54
bayanne "Tony Gott" Aug 2002 Yell, Shetland, UK 3·107 Posts	Are PRP tests likely to appear as an option in the Workers Windows box ...