mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Conjectures 'R Us

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-06-22, 07:50   #111
kar_bon
 
kar_bon's Avatar
 
Mar 2006
Germany

7·13·31 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grobie View Post
Still no luck. all that is in the pfgw.log is the 1 prp but for the life of me cant get it to test it.
The *.log-file contains the PRPs found and the *-prime.log the primes found, don't mix it.

Example:
the testfile "test.txt" contains two entries:
Code:
3999*130^72-1
100542585*2^35-1
Calling "pfgw -l -f test.txt" will produce these:
Screen output:
Code:
Output logging to file pfgw.out
No factoring at all, not even trivial division
Switching to Exponentiating using GMP
3999*130^72-1 is 3-PRP! (0.0046s+0.0008s)
100542585*2^35-1 is 3-PRP! (0.0000s+0.0033s)
Because only PRPs found, there is "pfgw.log", which contains:
Code:
3999*130^72-1
100542585*2^35-1
"pfgw.out" contains all processed candidates.

The "pfgw.ini" contains a line with
Code:
CurLineNum=3
which says, all is done.

Calling "pfgw -l -tp -f test.txt" will produce these:
Screen output:
Code:
Output logging to file pfgw.out
No factoring at all, not even trivial division
Primality testing 3999*130^72-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N+1 test using discriminant 7, base 1+sqrt(7)
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 51.45%
3999*130^72-1 is prime! (0.0257s+0.0031s)
Primality testing 100542585*2^35-1 [N+1, Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge]
Running N+1 test using discriminant 7, base 1+sqrt(7)
Calling Brillhart-Lehmer-Selfridge with factored part 57.38%
100542585*2^35-1 is prime! (0.0058s+0.0046s)
Now 2 primes were found and "pfgw-prime.log" contains:
Code:
3999*130^72-1
100542585*2^35-1
There's no "pfgw.log" because no PRPs were found!

Before running pfgw.exe, delete all files or copy them in another folder.
kar_bon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-06-22, 12:19   #112
grobie
 
grobie's Avatar
 
Sep 2005
Raleigh, North Carolina

337 Posts
Default

Thanks everyone. What I did was delete my .ini file then I had to copy and paste the pfgw.log with my prp's to a new file test.txt then it worked.
grobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 01:18   #113
CGKIII
 
Aug 2012

2510 Posts
Question Trouble with {number_primes} option in PFGW

After lurking a bit and getting tired of BOINC doing its own thing, I've come to CRUS to do some cool stuff.

Once I get all the software and such figured out, I'd like to wind up reserving one of the recommended bases (S391 to 25k). However, I've got a couple questions.

First, I can't seem to get the {number_primes,$a,1} option working correctly.

I'm using the following input file (modified to test just this functionality)

-------------

ABCD 1456*391^$a+1 [2529] // {number_primes,$a,1}
1539
8
3
7
20
7
30
2
1
14
6
7
6
9


And then I throw this into WinPFGW:
pfgw -f0 -l -t sieve-sierp-base391-2.5K-25Kcgk2.txt

My understanding of the {number_primes} functionality is that it should stop after the third test (where it finds that 1456*391^4076+1 is a prime), but it doesn't.

With the standard screen logging, it says that "ABCD File Processing for at most 1 Primes."

If someone could explain where my error is here, that would be fantastic.


Secondly, how do I leverage multiple cores? Is it as simple as splitting up the range and opening multiple instances of WinPFGW?

Thanks a lot,
Caz
CGKIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 03:10   #114
Mathew
 
Mathew's Avatar
 
Nov 2009

2·52·7 Posts
Default

Welcome CGKIII,

I am not sure if pfgw likes the .abcd fromat (this is the one you are currently using). What you can do instead of using the .abcd format is use the pfgw format by doing the following command:

Code:
srfile -w sieve-sierp-base391-2.5K-25Kcgk2.txt
This will create a file called sr_391.pfgw (you can rename it to what you like). Edit the first line of this file to have
Code:
//{number_primes,$a,1}
same as you did with the .abcd

This will then stop on:
Code:
1456*391^4076+1 is 3-PRP!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGKIII View Post
Secondly, how do I leverage multiple cores? Is it as simple as splitting up the range and opening multiple instances of WinPFGW?
Yes this is one method and the method I would recommend for understanding the software. Another method is using PRPnet, but it may not be the efficient method for the S391 2.5K-25K reservation.

Also,
You do not want to do
Code:
pfgw -f0 -l -t pfgw_filename
You would want to do
Code:
pfgw -f0 -l pfgw_filename
without the -t. You only want to do the -t option on the numbers found in the pfgw.log file.

Hope this helps,

Mathew
Mathew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 04:15   #115
CGKIII
 
Aug 2012

52 Posts
Default

Got it. Thanks a lot Mathew. Currently up and running on 2 cores with a manual split. Later this week I'll look more into PRPNet, since I've got another machine or two and would like to get things a bit more automated.
CGKIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 04:26   #116
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

3×947 Posts
Default

Welcome CGKIII. There are many ways to do this testing. I personally use PRPNET, but is is tricky to set up unless you already know how to install MYSQL.

