That's correct - but it all depends on the granularity. The overwrite event only takes place at the start of gmp-ecm, not at the start of a curve (when using the -c parameter - without, it's the same, of course).Originally posted by vjs
I always thought the txt was simpley overwritten and the >> was an append?
Thus, the information of curve results within a single gmp-ecm run gets appended to the output file, whereas a new start of gmp-ecm naturally erases all data when using > instead of >>.
O.K. so using > instead of >>
Basically using > and the -c curves option, reports the last curve done. Either containg the factor if it stoped early or the final curve of a run. However you have no idea howmany curves were completed in the event of a crash etc.
Thanks for clearing this up.
Actually, it seems like I didn't express myself clearly.
According to my tests, > and -c saves all output of a single gmp-ecm run.
Example:
echo 2^^^^1061-1 | ecm -c 5 1e4 > results.txt
Contents of results.txt
GMP-ECM 6.0.1 [powered by GMP 4.1.4] [ECM]
Input number is 2^1061-1 (320 digits)
Using B1=10000, B2=1186831, polynomial x^1, sigma=2999931604
Step 1 took 783ms
Step 2 took 844ms
Run 2 out of 5:
Using B1=10000, B2=1186831, polynomial x^1, sigma=3364805730
Step 1 took 901ms
Step 2 took 876ms
Run 3 out of 5:
Using B1=10000, B2=1186831, polynomial x^1, sigma=4143695723
Step 1 took 1020ms
Step 2 took 841ms
Run 4 out of 5:
Using B1=10000, B2=1186831, polynomial x^1, sigma=2441763206
Step 1 took 885ms
Step 2 took 879ms
Run 5 out of 5:
Using B1=10000, B2=1186831, polynomial x^1, sigma=523117962
Step 1 took 870ms
Step 2 took 811ms
When you restart gmp-ecm, the contents is lost, of course.
That's because > explictly means 'redirect stdout to this filename after truncating to zero length'. As opposed to >> which means 'redirect stdout and append to this filename'. Neither of these are options/flags to the program itself. They are instructions to the shell (which is used to launch the program) to connect certain file descriptors to the file rather than to your tty/terminal/screen/whatever.
i have started experimenting with p95 but on the irst factoring run it chose b1 bounds that are so large it'll take my athalon 2000+ over 13 days to complete stage one and B@ equals stage ones value. Is there something i can do to set bounds manually?
The way to chose the bounds manually is:
Pminus1=K,2,N,1,B1,B2,0
There is the max B1=B2 value possible somewhere at mersenneforum, but I don't remember it.
But there are reasons, (don't ask me) to use ECM for so large factors. And I wonder if somebody didn't run P-1 already for these small N, with quite impressive bounds.
H.
when doing stage 1 with P95 and P-1 how doyou have save files created and stored s othat you can use greater bounds later?
With Pminus1=...Originally posted by Keroberts1
when doing stage 1 with P95 and P-1 how doyou have save files created and stored s othat you can use greater bounds later?
Doing this, the save file is not deleted. But you have to keep track of the bounds, because continue on a savefile with the wrong bounds works, but gives bogus, I got the impression.
I don't know either if you can extend B1 from say 1000000 to 2000000. There are commands like
Pminus1=K,2,N,1,B1old-B1new, B2,0
or
Pminus1=K,2,N,1,B1new-B1old, B2,0
I don't know. The same seems to work with B2.
Try it out and keep us informed, please.
Have fun, H.
From what I know/remember...
First the max B1 is something like 4G what every 2^n is for 4G anyways.
I'm pretty sure you can extend B1 easiely, simply don't erase the intermediate file and run the same worktodo.ini and specify a larger bound. Don't get confused with the B2New-B2old. Increasing B1 on a second run actually extends the existing file were running B2'-B2 simply checks a different range of B2 between B2' and B2. I hope this makes sence.
The idea behind running prime95 for stage1 is it's faster, however it does start to take quite a bit of disk space if you want to do 1000 curves for example.
where does p95 putput factors? Can i have them placed into a specific file?
Isn't it results.txt?Originally posted by Keroberts1
where does p95 putput factors? Can i have them placed into a specific file?
And you can put e.g. the line
results.txt=fact.txt
into your prime.ini.
There you get residues and eventual factors. H.
ok i have an interesting error. I have set up P95 to start on eveer 67607 test through 15-16 million. for starters i set it to P-1 them all with bounds of B1=1000 and no stage 2. I just checked it and it has found a factor for almost everyone of the tests adn the factor is 1. For some of thetests it says it has found a factor and then itsays error factor doesn't divide N. Is that because i used such low bounds or is there somethingelse going on? the lines in my prime.ini are like this.
Pminus1=67607,2,15001691,1,1000,1000
Is that wrong?
I already have my worktodo.ini populkated so that it will go through all of the tests with this bounds and then do them all again up to 5000 and then 20000 and then 50000. Will this work? Will not work? Any ideas? Just to explain some people have been working o ngetting 9-10 Million to have fewer than 1000 tests for 67607 and I'm just trying to see if i can d oit with 14-15 mil. first. Races are always fun ya know.
