mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > And now for something completely different

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-05-22, 13:48   #111
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

101648 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
I'd say 4-5 months on 1024 cores with my above hack.
I should revise this figure down a lot. On 64 cores, it took 20 months for Primo to certify R49081. Call it 600 days. It would take Primo (86453/49081)^4 times as long i.e. 5776 days. Now FastECPP is twice as fast and my GWNUM hack will be 4 times as fast still at that bit level. So 722 days. On 16 times as many cores (i.e 1024 cores) that would only be ~45 days to certify R86453.

If no one is going to pick up R86453, I'd like to reserve it for myself for certification

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-05-22 at 19:41
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-22, 21:49   #112
rudy235
 
rudy235's Avatar
 
Jun 2015
Vallejo, CA/.

22·277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
I should revise this figure down a lot. On 64 cores, it took 20 months for Primo to certify R49081. Call it 600 days. It would take Primo (86453/49081)^4 times as long i.e. 5776 days. Now FastECPP is twice as fast and my GWNUM hack will be 4 times as fast still at that bit level. So 722 days. On 16 times as many cores (i.e 1024 cores) that would only be ~45 days to certify R86453.

If no one is going to pick up R86453, I'd like to reserve it for myself for certification
Go for it Paul!


...and tell me is a 100,000 digit PRP EVEN theoretically possible with the present software/hardware.
rudy235 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-22, 21:57   #113
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22×34×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rudy235 View Post
Go for it Paul!


...and tell me is a 100,000 digit PRP EVEN theoretically possible with the present software/hardware.
I guess so -- something like a top500 computer would eat it for breakfast.
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 11:01   #114
ryanp
 
ryanp's Avatar
 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO

2·199 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
The attached code can be compiled with GWNUM (after that has compiled from P95 source) in the P95 directory

Then make the change to lib/nt.c of CM (FastECCP code):

Code:
int cm_nt_is_prime (mpz_t a) {
   char str[60000];
   if ( mpz_sizeinbase (a, 2) < 26000 ) { // is 26000 optimal?
      return (mpz_probab_prime_p(a, 0)>0);
   }
   strcpy (str, "/home/paul/Downloads/p95/gw_prp "); // note the space
   strcat (str, mpz_get_str(NULL, 10, a));
   return (system(str));
}
This is quite useful. Thank you!

Could your call to mpz_probab_prime_p() in the if block be replaced by mpz_millerrabin as R. Gerbicz suggested?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulunderwood View Post
I am pretty sure it would be way better if the code was internal to CM instead of making use of system().
Perhaps this could be supported by some sort of --with-gwnum option to configure, as GMP-ECM allows.
ryanp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 11:35   #115
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

421210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanp View Post
This is quite useful. Thank you!

Could your call to mpz_probab_prime_p() in the if block be replaced by mpz_millerrabin as R. Gerbicz suggested?

Perhaps this could be supported by some sort of --with-gwnum option to configure, as GMP-ECM allows.
You're welcome!

I don't know the probabilities of M-R compared to BPSW -- but Robert's point about superfluous trial division is valid.

I leave the configure option for Andreas to implement.

I tried compiling the code for gw_num.c inside lib/nt.c but got errors about things like SQLite and fPIC and other things -- it is beyond my skills.

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-05-23 at 11:38
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 18:37   #116
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

107416 Posts
Default

Which CM/FastECPP are you all using? We had a long time on Step [1] with a 13k digit PRP with 0.4.1dev and reverted the install back to 0.4.0. Were we impatient?

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-05-23 at 18:41
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-23, 23:25   #117
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

986210 Posts
Default

0.4.1dev works well. (Specifically cm-0.4.1dev-41c4bce )

Latest news, UTM was updated with the new proof root code change called "E*"; and CM was changed to a 'program'.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-24, 03:29   #118
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

2·11·109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batalov View Post
0.4.1dev works well. (Specifically cm-0.4.1dev-41c4bce )
I still haven't been able to get through the step I got stuck on with that version. I've set it aside for now.
frmky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-24, 05:20   #119
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

2×4,931 Posts
Default

I recently built a rather involved package for R (it is called leafcutter, if anyone is interested); so for it, I'd built ...well - everything. Because many of its prereqs (if I count them now, it's dozens, which in turn built hundreds; but half a dozen failed) were development tools (if they weren't you can use R's own internal tools, like for python one uses pip), so I needed aclocal, autoconf, latest pkg-config, too... but also many things that I'd had but were not good enough for all those tools. (some tools built graphs of intermediate results, and they were using whatever they preferred, - for example libjpeg, which I think the last time I built maybe in 2006). Some tools needed CXX14, some were dated 1999; some said "you have libblah, but you have to rebuild it with -fPIC"...

Of these, building aclocal, autoconf, libtool were the easiest - from source, and then you own them. For building CM, only 4 packages were needed; once you have ac* tools, they all are a breeze to build.

I ended up having several pythons (for various packages; what is good for a Russian is death for a German, some say -- same for tools), several R's (some packages in BioConductor are abandoneware, so R 3.8 doesn't build them; so you need 3.6, 3.3, 3.0), several perl's even, several gcc's. Madness! Once you do those, building anything is peanuts.
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-24, 07:12   #120
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

2·11·109 Posts
Default

1987

But compiling CM isn't an issue. A run just gets stuck on a step for which it can't find a suitable discriminant. I'll look at it again later this week or next week when I have more time.
frmky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-24, 22:27   #121
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

22×34×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
1987

But compiling CM isn't an issue. A run just gets stuck on a step for which it can't find a suitable discriminant. I'll look at it again later this week or next week when I have more time.
We had a problematic number on an Intel cluster. The number works fine on an AMD box. It is shot in the dark, but could it be this difference that is the cause of the problem?

The number is numbpart(140593907). On the Intel cluster it takes an inordinate amount of time with 0.4.1dev-3865637+GWNUM to do Step [1].

On the Intel cluster:

Code:
Size [0]: 43850 bits
   Time for discriminant -48625528: 271949.5 (15256.3)
   largest prime of d: 868313
   largest prime of h: 31
       discriminants: 23.3 (23.3)
    36813 qroot:      251653.6 (12125.1)
  3319702 Cornacchia: 12635.2 (667.7)
    12238 trial div:  7632.3 (380.7)
    11623 is_prime:   5.1 (2059.5)
--
Size [1]: 43818 bits
^C  
real    847m52.780s
user    11357m49.201s
sys    542m47.063s
On the AMD box:

Code:
-- Size [1]: 43808 bits
   Time for discriminant -52151523: 5649.9 (138.0)
   largest prime of d: 283
   largest prime of h: 2
       discriminants: 4.3 (4.3)
      189 qroot:      2546.1 (54.8)
   420610 Cornacchia: 5361.0 (86.8)
     5166 trial div:  5862.6 (97.3)
     1134 is_prime:   0.4 (105.3)

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2022-05-24 at 23:05
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For which types of primes is GPU primality test software available? bur GPU Computing 6 2020-08-28 06:20
Fastest software for Mersenne primality test? JonathanM Information & Answers 25 2020-06-16 02:47
APR-CL as primality proof f1pokerspeed FactorDB 14 2014-01-09 21:06
Proof of Primality Test for Fermat Numbers princeps Math 15 2012-04-02 21:49
PRIMALITY PROOF for Wagstaff numbers! AntonVrba Math 96 2009-02-25 10:37

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:06.


Mon Jul 4 06:06:51 UTC 2022 up 81 days, 4:08, 0 users, load averages: 0.77, 0.79, 0.91

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