An alternative is that we do have private PRPNET ports set up for the server side of PRPNET. You would only have to get the client side running pointing to that port. You could then have multiple cores going against your range.

I have done ranges for 2.5K-25K using this method and it works just fine as long as you configure the clients for at least a cache of 10. Any lower and the server will get bogged down because the tests @ 2.5 k are only about 1 sec in duration.

I am not a PFGW or WinPFGW guru but I'm sure there are enough people around that can get you rolling if that's what you choose. I do know that if you bust it into multiple cores, all tests for a k must stay together otherwise if you find a prime on one core, the other cores won't know about it. //(number_primes,$a,1) is telling PFGW to flag the primedk and don't test that k anymore. The program doesn't actually stop.

Again, welcome and ask all the questions you need to.
MyDogBuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 04:38   #117
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·52·7·29 Posts
Default

Hi CGK,

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your PM. I was out of town until late yesterday with limited online time.

It looks like Ian (MyDogBuster) and Mathew got you started. I wanted to add one more thing: If you decide to reserve S391, there is a sieve file already available. The file will probably need to be sieved further but it would be a very good start. Take a look at our Sierp reservations page at http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/cru...e-reserves.htm. Go down to base 391 and there will be a link to the file out to the right. To make your reservation "official", just post it in the bases 251-500 thread.

Good luck!


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-08-28, 04:51   #118
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

3·947 Posts
Default

I also need to point out that PRPNET will run on Linux or Windows. I know nothing of Linux but could probably get you started on Windows. Another poster here, Rogue, actually wrote PRPNET so we have the ultimate source of knowledge.

Last fiddled with by MyDogBuster on 2012-08-28 at 04:51
MyDogBuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-15, 21:58   #119
CGKIII
 
Aug 2012

52 Posts
Default

Is sieving machine-dependent?

So I've run the new base script on S282 to n = 2500 (going to take it to n = 25,000). Now, it's my understanding that I run srsieve for the remaining k's up to - P 100e6 (magic number I saw somewhere and wrote down). And then I run sr2sieve until I get to a removal rate ~ time it takes to do an LLR test at about 60/70% of the range, for an "average" k.

I've got four machines with four different average testing times. If I sieve on one machine and stop at the average testing time for that one, will that roughly correspond to the same sieve depth, had I used another machine? I assume so, because we have sieve files that get passed back and forth between people, but if that's not the case, then I'd like to figure out how to choose which machine will do the sieving.
CGKIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-15, 23:31   #120
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2×52×7×29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGKIII View Post
Is sieving machine-dependent?

So I've run the new base script on S282 to n = 2500 (going to take it to n = 25,000). Now, it's my understanding that I run srsieve for the remaining k's up to - P 100e6 (magic number I saw somewhere and wrote down). And then I run sr2sieve until I get to a removal rate ~ time it takes to do an LLR test at about 60/70% of the range, for an "average" k.

I've got four machines with four different average testing times. If I sieve on one machine and stop at the average testing time for that one, will that roughly correspond to the same sieve depth, had I used another machine? I assume so, because we have sieve files that get passed back and forth between people, but if that's not the case, then I'd like to figure out how to choose which machine will do the sieving.
Not necessarily. Others can elaborate more but I can say that some machines are better for sieving and others for primality testing. Choose which machine is the fastest siever for all sieving. To be more specific, you should probably choose to calculate the optimum sieve depth while sieving on your fastest sieving machine with test times gleaned from your average primality testing machine. You only want to sieve on your fastest sieving machine because sieving is only about 5-10% of the total effort. I personally have only one machine that I sieve on most of the time and it can easily keep the other 11 machines busy with primality testing work. Doing it that way minimizes the overall CPU effort needed.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2012-09-15 at 23:33
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-09-21, 09:03   #121
CGKIII
 
Aug 2012

2510 Posts
Default

I'd like to modify the new base script to handle not-quite-new bases, since it seems to do a bunch of nice things already.

Is it as simple as adding "DIM min_n, xxxx" to the section where all the variables are declared, and then change "SET n, 0" to "SET n, min_n"

Testing it myself might be the way to go, but I'll be out of town this weekend and won't have time to troubleshoot.

I want to get more granular with my sieving (rather than optimizing sr2sieve removal rates for a large range, chunk it better and optimize within those smaller chunks), but I don't currently have a good way to use PFGW to test from A to B, where A != 0.
CGKIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Useless SSE instructions __HRB__ Programming 41 2012-07-07 17:43
Questions about software licenses... WraithX GMP-ECM 37 2011-10-28 01:04
Software/instructions/questions gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 48 2009-07-31 01:44
Instructions to manual LLR? OmbooHankvald PSearch 3 2005-08-05 20:28
Instructions please? jasong Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 10 2005-03-14 04:03

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:04.

Wed Jul 8 08:04:25 UTC 2020 up 105 days, 5:37, 0 users, load averages: 2.31, 1.90, 1.67

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.