mfaktc: a CUDA program for Mersenne prefactoring - Page 185

Chuck · 2013-01-07, 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

EDIT: [OT]PrimeNet still keeps sticking in 1 DC assignment (Worker #3) to 4 P-1s in P95. All the settings I can find, both online and in P95, are set to P-1. I have worked around this by moving all the assignments from the other 4 workers to Worker #3. This stops #3 from getting more assignments for now, and the other 4 then fill in with P-1s.[/OT]

That's funny, it did that to me too on a new machine I started up a couple of days ago. The P-1 worker on initial startup up was given 4 P-1 assignments, then after finishing one it was assigned a DC.

kladner · 2013-01-07, 02:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck

That's funny, it did that to me too on a new machine I started up a couple of days ago. The P-1 worker on initial startup up was given 4 P-1 assignments, then after finishing one it was assigned a DC.

It's been an ongoing thing for me if I run more than two workers, though that's in another thread.

EDIT: Ongoing work on the GTX 460 with 64 and 32 bit exe's. First result on the 570 with 64 and 32 bit exe's:

Code:

64 bit exe

CUDA device info
  name                      GeForce GTX 460
  compute capability        2.1
  maximum threads per block 1024
  number of multiprocessors 7 (336 shader cores)
  clock rate                1660MHz

Automatic parameters
  threads per grid          917504

running a simple selftest...
Selftest statistics
  number of tests           92
  successfull tests         92

selftest PASSED!

got assignment: exp=64801397 bit_min=69 bit_max=73 (27.68 GHz-days)
Starting trial factoring M64801397 from 2^69 to 2^73 (27.68 GHz-days)
 k_min = 4554653426400
 k_max = 72874454895928
Using GPU kernel "barrett76_mul32_gs"
Date    Time | class   Pct |   time     ETA | GHz-d/day    Sieve     Wait
Jan 06 17:26 |    0   0.1% | 12.093   3h13m |    205.98    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 17:26 |    3   0.2% | 12.130   3h13m |    205.35    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 17:26 |    4   0.3% | 12.137   3h13m |    205.23    82485    n.a.%
--------------------------------
Jan 06 18:21 | 1312  28.5% | 12.095   2h18m |    205.94    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 1315  28.6% | 12.129   2h18m |    205.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 1320  28.8% | 12.140   2h18m |    205.18    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 1323  28.9% | 12.127   2h18m |    205.40    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 1327  29.0% | 12.140   2h17m |    205.18    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 1332  29.1% | 12.128   2h17m |    205.38    82485    n.a.%
received signal "SIGINT"

Date    Time | class   Pct |   time     ETA | GHz-d/day    Sieve     Wait
Jan 06 18:51 | 1339  29.3% | 12.079   2h16m |    206.21    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 1344  29.4% | 12.128   2h17m |    205.38    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 1348  29.5% | 12.121   2h16m |    205.50    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 1360  29.6% | 12.135   2h16m |    205.26    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 1363  29.7% | 12.149   2h16m |    205.03    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 1368  29.8% | 12.142   2h16m |    205.14    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:53 | 1372  29.9% | 12.145   2h16m |    205.09    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:53 | 1375  30.0% | 12.146   2h16m |    205.08    82485    n.a.%
received signal "SIGINT"

32 bit exe
Date    Time | class   Pct |   time     ETA | GHz-d/day    Sieve     Wait
Jan 06 18:55 | 1384  30.2% | 12.122   2h15m |    205.48    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 1392  30.3% | 12.123   2h15m |    205.47    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 1395  30.4% | 12.123   2h14m |    205.47    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 1399  30.5% | 12.119   2h14m |    205.53    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:56 | 1404  30.6% | 12.123   2h14m |    205.47    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:56 | 1407  30.7% | 12.112   2h14m |    205.65    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:56 | 1419  30.8% | 12.122   2h14m |    205.48    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:56 | 1420  30.9% | 12.122   2h13m |    205.48    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:56 | 1423  31.0% | 12.121   2h13m |    205.50    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:57 | 1428  31.1% | 12.121   2h13m |    205.50    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:57 | 1432  31.3% | 12.119   2h13m |    205.53    82485    n.a.%


GTX 570
64 bit exe

Jan 06 18:21 | 3760  81.6% |  5.954  17m34s |    418.34    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3772  81.7% |  5.940  17m25s |    419.33    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3777  81.8% |  5.983  17m27s |    416.31    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3780  81.9% |  5.987  17m22s |    416.04    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3781  82.0% |  6.002  17m18s |    415.00    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3784  82.1% |  6.003  17m13s |    414.93    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3789  82.2% |  6.005  17m07s |    414.79    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3792  82.3% |  6.003  17m01s |    414.93    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:21 | 3796  82.4% |  5.982  16m51s |    416.38    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 3801  82.5% |  5.997  16m47s |    415.34    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 3805  82.6% |  6.000  16m42s |    415.13    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 3816  82.7% |  5.999  16m36s |    415.20    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 3817  82.8% |  5.973  16m26s |    417.01    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:22 | 3829  82.9% |  5.936  16m14s |    419.61    82485    n.a.%
received signal "SIGINT"
Date    Time | class   Pct |   time     ETA | GHz-d/day    Sieve     Wait
Jan 06 18:51 | 3892  84.5% |  6.003  14m54s |    414.93    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:51 | 3900  84.6% |  5.998  14m48s |    415.27    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:51 | 3901  84.7% |  5.903  14m28s |    421.96    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:51 | 3904  84.8% |  5.914  14m23s |    421.17    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:51 | 3912  84.9% |  6.000  14m30s |    415.13    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:51 | 3921  85.0% |  5.980  14m21s |    416.52    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 3924  85.1% |  5.985  14m16s |    416.17    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 3925  85.2% |  5.987  14m10s |    416.04    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:52 | 3936  85.3% |  5.984  14m04s |    416.24    82485    n.a.%


