mersenneforum.org LLR Version 3.8.11 released
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-12-20, 21:44 #1 Jean Penné     May 2004 FRANCE 57510 Posts LLR Version 3.8.11 released Hi All, I uploaded today the stable (I hope!) version 3.8.11 of the LLR program. You can find it now on my personal site : http://jpenne.free.fr/ The 32bit Windows and Linux compressed binaries are available as usual. The Linux 64bit binaries are also released here. I uploaded also the complete source in a compressed file ; it may be used to build the Mac-Intel executable and also the 64bit Windows binary. This LLR version is linked with the Version 27.9 of George Woltman's gwnum library. I released also a cllrd binary, which is linked with the debug version of the gwnum library. The main new feature in this version is it can now test the primality of numbers of the form b^n-b^m +/- 1 with n > m ; the header of the input file must then be ABC$a^$b-$a^$c +1 or -1, respectively. If n > 2*m, only a strong PRP test can be done, but the factored part of the candidate is shown, if the number is PRP. If the factored part is at least 33%, the PFGW program can then be used to complete the proof. If the factored part is lower, it may be necessary to build an helper file, or to use a more general prover... As usual, I need help to build the 32bit Mac Intel binary, and also the 64bit Mac Intel and Windows ones. Please, inform me if you encountered any problem while using this new version. Merry Christmas, Happy new year and Best Regards, Jean
 2013-12-21, 01:51 #2 paulunderwood     Sep 2002 Database er0rr 3×17×71 Posts Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, Jean. I have proved a couple of primes: 10^277200-10^257768-1 and 10^277200-10^99088-1 On an Intel 4770k, hovering around 4.1GHz, the PRP tests run at 1.43msec/bit and the full proving test at 3.4msec/bit. The PRP tests are as quick as OpenPFGW. We were hoping for a bigger speed up, because R*b^n==R*b^m+R (mod b^n-b^m-1) and for smaller "m" I think a quicker special modular reduction is possible, by way of base conversions and an added shift. One bug is that if "ForcePRP=1" is put llr.ini then I get: Code: Starting probable prime test of 10^257768-1 Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-12-21 at 01:51
2013-12-22, 10:38   #3
Jean Penné

May 2004
FRANCE

10778 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, Jean. I have proved a couple of primes: 10^277200-10^257768-1 and 10^277200-10^99088-1 On an Intel 4770k, hovering around 4.1GHz, the PRP tests run at 1.43msec/bit and the full proving test at 3.4msec/bit. The PRP tests are as quick as OpenPFGW. We were hoping for a bigger speed up, because R*b^n==R*b^m+R (mod b^n-b^m-1) and for smaller "m" I think a quicker special modular reduction is possible, by way of base conversions and an added shift. One bug is that if "ForcePRP=1" is put llr.ini then I get: Code: Starting probable prime test of 10^257768-1
Hi Paul,
Yes, it is a bug and I will fix it!
However, would you excuse me, but I don't understand why you need to use the ForcePRP option...
Regards,
Jean

2013-12-22, 14:05   #4
paulunderwood

Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3·17·71 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Jean Penné Hi Paul, Yes, it is a bug and I will fix it! However, would you excuse me, but I don't understand why you need to use the ForcePRP option... Regards, Jean
I was going to try it to see if would be quicker.

Is a special mod reduction George's domain?

2013-12-22, 14:40   #5
Jean Penné

May 2004
FRANCE

52·23 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulunderwood I was going to try it to see if would be quicker. Is a special mod reduction George's domain?
It is not mine... But I think the best is to ask that to him!

 2013-12-22, 20:08 #6 Jean Penné     May 2004 FRANCE 57510 Posts LLR 3.8.11 Hi, The bug is now fixed on all released binaries, and on the source. Regards, Jean
 2013-12-23, 22:21 #7 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 488710 Posts Seems to be that 3.8.11 is slower than 3.8.9 on LLR for k=5 at n=3.7M.
2013-12-24, 17:20   #8
KEP

May 2005

96410 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos Seems to be that 3.8.11 is slower than 3.8.9 on LLR for k=5 at n=3.7M.
Have you checked that the FFT length hasn't increased? I have tested hundreds of base 2 tests for a total of 13 different k's and there hasn't been any significant difference in speed, but what you are reporting should of course be investigated, however an explanation could be that you have hit an FFT jump, wich will slow down your testing

Last fiddled with by KEP on 2013-12-24 at 17:21

2013-12-24, 19:50   #9
pinhodecarlos

"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

33×181 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by KEP Have you checked that the FFT length hasn't increased? I have tested hundreds of base 2 tests for a total of 13 different k's and there hasn't been any significant difference in speed, but what you are reporting should of course be investigated, however an explanation could be that you have hit an FFT jump, wich will slow down your testing
No FFT Jump. Same numbers, more 100 seconds.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2013-12-24 at 19:59

2013-12-24, 23:24   #10
KEP

May 2005

22×241 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos No FFT Jump. Same numbers, more 100 seconds.
Is that for a complete test (all the way through from iteration 1 to iteration max) or is it based on timings of each iteration?

2013-12-24, 23:33   #11
pinhodecarlos

"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

33×181 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by KEP Is that for a complete test (all the way through from iteration 1 to iteration max) or is it based on timings of each iteration?
Complete test on 4 numbers, went back to previous version.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Jean Penné Software 30 2018-08-13 20:00 Jean Penné Software 11 2017-02-23 08:52 Jean Penné Software 28 2015-08-04 04:51 Jean Penné Software 37 2013-10-31 08:45 opyrt Prime Sierpinski Project 11 2010-11-18 18:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:24.

Mon Apr 19 15:24:28 UTC 2021 up 11 days, 10:05, 0 users, load averages: 1.54, 1.99, 2.14