mersenneforum.org Question about multi-core prime searching.
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-08-25, 17:26 #1 Trilo     "W. Byerly" Aug 2013 81*2^2797443-1 7316 Posts Question about multi-core prime searching. I am using a 7 core 2.2ghz computer, which I have 6 cores running. 4 of them are running a newpgen file on pfgw that has been split into four sections. When I run 1 core ittakes pfgw 10s to test a candidate. However, using 6 cores takes 15s to test a candidate of similar size. Am I doing something wrong, or is this normal? Also, do is processing an n of size 116000 in 10-15s a normal speed, or do I have a slow computer? Is what I am doing the fastest way to test candidates? Because it takes me a day to seach through n= 100000- 110000 on this computer and themi hear about people finding primes with n's in the 700000's and I am wondering how they do it, do they use really fast computers, or do they wait weeks to find them. Last fiddled with by Trilo on 2013-08-25 at 17:32
2013-08-25, 17:33   #2
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

2·7·467 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Trilo I am using a 7 core 2.2ghz computer, which I have 6 cores running. 4 of them are running a newpgen file on pfgw that has been split into four sections. When I run 1 core ittakes pfgw 10s to test a candidate. However, using 6 cores takes 15s to test a candidate of similar size. Am I doing something wrong, or is this normal? Also, do is processing an n of size 116000 in 10-15s a normal speed, or do I have a slow computer? Is what I am doing the fastest way to test candidates?
Is that logical or physical cores?

BTW, llr is faster than pfgw for base 2.

 2013-08-25, 17:35 #3 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 13×397 Posts Without more information about your specific setup (I have never heard of a 7-core machine, unless you're including your GPU), we can only tell you that Prime95/LLR/PFGW tax the memory subsystem quite thoroughly. As you add copies of those programs to your task list, you may find a number of copies such that the next run you fire up slows down all your tests. This number of simultaneous tests does depend on the size of the exponent. There are other factoring/sieving/primenumber-related programs that tax memory less, which can be run on the rest of the cores.
2013-08-25, 19:51   #4
Trilo

"W. Byerly"
Aug 2013
81*2^2797443-1

5·23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Without more information about your specific setup (I have never heard of a 7-core machine, unless you're including your GPU), we can only tell you that Prime95/LLR/PFGW tax the memory subsystem quite thoroughly. As you add copies of those programs to your task list, you may find a number of copies such that the next run you fire up slows down all your tests. This number of simultaneous tests does depend on the size of the exponent. There are other factoring/sieving/primenumber-related programs that tax memory less, which can be run on the rest of the cores.
yes, I considered the 7th core my gpu, and I was using base 2.

 2013-08-25, 19:52 #5 TheMawn     May 2013 East. Always East. 11·157 Posts 7 cores sound interesting to me, too. The previous comment is entirely correct. Certain programs (I don't know much about the Riesel Prime stuff) do have to access the memory an awful lot. The extra cores have to wait their turn to access the memory which just can't keep up with the demand. If you have 6 cores doing one candidate in 15 ms, you're doing roughly 400 candidates per second. Because you are likely bandwidth limited, 400 candidates is going to be your max throughput no matter what you do, short of overclocking the memory. Try running it on four cores to see if you get 10 ms per candidate. Or 12.5 ms on five cores. If this is what is happening, you'll have hit a memory bottleneck at four cores, and you might want to look into running three cores and putting the others to work on something less memory bandwidth limited.
 2013-08-25, 19:54 #6 Trilo     "W. Byerly" Aug 2013 81*2^2797443-1 5·23 Posts my question is, how do people find 2^700000 prime numbers when it takes me all night long to find them in the 2^110000 range?
2013-08-25, 19:57   #7
Trilo

"W. Byerly"
Aug 2013
81*2^2797443-1

5·23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TheMawn 7 cores sound interesting to me, too. The previous comment is entirely correct. Certain programs (I don't know much about the Riesel Prime stuff) do have to access the memory an awful lot. The extra cores have to wait their turn to access the memory which just can't keep up with the demand. If you have 6 cores doing one candidate in 15 ms, you're doing roughly 400 candidates per second. Because you are likely bandwidth limited, 400 candidates is going to be your max throughput no matter what you do, short of overclocking the memory. Try running it on four cores to see if you get 10 ms per candidate. Or 12.5 ms on five cores. If this is what is happening, you'll have hit a memory bottleneck at four cores, and you might want to look into running three cores and putting the others to work on something less memory bandwidth limited.
no, it takes 10 SECONDS per candidate in the 2^110000 range with my 7 core( 6cores + gpu) 2.2ghz labtop. using 6 cores takes 15 seconds per candidate. Do I have a slow computer or am I doing something wrong. These times are really slow:
maybe the big k value??

