Prime95 v30.4/30.5/30.6 - Page 8

Prime95 · 2021-01-26, 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by nordi

I got a crash with build 7 doing ECM work on Linux:

I have not been able to replicate the problem.

Quote:

D: 420, relative primes: 48, stage 2 primes: 40421, pair%=182.86

I did fix a bug that caused the pairing % to exceed 100.

pepi37 · 2021-01-28, 00:24

I use Prime95 for years on my personal, and CRUS search. I like all extra checks ,but can I disable generating proof file, since it will use disk space for nothing,and I dont need to upload proff file to no one.
Thanks

Prime95 · 2021-01-28, 03:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by pepi37

I use Prime95 for years on my personal, and CRUS search. I like all extra checks ,but can I disable generating proof file, since it will use disk space for nothing,and I dont need to upload proff file to no one.
Thanks

Try setting the disk space prime95 is allowed to use to zero.

ixfd64 · 2021-01-29, 05:45

I think it might be better to change prime pairing format from pair%=xx.xx to pair: xx.xx% so that it's consistent with the rest of the output line.

1997rj7 · 2021-01-31, 17:50

There seems to be a problem with fetching work in some cases. I have one of my cores set to get P-1 work, while the others do PRP. When one or more of the PRP tests also want to do a P-1 test before starting, only one stage 2 can run at a time. If the P-1 core is blocked from doing stage 2 it will do stage 1 work on the exponents it has, but if it finishes all of them and still cannot start a stage 2 because of another core, it will stop and wait instead of getting some new work to do.

James Heinrich · 2021-01-31, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1997rj7

it will stop and wait instead of getting some new work to do.

You can increase DaysOfWork in prime.txt (or the equivalent GUI setting).

But looking at the broader picture, it might not be a bad idea in a situation like this, if Prime95 can't find anything else to do while waiting for RAM availability, it could start working on the PRP, on the 95% probability that the P-1 test will not find a factor, rather than leaving idle cycles.

lycorn · 2021-01-31, 19:22

Are the ECM B1 and B2 bounds not allowed to be changed from their nominal settings?

I ´ve been using Build 8, and didn´t have a single problem so far. Today I fetched some manual ECM assignments in the 500k range, and the worktodo lines came with the expected values of 250000 / 25000000 for B1 and B2. I changed them to 500000 and 50000000 and restarted Prime95.The program rejected those lines, giving out the message:"Illegal line in worktodo.txt file: ECM2=blablabla". The lines were not deleted from worktodo.txt, though.

Is this the expected behaviour? I /think/ in previous versions one were able to change the bounds at will.

Prime95 · 2021-01-31, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Heinrich

But looking at the broader picture, it might not be a bad idea in a situation like this, if Prime95 can't find anything else to do while waiting for RAM availability, it could start working on the PRP, on the 95% probability that the P-1 test will not find a factor, rather than leaving idle cycles.

PRP (and LL) are already coded to do this. I'll see if I can replicate the problem.

Prime95 · 2021-02-01, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycorn

Is this the expected behaviour? I /think/ in previous versions one were able to change the bounds at will.

This is not the expected behavior.

chalsall · 2021-02-04, 16:39

Hey.

So, I've had a few requests to upgrade the mprime build sent out in the Payload.

Since several of us are now being given at least a few hours of compute each day, I'd like to program a day for me to do this (along with some other change requests).

George, your counsel? It will be solely doing P-1'ing; and yes, I know about the non-backward compatibility for stage 2...

I'm modeling next weekend.

Prime95 · 2021-02-04, 17:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalsall

So, I've had a few requests to upgrade the mprime build sent out in the Payload.

Since several of us are now being given at least a few hours of compute each day, I'd like to program a day for me to do this (along with some other change requests).

George, your counsel?

30.4 seems stable enough to make the transition. The improved P-1 bounds is worth the effort.

2021-01-31, 19:22	#84
lycorn "GIMFS" Sep 2002 Oeiras, Portugal 3056₈ Posts	Are the ECM B1 and B2 bounds not allowed to be changed from their nominal settings? I ´ve been using Build 8, and didn´t have a single problem so far. Today I fetched some manual ECM assignments in the 500k range, and the worktodo lines came with the expected values of 250000 / 25000000 for B1 and B2. I changed them to 500000 and 50000000 and restarted Prime95.The program rejected those lines, giving out the message:"Illegal line in worktodo.txt file: ECM2=blablabla". The lines were not deleted from worktodo.txt, though. Is this the expected behaviour? I /think/ in previous versions one were able to change the bounds at will. Last fiddled with by lycorn on 2021-01-31 at 19:31

2021-02-04, 16:39	#87
chalsall If I May "Chris Halsall" Sep 2002 Barbados 2×11²×47 Posts	Stable mprime version for the next GPU72 Colab build? Hey. So, I've had a few requests to upgrade the mprime build sent out in the Payload. Since several of us are now being given at least a few hours of compute each day, I'd like to program a day for me to do this (along with some other change requests). George, your counsel? It will be solely doing P-1'ing; and yes, I know about the non-backward compatibility for stage 2... I'm modeling next weekend.

2021-01-28, 00:24	#79
pepi37 Dec 2011 After 1.58M nines:) 1,699 Posts	I use Prime95 for years on my personal, and CRUS search. I like all extra checks ,but can I disable generating proof file, since it will use disk space for nothing,and I dont need to upload proff file to no one. Thanks

2021-01-29, 05:45	#81
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 2³·313 Posts	I think it might be better to change prime pairing format from pair%=xx.xx to pair: xx.xx% so that it's consistent with the rest of the output line.

2021-01-31, 17:50	#82
1997rj7 Sep 2003 359 Posts	There seems to be a problem with fetching work in some cases. I have one of my cores set to get P-1 work, while the others do PRP. When one or more of the PRP tests also want to do a P-1 test before starting, only one stage 2 can run at a time. If the P-1 core is blocked from doing stage 2 it will do stage 1 work on the exponents it has, but if it finishes all of them and still cannot start a stage 2 because of another core, it will stop and wait instead of getting some new work to do.