GPU to 72 status... - Page 153

ckdo · 2013-01-14, 22:39

As stated previously, I advocate taking the remains of 30M-32M to 2^70 (even if I'll continue DCTF-69 for the time being).

While we are here, gpu72.com's SSL certificate apparently doesn't cover the language specific subdomains.

chalsall · 2013-01-14, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckdo

While we are here, gpu72.com's SSL certificate apparently doesn't cover the language specific subdomains.

Yes, I know. And I warned people about this when I first enabled SSL. I'm using a free "Class 1" cert from StartSSL which is only for a single domain name on a single IP.

I don't feel like spending the $6 a month for six different IPs, or the $60 a year for a class 2 cert, which would be required. I figure the $50 a month I already spend on the server enough...

But I also mentioned before that when accessing the different language subdomains using SSL that while most browsers will present a warning, all traffic will still be encrypted if you say "I know what I'm doing".

bcp19 · 2013-01-15, 04:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Just putting this out there for discussion...

A user e-mailed me asking why we're not taking DCTF to 77 instead of 70. I pointed them to James' analysis and (hopefully) explained that even with the new GPU seiving it would only make sense to go to 71 in the current range we're working. And, also, that the LLTF work is really the most important at the moment.

However, it raises the question: for those who are doing DCTF work (where we're currently over 500 days ahead of the wave), should we bump the release level to 71, and perhaps bring back in some candidates in the 30M, 31M and 32M regions to go from 70 to 71?

While I personally don't think this is the best thing for GIMPS, I also think that people should be able to do what they want to do.

Is this wanted by anyone?

If so, I'd suggest we simply increase the current release level for DCTF, and bring in a few candidates at a time at the top of 30M for processing, and work down until we meet the wavefront, Then start working upwards from 31M.

Thoughts?

Personally I think we are in a grey area here since the CPU usage is no longer a factor... I had switched my systems around and wanted to make sure there were no 'lost' exponents from my moving, so I only added DCTF work to my GPUs until I was sure all the old LLTF's were completed. At 32M, the 480 was pumping out approx 104 DCTF a day. Cudalucas data shows it would take ~37 hours to run a 35M exp on a GTX 480. I figure this means ~34 hours for a 32M exp. This would equal around 145 DCTF per Culu run, which starts to get borderline to bump up a bit level.

Using the same calculations, my 560 would take ~63 hours for that 35M exp and does ~60 32M exp per day. The math works out to roughly 57.5 hours for a 32M exp, or 144 exponects per Culu run. Looks like it works out basically the same.

So, with the new .20 it looks like 33M might be the new rollover to 71 bits on GPUs, and definitely at 34M.

On the other end of things, a 61M exp would take ~120 Culu hours (240 for the 2LLs) versus 1hr 5 min for 2^72-2^73, so technmically, 2^74 could be done on those, IF we had more GPUs running to keep ahead of the wavefront.

chalsall · 2013-01-15, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp19

So, with the new .20 it looks like 33M might be the new rollover to 71 bits on GPUs, and definitely at 34M.

Thank's for that information. Interesting.

So, a question directly to you (as our largest DCTF producer by far)... Do you want to start taking 33Ms up to 71?

ET_ · 2013-01-15, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Thank's for that information. Interesting.

So, a question directly to you (as our largest DCTF producer by far)... Do you want to start taking 33Ms up to 71?

If it may be of any use for your decision, I am taking a small batch of DCTF for every big batch of LLTF...

Luigi

chalsall · 2013-01-15, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

If it may be of any use for your decision, I am taking a small batch of DCTF for every big batch of LLTF...

My decision is largely based on what people want to do. We have lots of lead-time on the DC wavefront. Would you like to take 33Ms to 71 as well?

ET_ · 2013-01-15, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

My decision is largely based on what people want to do. We have lots of lead-time on the DC wavefront. Would you like to take 33Ms to 71 as well?

Well, I usually take what makes sense... (I feel like playing tennis...)

Luigi

chalsall · 2013-01-15, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

Well, I usually take what makes sense... (I feel like playing tennis...)

Well... What makes sense for the GIMPS project at the moment is for all GPU resources to be focused on LLTFing.

But... some like to do other things. And I subscribe to the GIMPS community's philosophy that anyone should be able to do with their own hardware, electricity and time whatever they want so long as it doesn't negatively impact the project nor other participants.

This is the reason for the question(s) above...

And, while I'm "talking", another thing possibly worth doing is taking the DC P-1 wavefront (high 45M to 50M) from the current 71 to 72. They haven't had P-1 done (by definition), so James' analysis holds as is there.

ET_ · 2013-01-15, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

Well... What makes sense for the GIMPS project at the moment is for all GPU resources to be focused on LLTFing.

But... some like to do other things. And I subscribe to the GIMPS community's philosophy that anyone should be able to do with their own hardware, electricity and time whatever they want so long as it doesn't negatively impact the project nor other participants.

This is the reason for the question(s) above...

And, while I'm "talking", another thing possibly worth doing is taking the DC P-1 wavefront (high 45M to 50M) from the current 71 to 72. They haven't had P-1 done (by definition), so James' analysis holds as is there.

Doing some P-1 too.

Luigi

chalsall · 2013-01-15, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET_

Doing some P-1 too.

Excellent!!!

It can be argued that LL P-1'ing is currently more important than LLing (as long as enough memory is available and S2 is done).

If only we had a GPU P-1 program....

firejuggler · 2013-01-15, 17:27

I find strange that the TF proposed in manual assignement are in the 79M-80 M range while so much work has to be done before we reach these highs.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Status	Primeinator	Operation Billion Digits	5	2011-12-06 02:35
62 bit status	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	27	2008-09-29 13:52
OBD Status	Uncwilly	Operation Billion Digits	22	2005-10-25 14:05
1-2M LLR status	paulunderwood	3*2^n-1 Search	2	2005-03-13 17:03
Status of 26.0M - 26.5M	1997rj7	Lone Mersenne Hunters	25	2004-06-18 16:46

2013-01-14, 22:39	#1673
ckdo Dec 2007 Cleves, Germany 530₁₀ Posts	As stated previously, I advocate taking the remains of 30M-32M to 2^70 (even if I'll continue DCTF-69 for the time being). While we are here, gpu72.com's SSL certificate apparently doesn't cover the language specific subdomains.

2013-01-15, 17:27	#1683
firejuggler Apr 2010 Over the rainbow 2×1,303 Posts	I find strange that the TF proposed in manual assignement are in the 79M-80 M range while so much work has to be done before we reach these highs.