20191120, 01:03  #1 
"Eric"
Jan 2018
USA
2·97 Posts 
TFLOPS madness
I noticed that the TFLOPS is abnormally high today (at 286,000), and it was due to Ryan submitting a bunch of ECM results. Is that normal or did the server had some problems processing his results?

20191120, 01:35  #2  
P90 years forever!
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL
2^{2}·7·241 Posts 
Quote:
Remember, CPU credit is given based on how long it would take prime95 to perform a task. GMPECM uses a superior stage 2 algorithm which gives much higher B2 bounds. This is similar to the inflated CPU credit for TF  GPUs are a better tool than prime95 on a CPU. 

20191121, 04:49  #3 
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!
"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada
2×5×7×61 Posts 
Ryan found a few dozen ECM factors for small exponents over the past year or so.
I assume he has recently made known exactly how many curves he ran for these. The "Done" boxes are way more plentiful especially for the lower exponents. https://www.mersenne.org/report_ecm/...=1&ecm_hi=3000 
20191121, 15:33  #4 
Random Account
Aug 2009
U.S.A.
2·7·79 Posts 

20191121, 15:49  #5  
Nov 2008
111110001_{2} Posts 
Quote:


20191121, 16:25  #6  
Jun 2003
2^{3}×3^{4}×7 Posts 
Quote:
This way, ECM done with GMPECM still receives higher credits, but not absurdly so. 

20191121, 18:26  #7  
Nov 2008
7·71 Posts 
Quote:


20191121, 20:18  #8 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
4,001 Posts 

20191121, 22:45  #9  
Nov 2008
7×71 Posts 
Quote:
I did one curve at each B1 level (Prime 95), then ran gmpecm in verbose mode to time for each B2 going up in powers of 10 until I reached the point where run times were about equal'ish for stage 1 and stage 2. Previous comments were having B2=100*B1.... ..if I understand correctly then for say B1=260M I should have B2=6.76E16 ? 

20191122, 00:07  #10 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
7641_{8} Posts 
I think we're both a bit mistaken; I had ratio of 10,000 in mind (not the 100k you mentioned I simply goofed when I glanced at B2/B1 ratios in my logs and compared to your claim) when I said your ratio is too small for large B1, but it's not too small until enormous B1 values. I'm also not experienced in your use of P95 for stage 1, and I lack much experience with finding the optimal ratio of B2 to B1 for cases that use P95 for stage1 and GMPECM for stage 2.
Regardless, the ratio should depend on B1. B2 = 100000 * B1 is too big for small B1s, and too small for (quite) large B1s. For instance, I'm running curves presently on a C251 at B1 = 6e9, and B2 = 1.8e15 yields stage 2 time around 45% of stage 1 time. If you want stage 2 time to equal stage 1 time, you'd need a ratio close to 1 million. Yet, at B1 = 6e7 a B2 around 3e10 yields stage 2 time somewhere near stage 1 time; that's a ratio of just 5000. So, if you determined B2 = 100000 * B1 is optimal for B1=260M, I believe you; but I suggest you not use that ratio for B1 = 1M! Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20191122 at 00:10 Reason: Fixed post to reflect Gordon's statement of P95 for stage 1, GMP stage 2 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Vega 20 announced with 7.64 TFlops of FP64  M344587487  GPU Computing  4  20181108 16:56 
1000 TFLOPs  ramgeis  PrimeNet  2  20140408 10:27 
Supercomputer Blizzard wíth 158 TFLOPS online  moebius  Science & Technology  3  20101214 10:45 
100M madness  stars10250  Hardware  8  20081002 15:21 
March Madness 2006  Prime95  Lounge  20  20060321 04:35 