20031230, 21:29  #1 
Sep 2002
89 Posts 
GIMPS BREAKS THE 60000 MACHINE MARK
The virtual machine's sustained throughput* is currently 10498 billion floating point operations per second (gigaflops), or 872.1 CPU years (Pentium 90Mhz) computing time per day. For the testing of Mersenne numbers, this is equivalent to 374 Cray T916 supercomputers, or 187 of Cray's most powerful T932 supercomputers, at peak power. As such, PrimeNet ranks among the most powerful computers in the world. (*Measured in calibrated P5 90Mhz, 32.98 MFLOP units: 25658999 FPO / 0.778s using 256k FFT.)
For more information, please see the GIMPS home page, the PrimeNet Statistics or the PrimeNet Project Credits. Current PrimeNet Atomic Clock UTC Time is Tuesday 30 December 2003, 21:28:26  Aggregate CPU Statistics, P90 Units*  Last 7 Days Average Cumulative Today from 24 Dec 2003 06h from 30 Dec 2003 06h   Test Type CPU yr/day GFLOP/s CPU years CPU yr/day GFLOP/s       LucasLehmer 849.791 10229.525 582.390 913.420 10995.480 Factoring 24.435 294.135 17.449 27.366 329.428      TOTALS 874.225 10523.661 599.839 940.787 11324.907  Internet CPU and Server Resources  Machines Applied on 41944 Accounts Server Synchronization 23 Sep 2003 14:22 Intel Pentium 4 : 18811 AMD Athlon : 24541 Intel Pentium III : 8410 Intel Pentium II : 1753 Intel Celeron : 4610 Intel Pentium Pro : 135 Intel Pentium : 604 AMD K6 : 564 Intel 486 : 35 Cyrix : 339 Unspecified type : 226   TOTAL : 60028 Last fiddled with by lpmurray on 20031230 at 21:33 
20031230, 22:06  #2 
Sep 2003
Borg HQ, Delta Quadrant
2×3^{3}×13 Posts 
Impressive. I wonder if we'll be able to maintain that though...

20031230, 22:33  #3 
Sep 2003
5×11×47 Posts 
The usual graphs:
Total machines & Total accounts Total accounts since October (a 50% increase in less than one month... let's hope we retain most of them). Total machines, broken down by CPU type Overall numbercrunching speed of the project (LucasLehmer testing) 
20031230, 22:53  #4 
Oct 2003
Croatia
2^{3}·3·19 Posts 
Really impressive!

20031231, 14:02  #5 
Jan 2003
1011_{2} Posts 
Are there any stats on how the number of "Expected new primes" is decresing as a function of time?
When I check out the status page, http://www.mersenne.org/status.htm from time to time it looks like we're "finding" 0.01 primes every week, meaning the expected new primes number drops aproxomately with 0.01 every week. But does anyone have any statistics on that? Ofcourse to keep up with finding 0.01 prime every week we'll have to keep getting ever more computerpower since the primes thin out and the Mersenne numbers get harder to check as they get larger. 
20031231, 15:00  #6  
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
29·41 Posts 
Quote:


20031231, 17:28  #7  
Sep 2003
A19_{16} Posts 
Quote:
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/n...tMersenne.html http://opteron.mersenneforum.org/png/log2_log2_Mn.png And empirically, for the GIMPS project, the increase in the leading edge of LL testing for exponent P has been a linear function of time, so far. http://opteron.mersenneforum.org/png/leading_edge.png So although we are progressing through the exponents at a constant speed, the density of expected new primes keeps decreasing. That ought to mean new prime discoveries will get fewer and farther between. However, past experience suggests that's not the case: after all Mersenne primes have been being discovered at a pretty steady rate over the past 50 years ever since computers started being used. In any case, it's purely an empirical observation that the leading edge of GIMPS LL testing is progressing at constant speed. Will this hold over the long term? On the one hand we have Moore's law which says that computers get exponentially faster. And a logscale plot of LL testing CPU yrs/day shows that GIMPS's crunching rate is indeed increasing more or less exponentially (http://opteron.mersenneforum.org/png...d_logscale.png). Of course the LL testing rate reflects not only Moore's law but also increases in the number of participants and algorithmic improvements as well. We also know that the number of operations needed to do a LucasLehmer test for exponent N is on the order of O(N^{2} log N) according to aaronl, because the FFT is O(N log N) and it must run for N iterations. However, the need to do most LucasLehmer tests is removed by finding small factors. Since factors of 2^{P}1 must be of the form 2kP+1, finding factors gets harder for larger exponents. Will trialfactoring eventually lose its effectiveness, resulting in more LL testing needing to be done as we get to higher and higher exponents? So it's hard to predict, over the really long term, how things will go. Will Moore's exponential law trump the mere quadratic increase in LL testing operations needed for each exponent? The problem is, Moore's law itself is merely an empirical observation  eventually the laws of physics impose a limit on how small we can make electronic circuits, unless we go to different technologies entirely. 

20031231, 17:40  #8 
Sep 2003
5·11·47 Posts 
Here's a graph of the number of digits in the largest known prime by year:
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/n...ar.html#graph1 More or less linear over the last 50 years. 
20040101, 02:20  #9  
Aug 2003
2^{4}×3 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
I remember someone saying that generalized Fermat primes will soon get more attention because the candidates are distributed in a way so that you can test many without having to continuously test larger candidates (requiring more computing time). I think that if GIMPs exhausts the first one or two FFT sizes above 10 million digits, people will start trying to claim the prize by looking for large generalized Fermat primes (I'm not sure where this becomes practical, but I've heard that asymptotically they're just as easy to find). 

20040101, 04:36  #10 
Jan 2003
11_{10} Posts 
I'm aware of most of this. Mores law etc, but my question was really if we are actually keeping up with the ever harderer task of finding new primes in the same amount of time by having faster computers AND more computers in GIMPS. And I'm wondering if we have any GIMPS statistics definetaly showing this.
I joined GIMPS myself in early 1997. But I don't remember how many "expected new primes" we covered each week back then. My guess would be that we did better than 0.01 primes/week, even if we had much slower computers (to give a picture: I had 5 Pentium Pro 200's doing GIMPS which was alot then and put me up in top 100 producers in less than a year or so), but still the numbers were so small (exponents in the 23 mill range) that I think we had a better overall probability for GIMPS to find a new prime any given day back then than we have now. But maybe we haven't. I guess what I'm asking is if anyone have any stats on George's weekly snapshot of "expected new primes" over the last years and if we by reading that stat should expect to find fewer primes in the years to come (less than 1 every 2 years) because we can't keep up with the growing numbers even with the extrordinary recrouting we've had and mores law helping us with ever faster computers. Or to put it in concrete terms: Are we more or are we less likely to find a new prime on the date of January 1'st 2004 than we were January the 1'st 1998? Last fiddled with by Jorgen on 20040101 at 04:42 
20040101, 04:55  #11 
Jan 2003
13_{8} Posts 
Just to make it clear: I'm not talking about if I as a GIMPS member is more likely to find a new prime now than back then. I'm clearly not. (I did first time checks in about 23 days then, I can't match that now, and the probability of a test turning out to be prime was much higher then since the numbers were smaller). But we have more GIMPS members now, and maybe that compensates.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
running gimps on a virtual machine  sixblueboxes  Hardware  2  20130331 22:14 
Bit Defender Breaks Windows 64 Bit  petrw1  Science & Technology  3  20100325 10:41 
clean removal of a machine from GIMPS  blackguard  PrimeNet  4  20050215 16:08 
we have passed the 14000 test mark  wfgarnett3  PSearch  0  20041115 07:18 
we have passed 10000 candidates tested mark!!  wfgarnett3  PSearch  0  20040726 02:08 