PRIME.INI??? You mean worktodo.ini.Originally posted by Keroberts1
the lines in my prime.ini are like this.
Pminus1=67607,2,15001691,1,1000,1000
Is that wrong?
And can you try to put the line
Pminus1=67607,2,15001691,1,1000,1000,0
with a final useless parameter 0? That's the way I did it back then.
Don't know if this helps...
H.
yes imeant worktodo.ini and i have tried adding the 0 i will let you know how it works.
ok well it worked fine for several hours and then went back to giving the same errorsand 1 as a factor. Its a mighty weird error even if it is hardware. my guess is it has something ot do with such low bounds or a syntax error somewhere in my command line.
You say it worked fine for a few hours. Does this mean in your results.txt (or whatever it is called) you've got residues and all? With such small bounds, there must be dozens.
And then it startts to mess up again, right?
If you think it's a hardware error, you can run a stress test, a memory test ( you find information on this forum) and stuff, you know all this I guess.
Also, you can post at mersenneforum.org. There you will find qualified support, probably more helpful than me.
It could have to do with a FFT length related bug, too, who knows?
I would like to try it out but don't have time. Perhaps this evening.
Meanwhile, you can post more specific output, like from results.txt, screen (I think you need to make a screenshot) and so on.
Not for me, but others might recognize something.
Good luck, Yours H.
New status:
Code:25 30 35 40 21181,1148 ok ok ok ok 21181,1172 ok ok ok ok 10223,1181 ok ok ok ok 21181,1268 ok ok ok reserved (24.6%) 10223,1517 ok ok ok 24737,1567 ok ok ok reserved (26.5%) 55459,1666 ok ok ok 55459,1894 ok ok ok reserved (69.8%)
Keroberts, is it working properly now?
If not, would you consider a copy-paste of the contents of your prime.ini file, some sample rows of the working pairs from the worktodo.ini and fact.txt, and some sample rows of the non working pairs from the worktodo.ini and fact.txt files?
May be somebody can guess what's going wrong (if it's not hardware related, of course).
BTW, you should note that if you're using only one or two PCs, expect it to take at least a year to slim down 15m-16m to 999.
Last edited by Nuri; 12-12-2005 at 08:30 PM.
[Mon Dec 12 21:50:04 2005]
67607*2^15051627+1 stage 1 is 34.69% complete.
[Mon Dec 12 22:15:00 2005]
67607*2^15051627+1 stage 1 is 69.39% complete.
[Mon Dec 12 22:38:25 2005]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=20000.
ERROR: Factor doesn't divide N!
67607*2^15051627+1 completed P-1, B1=20000, B2=20005, Wc1: 8573DA75
[Mon Dec 12 23:06:32 2005]
67607*2^15052451+1 stage 1 is 34.69% complete.
[Mon Dec 12 23:35:26 2005]
67607*2^15052451+1 stage 1 is 69.39% complete.
[Tue Dec 13 00:03:36 2005]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=20000.
67607*2^15052451+1 has a factor: 1
67607*2^15052451+1 completed P-1, B1=20000, B2=20005, Wc1: 8592DA6A
here's what I get...
[Tue Dec 13 10:02:14 2005]
67607*2^15051627+1 completed P-1, B1=20000, B2=20005, Wc1: 8573DA75
[Tue Dec 13 11:13:55 2005]
67607*2^15052451+1 completed P-1, B1=20000, B2=20005, Wc1: 8592DA6A
I had similar 'problems' when I was using sbfactor on one of my P4s.
More than likely you have a duff bit of memory, it kept on reporting that 2 (or some other very small number) was a factor of a specific number (which is impossible).
If you can, run the Prime95 binary in the stress test mode to see if it fails. Or you could run some sort of memory testing program.
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
... with prime95, version 24.14.1.0
Other than that, I would also suggest a stress testing of your hardware.
New status:
Code:25 30 35 40 21181,1148 ok ok ok ok 21181,1172 ok ok ok ok 10223,1181 ok ok ok ok 21181,1268 ok ok ok ok 10223,1517 ok ok ok reserved 24737,1567 ok ok ok reserved (44.8%) 55459,1666 ok ok ok reserved 55459,1894 ok ok ok reserved (69.8%)
I see Mike_H found a bunch of small n factors between 30K and 60K...
Looks good mike were those P-1 and what bounds were you using just wondering.
Most of those recent successes were with ECM (using B1, B2 and curves which equate to 18 digits).Originally Posted by vjs
I had been P-1ing, but I seem to have hit a bit of a drought, thus the switch to ECM. I'll probably be back on P-1 again soon.
Do you have a status update of your ECM work (like here)?