3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110116-1 is composite: RES64: [3EB0BD2471F424A1] (8.9393s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110118-1 is composite: RES64: [D05EBB62E6B549D1] (8.9463s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110120-1 is composite: RES64: [7419127763C23D3B] (8.9553s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110124-1 is composite: RES64: [95403DBCC36CB577] (8.9407s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110128-1 is composite: RES64: [7B81D14EDE46FF75] (8.9376s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110130-1 is composite: RES64: [4FBEAB3B24AED91D] (8.9947s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110135-1 is composite: RES64: [5B6635E716E3FB59] (8.9533s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110140-1 is composite: RES64: [E736E76FE726A95E] (8.9488s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110144-1 is composite: RES64: [6E4677AC6C6C3E44] (8.9127s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110145-1 is composite: RES64: [4B449D255FCBD109] (8.9385s+0.0002s)
3*5*11*13*98584369*2^110147-1 is composite: RES64: [B9E02B34D05B280C] (8.9361s+0.0002s)

Note: This was when I wasn't using my computer, if i'm using it, it takes 10 seconds

Last fiddled with by Trilo on 2013-08-25 at 20:01 Reason: added sample pfgw output

 2013-08-25, 20:29 #8 pepi37     Dec 2011 After milion nines:) 3·7·71 Posts Can you write exactly processor type? How much memory you have? What is OS? 32 or 64 bit? Considering your setup as 7 core is very unusual. You dont have 7 cores, you have 6+1, and if you ask us to help you then you first need to tell as as more info as you can get, not hiding it . On my Intel I7 D:\PGEN>llr64 -d -q"211463471505*2^110116-1" Starting Lucas Lehmer Riesel prime test of 211463471505*2^110116-1 Using zero-padded AVX FFT length 12K, Pass1=256, Pass2=48 V1 = 5 ; Computing U0...done. 211463471505*2^110116-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 5887F92232E8A5A9 Time : 5.918 sec. running on 4 cores does not have any influence on speed. Last fiddled with by pepi37 on 2013-08-25 at 20:33
 2013-08-25, 21:20 #9 Trilo     "W. Byerly" Aug 2013 81*2^2797443-1 5·23 Posts 1 terabyte memory 8 gb RAM 64 bit, intel core i7-2670QM @2.2ghz CPU speed: 2487.21 MHz CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2 L1 cache size: 32kb L2 cache size: 256kb Last fiddled with by Trilo on 2013-08-25 at 21:26
 2013-08-25, 21:34 #10 Thomas11     Feb 2003 5×383 Posts The i7-2670QM is a quad-core cpu, not a hexa-core! Although you could run up to 8 threads due to hyperthreading, I wouldn't suggest to do so for LLR or PFGW. Only for sieving you may benefit from hyperthreading. BTW: This explains why you get 15 secs per test when running 6 instances instead of the 10 secs for just one instance (or up to 4 instances). Last fiddled with by Thomas11 on 2013-08-25 at 21:44
 2013-08-25, 22:00 #11 Trilo     "W. Byerly" Aug 2013 81*2^2797443-1 5·23 Posts oh, I got confused because it said core i7

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post dbaugh Information & Answers 3 2011-09-06 01:32 ixfd64 Factoring 1 2011-03-16 16:07 worknplay Software 3 2008-11-05 17:26 remaker Software 11 2007-04-02 20:18 jasong Hardware 6 2006-02-14 16:07

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:13.

Thu Jan 27 09:13:37 UTC 2022 up 188 days, 3:42, 1 user, load averages: 1.46, 1.59, 1.46