On Jul 5, 2008, at 3:27 AM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> Finally I spent several hours trying to reduce the SAGE code down to
> the
> smallest number of lines that would still present the problem. I
> believe I've
> done that with the following:
>
> cat /home/daryl/UserData/sage/add.sage
> # 2008-07-
David, I re-installed sage-3.0.2 from source and then ran your test
against
sage-3.0.1 and sage-3.0.2. The run times were comparable.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sage]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage
--
| SAGE Version 3.0.1, Release Date: 20
On Jul 4, 2:58 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage
> > --
> > | SAGE Version 3.0.1, Release Date: 2008-05-05
On Jul 4, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage
> --
> | SAGE Version 3.0.1, Release Date: 2008-05-05 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() fo
On Jul 4, 2:23 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
>
>
> > David, I ran your two line program on Sage-3.0.3 and obtained:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.3/sage
> > -
On Jul 4, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> David, I ran your two line program on Sage-3.0.3 and obtained:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.3/sage
> --
> | SAGE Version 3.0.3, Release Date: 2008-06-17
On Jul 4, 1:46 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
>
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage
> > --
> > | SAGE Version 3.0.1, Release Date: 2008-05-05
On Jul 4, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage
> --
> | SAGE Version 3.0.1, Release Date: 2008-05-05 |
> | Type notebook() for the GUI, and license() fo
On Jul 4, 5:46 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can't see anything odd with GMP happening in the logs (but that
> doesn't mean much...)
>
> Daryl, could we try a more direct timing GMP test, to help figure out
> if GMP is possibly the problem. Could you try running
>
> sage: x =
On Jul 4, 2008, at 6:34 AM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2008, at 6:22 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:30 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>>>
I do not have a place to post the install logs.
>>>
>>> If you like, you can ema
On Jul 4, 2008, at 6:22 AM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:30 PM, David Harvey wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>>
>>> I do not have a place to post the install logs.
>>
>> If you like, you can email them to me off-list and I can post them
>> somewhere.
>
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:30 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
>> I do not have a place to post the install logs.
>
> If you like, you can email them to me off-list and I can post them
> somewhere.
Thanks.
The logs may be downloaded here:
http://sage.math
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> I do not have a place to post the install logs.
If you like, you can email them to me off-list and I can post them
somewhere.
> Here is the cat /proc/
> cpuinfo output:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor
I do not have a place to post the install logs. Here is the cat /proc/
cpuinfo output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 15
model : 2
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
stepping: 9
cpu M
On Jul 3, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
> David, I have both install logs available. I have edited them "down"
> to about 3,600 lines and 280 KB each. I hesitate to post that much
> data here.
If you are able to put them up somewhere on the web that would be great.
Could you please
On Jul 3, 3:30 pm, Daryl Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Daryl,
> David, I have both install logs available. I have edited them "down"
> to about 3,600 lines and 280 KB each. I hesitate to post that much
> data here.
you should not send the logs themselves to the list, but if possible
p
David, I have both install logs available. I have edited them "down"
to about 3,600 lines and 280 KB each. I hesitate to post that much
data here.
-Daryl
On Jul 3, 7:33 am, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daryl,
>
> Do you have available the original install.log from your 3.0.1 and
>
William, I moved the 11 libgmp* files from /sage-3.0.2/local/lib/ to a
new
/sage-3.0.2/local/libsave/ and re-ran the sieve program. There was no
change
in the elapsed/cpu times (which follow):
/home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/sage /home/daryl/UserData/sage/sieve.sage
=
No, python does not use gmp.