Code:Complete [Mon 02-Jan-2006 22:10:14] ECM: Range 30000-50000 (20000), 18, 375 candidates [Sat 21-Jan-2006 14:56:17] ECM: Range 50000-70000 (20000), 18, 393 candidates In progress [Sun 22-Jan-2006 17:54:07] ECM: Range 100000-200000 (100000), 18, K=67607, 124 candidates [Wed 01-Feb-2006 22:19:55] ECM: Range 70000-80000 (10000), 18, 189 candidates
What B1 and B2 are you using for 18 digits? At a guess I'd say:-
B1 = 10000 B2 = 1500000 ?
And how many curves max?
What about B1 and B2 for P-1? The same?
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
66 ECM curves, B1=7400, B2=740000
Need to review where I'm at with the P-1 stuff, but I've been working with B1=B2, then when I get bored I'll do a B2=B1*100 then call it a day (probably).
EDIT:
Current status of P-1 testing is:
Complete:
Code:P-1: Range 991- 5000 B1=100000000, B2=100000000 P-1: Range 5000- 20000 B1=15000000, B2=15000000 P-1: Range 20000- 100000 B1=1000000, B2=1000000 P-1: Range 100000-1000000 B1=600000, B2=600000, K=67607
Last edited by MikeH; 02-06-2006 at 01:55 PM.
Well I'm doing 200000 to 210000 for all kwith B1=600000 and B2 will probably go to 100*B1 (just getting B1 there on all of them first).
Found 5 so far, most notably:-
111430207063079 | 2^202471+1
That's only 111T for a very low n! Was this previously missed?
p-1 = 2 * 17 * 19 * 360953 * 477881
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
We don't have k=1...
Sorry, cut and paste error.
111430207063079 | 24737*2^202471+1
A sorted and cleaned results_duplicates_excluded_marked.txt has:-
111371229538703 21181 11665988 3259 0
111381585663619 19249 3462386 3259 0
111388239468763 10223 10494725 3259 0
111457721737709 21181 16796180 3259 0
111460132600447 10223 8997581 3259 0
111461408850647 24737 15021727 3259 0
111469919309137 10223 5272421 3259 0
I'm checking the gap between 111388239468763 and 111457721737709 now.
I know how easy it is to forget to submit factors. I failed to submit a couple before I started using Sobistrator. It's quite easy to miss off the first digit when cutting and pasting into the factor submission box.
When I went back to collect all the information to send to factrange@yahoo.com I checked each and every factor had been submitted and that's where I noticed the two I'd missed.
Speaking of which I have about 8T worth of ranges to send to factrange@yahoo.com now the emails aren't bouncing :-).
Last edited by Greenbank; 02-08-2006 at 10:07 AM.
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
Most n<300k has been missed since the orginal sieve dat was 300K<n<3M followed by 1M<n<20M then finally 991<n<50M.
Aha, that explains it.
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
I'm planning to throw some ECM cycles for my range at k=67607, 9m<n<10m to see if I can get faster results when compared to P-1 alone. If I stick to P-1 only, it looks like it'll take at least two more years before I reach 999 (compared to initial projection of 18 months).
I've scanned through a couple of pages and got confused on how to run the program. It'd be very hepful if anyone could provide some help. Thanks in advance.
it was my understanding that with such high N values it is muhc more efficient to P-1. I could be wrong however. I don't know taht much about ECM.
Well, running an ECM with a comparable chance of success takes longer than P-1 factoring. Hence, as long as there are enough candidates, it's best to stay at P-1. ECM comes in handy when a particular candidate has to be factored, especially when looking for a 40+ digit factor. In this range, P-1 factoring gets less efficient...
If you want to try ECM factoring nevertheless, there are basically two (well, three) options to do it:
1a. Use Prime95
This should be the easiest one. Just use the command "ECM2=" in the worktodo.ini. The syntax is1b. Use gmp-ecmECM2=k,b,n,c,B1,B2,curves_to_do[,specific_sigma]
I haven't tested this program with numbers that high, though. And I think that it will be slower, because base 2 factoring attempts are pretty optimized in Prime95. Maybe the better stage2 implementation can gain some performance points again, but this usually levels the playing field at high digit searches (guesstimate: 35+ digits) only.
Syntax:
ecm <number> <B1> [<B2>]
You can also add parameters such as -c <curveCount>.
2. Mix: Prime95 for stage1, gmp-ecm for stage2
The most efficient, but also most complex way. I don't go into further details, as knowing how to do 1a and 1b is recommended...
any news on the factoring of 991? anyone still trying this?
I do some work from time to time. If Joe O did no new curves since June 15th, we're at ~20% now.
Another update on ECM
Code:In progress [Thu 09-Feb-2006 23:11:03] ECM: Range 6000-25000 (19000), 25, 294 candidates [Wed 01-Feb-2006 22:19:55] ECM: Range 70000-80000 (10000), 18, 189 candidates [Sat 04-Feb-2006 16:02:40] ECM: Range 80000-100000 (20000), 18, 415 candidates [Sun 22-Jan-2006 17:54:07] ECM: Range 100000-200000 (100000), 18, K=67607, 124 candidates
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