32 bit exe
Date    Time | class   Pct |   time     ETA | GHz-d/day    Sieve     Wait
Jan 06 18:54 | 3945  85.5% |  5.968  13m50s |    417.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:54 | 3949  85.6% |  5.980  13m45s |    416.52    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:54 | 3957  85.7% |  5.920  13m31s |    420.74    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3960  85.8% |  5.910  13m24s |    421.46    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3961  85.9% |  5.973  13m26s |    417.01    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3964  86.0% |  5.972  13m20s |    417.08    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3969  86.1% |  5.972  13m14s |    417.08    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3976  86.3% |  5.972  13m08s |    417.08    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3981  86.4% |  5.971  13m02s |    417.15    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3984  86.5% |  5.973  12m56s |    417.01    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 3997  86.6% |  5.973  12m51s |    417.01    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 4005  86.7% |  5.966  12m44s |    417.50    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 18:55 | 4009  86.8% |  5.972  12m38s |    417.08    82485    n.a.%
------------------
Jan 06 19:08 | 4596  99.6% |  5.968   0m24s |    417.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 19:08 | 4597  99.7% |  5.959   0m18s |    417.99    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 19:08 | 4600  99.8% |  5.953   0m12s |    418.41    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 19:08 | 4605  99.9% |  5.973   0m06s |    417.01    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 19:08 | 4617 100.0% |  5.972   0m00s |    417.08    82485    n.a.%
no factor for M64802879 from 2^69 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.20 barrett76_mul32_gs]
tf(): time spent since restart:    0h 13m 59.077s
      estimated total time spent:  1h 35m 53.670s

EDIT2: Second 570 result. Damn! This is fast!

Code:

Jan 06 20:43 | 4569  99.1% |  5.912   0m53s |    421.51    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4577  99.2% |  5.914   0m47s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4580  99.3% |  5.913   0m41s |    421.43    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4584  99.4% |  5.915   0m35s |    421.29    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4589  99.5% |  5.914   0m30s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4592  99.6% |  5.914   0m24s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4604  99.7% |  5.914   0m18s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4605  99.8% |  5.915   0m12s |    421.29    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:43 | 4613  99.9% |  5.914   0m06s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
Jan 06 20:44 | 4617 100.0% |  5.914   0m00s |    421.36    82485    n.a.%
no factor for M64773187 from 2^69 to 2^73 [mfaktc 0.20 barrett76_mul32_gs]
tf(): total time spent:  1h 35m 24.141s

owftheevil · 2013-01-07, 02:49

I've always avoided tf in the past because of the high cpu load. Now it looks like I'll be sharing gpu time between tf and dc. Thank you to everyone involved in making this new release. The code look pretty too. Maybe I can learn something from it.

LaurV · 2013-01-07, 04:12

@Oliver: Sir, you made my day! Outstanding. For you, for George, and all the people involved in developing and testing, here you go!

ixfd64 · 2013-01-07, 06:07

I've had the chance to complete some assignments using the version 0.20, and I can say it's about three times as fast as 0.19 on the GTX 555. Granted, I didn't let mfaktc reach its full potential because I run Prime95 on all of my cores, but it's nonetheless a remarkable improvement.

The new version does cause my computer to lag a little, but that's something I can stand.

James Heinrich · 2013-01-07, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

Sieve is running 82,485 on both GPUs, with SievePrimesAdjust=1

ini settings "SievePrimes" and "SievePrimesAdjust" only apply to CPU sieving. The GPU sieving settings are controlled by "SieveOnGPU", "GPUSievePrimes", "GPUSieveSize", "GPUSieveProcessSize". There is no mechanism for auto-adjusting GPUSievePrimes -- for the balance between CPU sieving and GPU crunching you can check whether GPU is waiting for CPU or vice-versa, but with GPU sieving the GPU is waiting for the GPU, so there's never any idle time, it's just a balance of how much effort is spent in the sieving portion. In my brief tests, (at least small changes to) the value of SievePrimes doesn't make much difference in overall throughput, so I'm content to leave it at the default 82485.

James Heinrich · 2013-01-07, 15:01

Now that everyone has access to v0.20, I'd like to ask for a new round of benchmarks from everyone so I can update my GPU-TF benchmark page.

