mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-02-10, 09:31   #23
paleseptember
 
paleseptember's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au

3×61 Posts
Default

Ahhhh, I'm getting crazy temperatures under full load. Like >95C on all four cores. At rest they drop back down to 70C.

Am going to have to clean the case asap, and maybe consider a better CPU heatsinkfanthing.

But, as I currently have a cold/flu/death/thing, and the five minutes spent downloading, installing, and watching the temps on the programme is the longest I've been out of bed in the past eight hours, that is a thought for tomorrow, when I'm lucid and actually able to string two thoughts together in a row. And type properly.
paleseptember is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-02-10, 16:18   #24
Jeff Gilchrist
 
Jeff Gilchrist's Avatar
 
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada

7·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paleseptember View Post
Ahhhh, I'm getting crazy temperatures under full load. Like >95C on all four cores. At rest they drop back down to 70C.
That is definitely bad and probably going to lower the life of your CPUs. You can also try downloading Real Temp which measures a little differently than Core Temp, a good way to compare and make sure the readings are at least similar. Real Temp usually measure a little cooler but should be close.

PS: I hope you get over your death cold soon.

Last fiddled with by Jeff Gilchrist on 2009-02-10 at 16:19
Jeff Gilchrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-02-23, 17:30   #25
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

21368 Posts
Default

Good news - I double-checked 21 of Ben's results from February 9th and 10th when he reported throttling due to overheating, and all 21 of my residues agree with his.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-04, 00:57   #26
paleseptember
 
paleseptember's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au

18310 Posts
Default

Somewhere during the 3.26M file we've hit the transition from FFT length 320K to 384K. I've taken a hit from 0.007s to 0.009s per iteration. Ouch.

Ah well, onwards we march :)
paleseptember is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-04, 09:38   #27
paleseptember
 
paleseptember's Avatar
 
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au

3·61 Posts
Default

Go engracio go! \o\ \o| |o| |o/ /o/

(I know full well that this will be deleted within a day or so, but every bit of encouragement helps, right?)
paleseptember is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-04, 14:32   #28
engracio
 
engracio's Avatar
 
May 2007

112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paleseptember View Post
Go engracio go! \o\ \o| |o| |o/ /o/

(I know full well that this will be deleted within a day or so, but every bit of encouragement helps, right?)

Thanks Ben

Can't wait to be doing this again
engracio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-04, 17:45   #29
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

2·13·43 Posts
Default

Ben, you probably took a 20% hit increase, but rounding makes it look a little worse (0.007 to 0.009). Engracio's last reservation takes us into the million-digit range, and we are close to completing up to 900,000 digits! I'm hoping we can find another probable prime soon and speed up the progress. I just uploaded more work files.

Last fiddled with by philmoore on 2009-03-07 at 21:55 Reason: moved posts between threads
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-28, 16:42   #30
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

45E16 Posts
Default

Ouch, it looks like FFT size has increased again, from 384K to 448K. I am guessing that it may have happened somewhere in the middle of Engracio's current range, does anyone else have any data on that? On the other hand, my old Athlon XP system at home is still using 384K for the exponents in the 3.93-3.94M range, so I may shift a few exponents over to that, but it is slow, around 40 hours per test.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-28, 17:31   #31
Jeff Gilchrist
 
Jeff Gilchrist's Avatar
 
Jun 2003
Ottawa, Canada

7·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philmoore View Post
Ouch, it looks like FFT size has increased again, from 384K to 448K. I am guessing that it may have happened somewhere in the middle of Engracio's current range, does anyone else have any data on that? On the other hand, my old Athlon XP system at home is still using 384K for the exponents in the 3.93-3.94M range, so I may shift a few exponents over to that, but it is slow, around 40 hours per test.
I have a 2^3911320+40291 and 2^3921064+40291 that are using 448K FFTs and 2^3925684+2131 and 2^3916024^2131 using 384K still.

The 448K FFTs are taking 0.008 sec per iteration while the 384K ones are taking 0.006/0.007 secs.

Jeff.
Jeff Gilchrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-28, 19:44   #32
engracio
 
engracio's Avatar
 
May 2007

112 Posts
Default

Yea Phil, I've just glanced on the wu's and they are still in the 384K range at 3.83m.
engracio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-04-29, 22:14   #33
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

21368 Posts
Default

I see now that the +2131 numbers are using the 384K all-complex FFTs on the Pentium D, but the Athlon is using the 384K size for all three sequences. Looks like it would make sense to do as many +40291 and +41693 numbers as possible on the Athlon and do all the +2131 numbers on the Pentium.

2131 has always had higher crossover sizes for FFT lengths.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P-1 discussion thread Rincewind Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 57 2011-02-06 21:53
Sieving discussion thread jasong Twin Prime Search 311 2010-10-22 18:41
Sieving discussion thread philmoore Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem 66 2010-02-10 14:34
Theological Discussion Thread clowns789 Soap Box 3 2006-03-09 04:05
New Sieve Thread Discussion Citrix Prime Sierpinski Project 15 2005-08-29 13:56

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:16.

Tue Dec 1 18:16:34 UTC 2020 up 82 days, 15:27, 2 users, load averages: 2.48, 2.13, 2.04

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.