On 7/3/08, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> Daryl Hammond wrote:
>>> Jason, your tips on initializing the array and on counting the array
>>> values are appreciated. I'll add these to the next version of the
>>> program. I'll also inc
Jason Grout wrote:
> Daryl Hammond wrote:
>> Jason, your tips on initializing the array and on counting the array
>> values are appreciated. I'll add these to the next version of the
>> program. I'll also incorporate your cython suggestion as well. As
>> you point out, all three of these will s
Daryl Hammond wrote:
> Jason, your tips on initializing the array and on counting the array
> values are appreciated. I'll add these to the next version of the
> program. I'll also incorporate your cython suggestion as well. As
> you point out, all three of these will speed up the program (and
On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:29 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>
> There is no slowdown between sage-3.0.1 and 3.0.2 with the original
> posted code, on sage.math:
>
> Linux sage 2.6.18-6-amd64 #1 SMP Sun Feb 10 17:50:19 UTC 2008 x86_64
> GNU/Linux
>
> So it looks like something processor-specific.
H, the
> I then re-ran the sieve program under sage-3.0.1 and sage-3.0.2.
> There was no
> change; sage-3.0.2 still runs significantly slower (see detailed runs
> below).
>
> I then looked at /home/daryl/sage-3.0.2/local/lib:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lib]$ ls libgmp*.* -l
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 daryl daryl793 2
Jason, your tips on initializing the array and on counting the array
values are appreciated. I'll add these to the next version of the
program. I'll also incorporate your cython suggestion as well. As
you point out, all three of these will speed up the program (and other
programs I have) signif
William, I ran:
/home/daryl/sage-3.0.2/sage -i /home/daryl/sage-3.0.1/spkg/standard/
gmp-4.2.1.p14.spkg
The install completed successfully and install_package() shows both
gmp-4.2.1.p14 and gmp-4.2.2 installed (I could find no sage command to
remove/
uninstall a package):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sage]
Daryl,
Do you have available the original install.log from your 3.0.1 and
3.0.2 builds? It would be very interesting to see what happened
during the GMP build.
david
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
> I recently did a clean install of Fedora 9 (formerly running Fedora 8)
There is no slowdown between sage-3.0.1 and 3.0.2 with the original
posted code, on sage.math:
Linux sage 2.6.18-6-amd64 #1 SMP Sun Feb 10 17:50:19 UTC 2008 x86_64
GNU/Linux
So it looks like something processor-specific.
david
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Daryl Hammond wrote:
>
> I recentl
Daryl Hammond wrote:
> Thanks Alec for pointing out the incorrect prime count (I was failing
> to mark the
> last element in the array as non-prime).
>
> Michael, I divided the sieve program into three parts: create array,
> mark primes, and
> count primes. I then ran the sieve program under sag
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Daryl Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Alec for pointing out the incorrect prime count (I was failing
> to mark the
> last element in the array as non-prime).
>
> Michael, I divided the sieve program into three parts: create array,
> mark primes, and
>
Thanks Alec for pointing out the incorrect prime count (I was failing
to mark the
last element in the array as non-prime).
Michael, I divided the sieve program into three parts: create array,
mark primes, and
count primes. I then ran the sieve program under sage-3.0.1 and
sage-3.0.2.
Here is a s
Michael Abshoff wrote:
> It is about two orders of magnitude and it looks like your Maple code
> is actually compiled. In case I am reading your code right could you
> tell us what the runtime of an interpreted version of your code would
> be like? I would guess that with Cython one could get sim
On Jul 2, 7:09 pm, "Alec Mihailovs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Daryl Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Alec,
> > SAGE Version 3.0, Release Date: 2008-04-23
> > array size: 1000
> > number of primes: 664580
> > Elapsed seconds: 70.93
>
> That seems to be quite slow anyway.
It
From: "Daryl Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> SAGE Version 3.0, Release Date: 2008-04-23
> array size: 1000
> number of primes: 664580
> Elapsed seconds: 70.93
That seems to be quite slow anyway. For example, for my Maple program ES2,
see http://www.mapleprimes.com/blog/alec/the-eratost
On Jul 2, 4:11 pm, Daryl Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Daryl,
> I recently did a clean install of Fedora 9 (formerly running Fedora 8)
> and then
> installed sage-3.0.3 from source (formerly running sage-3.0). After
> running
> "sage -testall" I ran a couple of my own programs.
>
> I wa
34 matches
Mail list logo