Please submit the results using the form on the benchmark page:
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark

Please keep these requests in mind:

mfaktc v0.20
32-bit mfaktc is preferred, please mention 32/64 when submitting
GPU sieving enabled, GPUSievePrimes=82485 (default)
assignment something around 60-70M, to 2⁷³ (whatever you're working on currently is probably fine, as long as it takes at least 30 minutes per assignment, preferably an hour or longer).

TheJudger · 2013-01-07, 15:54

Hi James,

why not using a fixed exponent for the benchmark. The GHzd rating (at least the formulas I've seen so far) do not care about the exponent much. Those formulas take care about the number of FCs for the exponent but there are other (minor) effects, too.
Take a look here: http://mersenne.org/various/math.php

if the exponent has many 1 (in binary representation) than there are alot of additional "multiply by 2". OK, they are relative cheap but it is measureable.
bigger exponents need more iterations than smaller exponents. Again for current exponents the effect is not that big... but it is there.

Oliver

P.S. My personal benchmark exponent is 66362159 ;)

kladner · 2013-01-07, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

ini settings "SievePrimes" and "SievePrimesAdjust" only apply to CPU sieving. The GPU sieving settings are controlled by "SieveOnGPU", "GPUSievePrimes", "GPUSieveSize", "GPUSieveProcessSize". There is no mechanism for auto-adjusting GPUSievePrimes -- for the balance between CPU sieving and GPU crunching you can check whether GPU is waiting for CPU or vice-versa, but with GPU sieving the GPU is waiting for the GPU, so there's never any idle time, it's just a balance of how much effort is spent in the sieving portion. In my brief tests, (at least small changes to) the value of SievePrimes doesn't make much difference in overall throughput, so I'm content to leave it at the default 82485.

Oh. Of course.

I read through mfaktc.ini, but the new settings obviously did not stick with me. Thanks.

LaurV · 2013-01-07, 16:33

Time to make Uncwilly happy...

kracker · 2013-01-07, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

Time to make Uncwilly happy...

2013-01-07, 06:07	#2029
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 7⁴ Posts	I've had the chance to complete some assignments using the version 0.20, and I can say it's about three times as fast as 0.19 on the GTX 555. Granted, I didn't let mfaktc reach its full potential because I run Prime95 on all of my cores, but it's nonetheless a remarkable improvement. The new version does cause my computer to lag a little, but that's something I can stand. Last fiddled with by ixfd64 on 2013-01-07 at 06:08

2013-01-07, 15:01	#2031
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 110101100011₂ Posts	Now that everyone has access to v0.20, I'd like to ask for a new round of benchmarks from everyone so I can update my GPU-TF benchmark page. Please submit the results using the form on the benchmark page: http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php#benchmark Please keep these requests in mind: mfaktc v0.20 32-bit mfaktc is preferred, please mention 32/64 when submitting GPU sieving enabled, GPUSievePrimes=82485 (default) assignment something around 60-70M, to 2⁷³ (whatever you're working on currently is probably fine, as long as it takes at least 30 minutes per assignment, preferably an hour or longer). Last fiddled with by James Heinrich on 2013-01-07 at 15:02

2013-01-07, 15:54	#2032
TheJudger "Oliver" Mar 2005 Germany 10001010111₂ Posts	Hi James, why not using a fixed exponent for the benchmark. The GHzd rating (at least the formulas I've seen so far) do not care about the exponent much. Those formulas take care about the number of FCs for the exponent but there are other (minor) effects, too. Take a look here: http://mersenne.org/various/math.php if the exponent has many 1 (in binary representation) than there are alot of additional "multiply by 2". OK, they are relative cheap but it is measureable. bigger exponents need more iterations than smaller exponents. Again for current exponents the effect is not that big... but it is there. Oliver P.S. My personal benchmark exponent is 66362159 ;)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
mfakto: an OpenCL program for Mersenne prefactoring	Bdot	GPU Computing	1676	2021-06-30 21:23
The P-1 factoring CUDA program	firejuggler	GPU Computing	753	2020-12-12 18:07
gr-mfaktc: a CUDA program for generalized repunits prefactoring	MrRepunit	GPU Computing	32	2020-11-11 19:56
mfaktc 0.21 - CUDA runtime wrong	keisentraut	Software	2	2020-08-18 07:03
World's second-dumbest CUDA program	fivemack	Programming	112	2015-02-12 22:51

2013-01-07, 02:49	#2027
owftheevil "Carl Darby" Oct 2012 Spring Mountains, Nevada 13B₁₆ Posts	I've always avoided tf in the past because of the high cpu load. Now it looks like I'll be sharing gpu time between tf and dc. Thank you to everyone involved in making this new release. The code look pretty too. Maybe I can learn something from it.

2013-01-07, 04:12	#2028
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 2⁶×151 Posts	@Oliver: Sir, you made my day! Outstanding. For you, for George, and all the people involved in developing and testing, here you go!

2013-01-07, 16:33	#2034
LaurV Romulan Interpreter Jun 2011 Thailand 2⁶×151 Posts	Time to make Uncwilly happy...