mersenneforum.org mfaktc: a CUDA program for Mersenne prefactoring
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2020-10-21, 16:56   #3389
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

129916 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Viliam Furik Either way, I am not satisfied with the result.
I wonder what gpu-z, nvidia-smi or similar utility would show for the gpu utilization/load, and whether mfaktc.ini was tuned for the new fast gpus (>>128M GpuSieveSize, etc)
Also the classes output are numerous per second in the posted benchmark, which if on a rotating disk would slow things down; try an SSD or ramdisk or higher bit level or less_classes. Even on a well tuned RTX2080 I see throughput advantage to multiple mfaktc instances. These effects are slight but measurable even at GTX1050Ti. The faster the gpu, the stronger the effects is the trend I've observed on Windows over a gpu speed ratio of 10:1 or more.

Last fiddled with by kriesel on 2020-10-21 at 17:01

2020-10-21, 17:25   #3390
petrw1
1976 Toyota Corona years forever!

"Wayne"
Nov 2006
Saskatchewan, Canada

23×13×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Viliam Furik Why so poor result? I get about 4900 GHzD/D with the same work. It should be at least 10000 GHzD/D for the 3090, no? It has more than double the FP32 throughput. It is most probably one of these two reasons: 1. The shared INT32 and FP32 cores don't play nicely with mfaktc - either incompatible code or the cores not fulfilling their promise 2. Memory bottleneck Either way, I am not satisfied with the result.
Did you try the version that supports 2047 classes?
My 2080Ti went from 4,000 to 4,500 Ghz/Day with that version.

2020-10-21, 17:30   #3391
Viliam Furik

Jul 2018
Martin, Slovakia

23·3·11 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by petrw1 Did you try the version that supports 2047 classes? My 2080Ti went from 4,000 to 4,500 Ghz/Day with that version.
Who, me? I am already using the 2047 version, as recommended by you. The mentioned 4900 GHz-D/D is from RTX 2080Ti, for the same workload as the 3090 was tested with.

2020-10-22, 02:28   #3392
James Heinrich

"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

3·11·97 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Neutron3529 I bought a RTX 3090
Also, I'm still anxiously waiting for your gpuowl and cudalucas benchmarks, please...

2020-10-22, 04:06   #3393
moebius

Jul 2009
Germany

461 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich Also, I'm still anxiously waiting for your gpuowl and cudalucas benchmarks, please...
And yet, the expected performance values for LL/PRP ​​on the https://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php page are still suspect to me. You can't seriously tell me a Tesla K-80 would be almost at the same Level as a Tesla P100 (PCIe 16GB).They are miles apart! Likewise,as much as I know, a Radeon VII isn't faster than a Tesla V100. In my opinion, this confuses the users of your site. I hope there are no bad purchases in the end?

Last fiddled with by moebius on 2020-10-22 at 04:14

2020-10-22, 04:15   #3394
James Heinrich

"James Heinrich"
May 2004
ex-Northern Ontario

3·11·97 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by moebius And yet, the expected performance values ​​on the https://www.mersenne.ca/cudalucas.php page are still suspect to me.
They might be. Hence my perpetual request for benchmarks.

2020-10-22, 07:04   #3395
Neutron3529

Dec 2018
China

1010002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich I've looked at the code again and clearly I'm missing something because I think it should be working as I intended (but clearly it isn't). It's also difficult to test because that section of code will only get processed when a new factor is submitted (my logic works fine in my test environment, but something different is happening on the server). I have added a couple of debug lines that might help me track down the problem, if you see them next time you (collective "you", anyone reading this) submit a factor please email me either a copy-paste or screenshot of the output.
Do you want this?

the server seems not to work with a TF result.

these two lines could trigger this BUG more than once and stop the upcoming results.

Code:
M104186261 has a factor: 21599873573633423090833 [TF:74:75:mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs]
found 1 factor for M104186261 from 2^74 to 2^75 [mfaktc 0.21 barrett76_mul32_gs]
You could test it until the BUG is removed.

