mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Lone Mersenne Hunters > LMH > 100M

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-02-04, 04:50   #1
TheMawn
 
TheMawn's Avatar
 
May 2013
East. Always East.

11×157 Posts
Default Is LMH > 100M still alive?

Good evening, folks.

I'm interested in putting a small amount of my resources aside for a pair of exponents in the 332.8M range. You could think of them as "lucky" numbers. They're actually each constructed from a number I see and use every day and conveniently appear in the 100M digits area. Every once in a while, the superstition inside me needs to be let out in a controlled, entertaining and lucrative way. Not bloody likely...

Anyhow, the two numbers themselves are factored to 272 with no factors yet, but currently assigned under "GPU Trial Factoring" with no progress in ten months, so I take it they belong to GPU72? If this is the case, can I just PM Chris or someone to hand them over to me while I do my thing?


What is the ideal TF'ing depth for something in that range? I can't remember where that graph is (or if it works).

Can Prime95 do P-1 that high? If I were to give the program 12 GB or so to work with, what bounds should I give it to maximize the search area?

If I ever took it into my head to try an LL-test, is there a way to save checkpoints instead of overwriting them so I can run two side-by-side and check that they match every 24 hours or so? Would two matching residues by the same computer done at the same time count as a double-check?


For the record, I'll probably just TF to something reasonable and do the P-1 and give up. I don't see myself bothering with a 400-day LL test.
TheMawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:12   #2
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

52×7×53 Posts
Default

You can directly take them from the "get assignments" page of the GPU72, playing with the limits and the bit depth, or taking a small range and unreserving the other (not recommended, as the gpu72 spider will "alter" your credit if you unreserve work), or you can talk to Chris by PM.

"The ideal TF'ing depth for something in that range" depends on your card. It can be at least 81-82 bits (for a good card as Titan) but it can go as high as 85-86 bits, for a gtx570 (which is same fast to TF but slower to LL, you have to consider the fact that one LL can take 8 months, one year, or so, so spending few more days to TF, can be a good investment...).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2014-02-04 at 05:21
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:25   #3
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

608610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
Would two matching residues by the same computer done at the same time count as a double-check?
No. But if you don't have an ECC capable machine then this is a good way to increase your chances of a getting a good LL result.
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:37   #4
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

100100001110112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
No. But if you don't have an ECC capable machine then this is a good way to increase your chances of a getting a good LL result.
Yes if they come both from P95, with different shifts. For example one R720 server (dual CPU, 16 physical cores machines) as chalsall has, could use 8 cores to do one LL and another 8 cores to do the other LL, as independent assignments (different shifts). They will both "pass" the primenet filter (i.e. counting as LL+DC), and the user can check the residues on the way (to save precious time by restarting from a previous checkpoint, in case the residues do not match, without waiting till the LL finishes). In this case, turning ECC off should give considerable speedup.
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:45   #5
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2×17×179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Yes if they come both from P95, with different shifts. For example one R720 server (dual CPU, 16 physical cores machines) as chalsall has, could use 8 cores to do one LL and another 8 cores to do the other LL, as independent assignments (different shifts). They will both "pass" the primenet filter (i.e. counting as LL+DC), and the user can check the residues on the way (to save precious time by restarting from a previous checkpoint, in case the residues do not match, without waiting till the LL finishes). In this case, turning ECC off should give considerable speedup.
Okay, forgive me if I posted incorrect info. But this still has the possibility of the user faking the result so I can't see how this solves that.

No, I am not saying the posters here are faking results, just that primenet should be programmed to ignore DCs from the same user.

Last fiddled with by retina on 2014-02-04 at 05:45
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:48   #6
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

243B16 Posts
Default

Sure, such test will be frown about, from the most of the community (me inclusive!), and considered "unreliable" till a triple check is done, but this does not seems it is not possible. I use do DC and TC my old work ([edit: and I am a "credit whore" as someone said some time ago]), but this does not mean that I am a cheater. Everybody is considered honest till proved otherwise. Why the big scream font? (sorry, you corrected the size)

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2014-02-04 at 05:55
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:51   #7
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

17C616 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Why the big scream font?
Sorry, it was a typo value of 9 instead of 1. I corrected it immediately but it seems you were faster than me to see it.
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 05:56   #8
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

21368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Sure, such test will be frown about, from the most of the community (me inclusive!), and considered "unreliable" till a triple check is done, but this does not seems it is not possible. I use do DC and TC my old work, this does not mean that I am a thief. Everybody is considered honest till proved otherwise. Why the big scream font?
Seems like such a result could be marked as needing a "low priority" triple check, not really warranted until a milestone is close.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 06:06   #9
philmoore
 
philmoore's Avatar
 
"Phil"
Sep 2002
Tracktown, U.S.A.

2·13·43 Posts
Default

It seems to me that this type of computation could become the wave of the future, where a simultaneous double-check with checkpoints becomes the only reasonable way to guarantee that the computation is accurate. In such a case, it seems like a waste of effort to require that the triple-check also be done in duplicate, but if periodic 64-bit residues are saved for later comparison, then the eventual triple-checker could use these to be check that their computation is on-track.
philmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 06:18   #10
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

2·17·179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philmoore View Post
It seems to me that this type of computation could become the wave of the future, where a simultaneous double-check with checkpoints becomes the only reasonable way to guarantee that the computation is accurate. In such a case, it seems like a waste of effort to require that the triple-check also be done in duplicate, but if periodic 64-bit residues are saved for later comparison, then the eventual triple-checker could use these to be check that their computation is on-track.
You may be right here. But perhaps better to call the first test something like LL+AC (LL + accuracy check) and then then next test as DC (or VC (verification check)).

I don't know where you intended the partial residues to be stored. On the server? And then compared when the VCer posts partial residue updates during the run?
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-02-04, 07:29   #11
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

11×853 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMawn View Post
I'm interested in putting a small amount of my resources aside for a pair of exponents in the 332.8M range.
.....
Anyhow, the two numbers themselves are factored to 272 with no factors yet, but currently assigned under "GPU Trial Factoring" with no progress in ten months, so I take it they belong to GPU72?
What you have been told above is correct. Get them as assignments from GPU72. I just picked up some 72->73's today and they were in the 332.68 range.
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To 100M to 75 Bits petrw1 GPU to 72 6 2017-04-17 04:03
100m p-1 and tf aurashift Software 18 2016-04-14 13:48
Old pentium bug still alive? ATH Soap Box 8 2010-04-14 00:48
Anyone working in 79.3M - 100M ?? markr Lone Mersenne Hunters 21 2008-12-21 16:02
100M madness stars10250 Hardware 8 2008-10-02 15:21

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:15.

Tue Mar 9 12:15:55 UTC 2021 up 96 days, 8:27, 0 users, load averages: 1.37, 1.55, 1.45

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.