![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
May 2004
FRANCE
23216 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
6809 > 6502
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts
3·5·613 Posts |
![]()
There is no need to quote the entire post that you are responding to.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
May 2004
FRANCE
2×281 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | |
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
32×72 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Jun 2003
1,579 Posts |
![]()
Could someone post a 64 bit windows console binary. Thanks.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Dec 2011
After milion nines:)
25558 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2×2,897 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City
32×72 Posts |
![]()
Out of curiosity, what would be a major enough change to bump the version number to 3.9.0, or even 4.0.0? There have been a lot of releases in the 3.8.x series, and not all of them are necessarily backwards compatible (e.g. the change in this version to Fermat PRP residues by default for Riesel prime candidates), which is not usually a good thing for only changing the last part of a three-part version number.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Sep 2006
The Netherlands
3·233 Posts |
![]()
Seems scale better the 3.8.24b2 but it's a lot slower on my machine here.
I tried under linux 64 bits at dual socket Xeon L5420 machine at 4 threads the new version 3.8.24b2 diep@thegathering:/home/69$ cat test2/lresults.txt 69*2^7000369-1 is not prime. RES64: 886E914BC82C8141. Time : 39825.834 sec. 69*2^7000867-1 is not prime. RES64: 1F3BCAF66C5B7933. Time : 38285.808 sec. 69*2^7001303-1 is not prime. RES64: 94D4AD4E9742E379. Time : 38139.096 sec. 69*2^7001737-1 is not prime. RES64: BE059B0E4A0D9D8E. Time : 38098.335 sec. Meanwhile running at the other 4 cores an old version 3.8.21 69*2^7020207-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 597F737890E1B7D6 Time : 30347.892 sec. 69*2^7020581-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 6D7158CD69CE50C9 Time : 29160.003 sec. 69*2^7021093-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 669D4D0DF15BA53F Time : 29021.396 sec. 69*2^7021665-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 08F2596FBD4399E7 Time : 28909.286 sec. 69*2^7022049-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 04AD3E151D54E10B Time : 29338.964 sec. The LLR.ini it wrote:diep@thegathering:/home/69/test2$ cat llr.ini WorkDone=0 Work=0 PgenInputFile=../splitted/7m8m_first5k_at PgenOutputFile=../res1 PgenLine=5 HeaderLine=0 Pid=0 ThreadsPerTest=4 OldCpuSpeed=2500 NewCpuSpeedCount=0 NewCpuSpeed=0 PRPGerbiczCompareIntervalAdj= 1 OldInputFile=../splitted/7m8m_first5k_at |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
22·883 Posts |
![]()
I concur: testing a million digit number on an i7:
v3.8.24: 0.749 ms/it v3.8.21: 0.688 ms/it Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2020-10-12 at 17:36 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
22·883 Posts |
![]()
Fermat's Little theorem states b^(N-1) == 1 mod N for prime N (and gcd(b,N)==1).
For N=2^n-c this means for b=3 that 3^(2^n-c-1) == 1 (mod 2^n-c). This can be rewritten as 3^(2^n) == 3^(c+1) (mod 2^n-c). The left hand side is just squarings; The right hand side takes ~log(c) iterations. At the moment LLR does ~n multiplications of 3 times an n bit number which adds up to a 3-5% overhead. Can a similar argument hold for k*2^n-c? Yes! (3^k)^(2^n) == 3^(c+1) (mod k*2^n-c). Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2020-10-18 at 15:16 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LLR Version 3.8.22 released | Jean Penné | Software | 51 | 2019-04-10 06:04 |
LLR Version 3.8.19 released | Jean Penné | Software | 11 | 2017-02-23 08:52 |
LLR Version 3.8.16 released | Jean Penné | Software | 38 | 2015-12-10 07:31 |
LLR Version 3.8.15 released | Jean Penné | Software | 28 | 2015-08-04 04:51 |
llr 3.8.2 released as dev-version | opyrt | Prime Sierpinski Project | 11 | 2010-11-18 18:24 |