---

Found 8 lines to process.
processing: TF factor 21599873573633423090833 for M104186261 (274-275) [range fully factored]
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(1) = 7.1037506824902
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(2) = 36.723102738304

Last fiddled with by Neutron3529 on 2020-10-22 at 07:09

2020-10-22, 08:10   #3396
aheeffer

Aug 2020

408 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich . I have added a couple of debug lines that might help me track down the problem, if you see them next time you (collective "you", anyone reading this) submit a factor please email me either a copy-paste or screenshot of the output.
Code:
processing: TF factor 410022995157224015562287 for M333946237 (278-279) [range fully factored]
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(1) = 80.66706346138
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(2) = 183.31299318089
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(3) = 183.31299318089
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(4) = 183.31299318089
Please report these debug lines to james@mersenne.ca or post at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=560500
CPU credit is 80.6671 GHz-days.

2020-10-22, 08:36   #3397
2M215856352p1

May 2019

11310 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich I've looked at the code again and clearly I'm missing something because I think it should be working as I intended (but clearly it isn't). It's also difficult to test because that section of code will only get processed when a new factor is submitted (my logic works fine in my test environment, but something different is happening on the server). I have added a couple of debug lines that might help me track down the problem, if you see them next time you (collective "you", anyone reading this) submit a factor please email me either a copy-paste or screenshot of the output.
Here is another test case.
Attached Thumbnails

2020-10-22, 12:46   #3398
Neutron3529

Dec 2018
China

4010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by James Heinrich I've looked at the code again and clearly I'm missing something because I think it should be working as I intended (but clearly it isn't). It's also difficult to test because that section of code will only get processed when a new factor is submitted (my logic works fine in my test environment, but something different is happening on the server). I have added a couple of debug lines that might help me track down the problem, if you see them next time you (collective "you", anyone reading this) submit a factor please email me either a copy-paste or screenshot of the output.
processing: TF no-factor for M114899527 (274-275)
CPU credit is 33.2990 GHz-days.
processing: TF factor 23024239007594549773417 for M114899501 (274-275) [range fully factored]
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(1) = 9.5092580373447
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(2) = 33.29903727452
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(3) = 33.29903727452
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(4) = 33.29903727452
Please report these debug lines to james@mersenne.ca or post at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=560500CPU credit is 9.5093 GHz-days.
processing: TF factor 21599873573633423090833 for M104186261 (274-275) [range fully factored]
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(1) = 7.1037506824902
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(2) = 36.723102738304
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(3) = 36.723102738304
DEBUG: TF.range-complete credit(4) = 36.723102738304
Please report these debug lines to james@mersenne.ca or post at https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=560500Already have factor 21599873573633423090833 for M104186261 CPU credit is 7.1038 GHz-days.
Done processing:
* Parsed 44 lines.
* Found 0 datestamps.

 2020-10-22, 12:57 #3399 James Heinrich     "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 3·11·97 Posts Thanks guys, I think (again) that I've found the problem. In this case my code was working as expected and overriding the correct amount of credit, but the message displayed to the user was pre-written elsewhere using the default credit amount, I just needed to also rewrite the user message. Can one of the people who've posted above (or anyone with a new TF factor in a fully-factored range reported in the last 8h or more recently) confirm if the GHz-days credit in your Account Result Details page shows the higher (correct) or lower (incorrect) amount of credit for the TF-F (range-fully-factored) result?

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Bdot GPU Computing 1657 2020-10-27 01:23 firejuggler GPU Computing 752 2020-09-08 16:15 froderik GPU Computing 4 2016-10-30 15:29 fivemack Programming 112 2015-02-12 22:51 xilman Programming 1 2009-11-16 10:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:19.

Fri Dec 4 02:19:25 UTC 2020 up 22:30, 1 user, load averages: 0.82, 1.51, 1.73

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.