The P-1 factoring CUDA program - Page 47

storm5510 · 2017-07-16, 00:54

This is interesting. I wanted to try it and see what happens.

kriesel · 2017-07-16, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

This is interesting. I wanted to try it and see what happens.

Device numbering in CUDAPm1 is zero-based if I recall correctly. It is so in CUDALucas. First gpu device is 0, second is one, ... It defaults to device zero if no device is specified on the command line or in the ini file. I think that message happens for any of the following (and possibly other) cases:

- a device number higher than the last device number physically present and properly installed is specified. For example, specifying -d 2 on a system where two gpus d 0 and d 1 are present.
- a device timeout has occurred and Windows hasn't yet restarted the display device driver, so from the point of view of the OS and app, while the GPU is physically present it's not available for use
- a device timeout has occurred and Windows has attempted to restart the display device driver, but a thermal issue or other issue prevented the GPU from restarting, so from the point of view of the OS and app, while the GPU is physically present it's not available for use until the issue is resolved at least temporarily and the driver restarted
- the software was run on a system containing no qualifying device
- the software was run on a system containing a qualifying device but no suitable driver yet successfully installed and active.
- running a version requiring a CUDA level higher than the installed driver supports.

storm5510 · 2017-07-16, 18:30

The 'DeviceNumber' was set at 1 in the configuration file. I changed it to zero. The application became responsive. It doesn't want to go beyond a 1000 iteration average error test.

kriesel · 2017-07-18, 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

The 'DeviceNumber' was set at 1 in the configuration file. I changed it to zero. The application became responsive. It doesn't want to go beyond a 1000 iteration average error test.

It can take a while, minutes, for the next line of output to appear, depending on what the setting for screen output interval is and the exponent or fft length.

For example, on a GTX480, it's nearly four minutes for 50,000 iterations below:
Iteration 1000, average error = 0.19992 x= 0.25 (max error = 0.26172), continuing test.
Iteration 50000 M43158547, 0xdd951715b61e6699, n = 2304K, CUDAPm1 v0.20 err = 0.29688 (3:45 real, 4.4892 ms/iter, ETA 16:46)
Iteration 100000 M43158547, 0xadcc2bec0b8ae426, n = 2304K, CUDAPm1 v0.20 err = 0.29297 (3:42 real, 4.4537 ms/iter, ETA 12:56)

kriesel · 2017-07-18, 05:16

Jerry, please see item 8 in the attachment.

storm5510 · 2017-07-18, 16:11

After doing some reading back through the pages here, I found the proper parameter for doing bench tests. The example was, "-cufftbench 1 8192 r." I didn't want to respond to this, Then I saw where someone had used a value of "1" in the place of the "r." It ran the tests after that.

A cosmetic request: In my humble opinion, the console output lines are way too long. If the program name and version number could be removed, that would help. I had to stretch the console window to the full width of my screen to keep it all on a single line each time.

kriesel · 2017-07-29, 21:32

Its presence in the CUDAPm1 help message output seems to be a holdover from its CUDALucas ancestry. Specifying -r on the command line does not result in any residue check tests running in CUDAPm1; it goes straight to continuation of work present in the worktodo file. If I read the source code correctly, the residue check function did not get implemented for CUDAPm1.

kriesel · 2017-07-29, 21:50

The topic and attachment are not intended to be critical of the fine and free development done. My intent is to make its use easier and more productive, and maybe aid further development. These are things I've learned by using the program or very recently looking at the source code. Please feel free to PM me with any additions, corrections or suggestions.

storm5510 · 2017-08-07, 16:03

The server did not understand the results below.

Code:

M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K, aid=xxxxxxxxxxxxC10420CBB1142D2B6669 )

I shortened it to this:

Code:

M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K)

The server still did not understand. Note: I replaced some of the AID numbers with an 'x' in the first statement.

Ideas?

GP2 · 2017-08-07, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by storm5510

The server did not understand the results below.

Code:

M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K, aid=xxxxxxxxxxxxC10420CBB1142D2B6669 )

I shortened it to this:

Code:

M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K)

The server still did not understand. Note: I replaced some of the AID numbers with an 'x' in the first statement.

Ideas?

It will understand this:

Code:

M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000)

James Heinrich · 2017-08-07, 16:26

It looks like a CudaPm1 result, but it's lacking the program identifier.
The manual results form is, on purpose, very particular about formatting. Do not edit the result lines before attempting to submit them.

2017-07-16, 00:54	#507
storm5510 Random Account Aug 2009 7A4₁₆ Posts	This is interesting. I wanted to try it and see what happens. Attached Thumbnails Last fiddled with by storm5510 on 2017-07-16 at 00:56

2017-07-29, 21:32	#513
kriesel "TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17" Mar 2017 US midwest 5,419 Posts	-r option in CUDAPm1 not implemented Its presence in the CUDAPm1 help message output seems to be a holdover from its CUDALucas ancestry. Specifying -r on the command line does not result in any residue check tests running in CUDAPm1; it goes straight to continuation of work present in the worktodo file. If I read the source code correctly, the residue check function did not get implemented for CUDAPm1.

2017-08-07, 16:03	#515
storm5510 Random Account Aug 2009 2²·3·163 Posts	The server did not understand the results below. Code: M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K, aid=xxxxxxxxxxxxC10420CBB1142D2B6669 ) I shortened it to this: Code: M82595957 has a factor: 3960668801233058686019823786839 (P-1, B1=730000, B2=730000, e=0, n=4608K) The server still did not understand. Note: I replaced some of the AID numbers with an 'x' in the first statement. Ideas?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
mfaktc: a CUDA program for Mersenne prefactoring	TheJudger	GPU Computing	3497	2021-06-05 12:27
World's second-dumbest CUDA program	fivemack	Programming	112	2015-02-12 22:51
World's dumbest CUDA program?	xilman	Programming	1	2009-11-16 10:26
Factoring program need help	Citrix	Lone Mersenne Hunters	8	2005-09-16 02:31
Factoring program	ET_	Programming	3	2003-11-25 02:57

2017-07-16, 18:30	#509
storm5510 Random Account Aug 2009 2²×3×163 Posts	The 'DeviceNumber' was set at 1 in the configuration file. I changed it to zero. The application became responsive. It doesn't want to go beyond a 1000 iteration average error test.

2017-07-18, 16:11	#512
storm5510 Random Account Aug 2009 2²·3·163 Posts	After doing some reading back through the pages here, I found the proper parameter for doing bench tests. The example was, "-cufftbench 1 8192 r." I didn't want to respond to this, Then I saw where someone had used a value of "1" in the place of the "r." It ran the tests after that. A cosmetic request: In my humble opinion, the console output lines are way too long. If the program name and version number could be removed, that would help. I had to stretch the console window to the full width of my screen to keep it all on a single line each time.

2017-08-07, 16:26	#517
James Heinrich "James Heinrich" May 2004 ex-Northern Ontario 11·311 Posts	It looks like a CudaPm1 result, but it's lacking the program identifier. The manual results form is, on purpose, very particular about formatting. Do not edit the result lines before attempting to submit them.