mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Riesel Prime Search (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=59)
-   -   Choose your own K and work on finding a top-5000 prime! (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=4963)

 diep 2015-05-02 16:12

repost:

Searched k=6073 to 500k.
Primes for exponent: 2967 and 59931
Unreserving 6073.

 diep 2015-05-14 21:18

I see behind k=733 No Primes Left Behind Drive #14 from a few years ago.

I like to reserve k=733 and drive it a little further.

 edorajh 2015-06-18 09:31

I'd like to reserve k=11340615

 Sab 2015-10-29 01:22

I'd like to reserve k =1501946985.

 diep 2016-07-01 18:44

I'd like to reserve k=8191

 diep 2016-07-01 20:09

I'd like to reserve k=32767

 Cruelty 2016-12-30 11:27

I reserve k=8515 :smile:

 unconnected 2016-12-31 10:28

Reserving k=2017 :smile:

 edorajh 2017-03-07 13:23

Reserving and working on k=146921775

 edorajh 2017-03-26 18:45

Quick update on k=146921775.

Found 6 more primes for n=50k-100k, so in total 102 primes for n=0-100k.

Now working from n=1.29M up.

 vasyannyasha 2017-05-05 08:42

Can I reserve 6371?
No primes in Caldwell's base.
Interesting that its twin 6373 has prime.
[SPOILER]Can somebody explain, why so many Proth primes for k=6371?[/SPOILER]
Pre-thanks.

 VBCurtis 2017-05-05 14:00

You may. It has primes at n = 38, 182,374,430. See rieselprime.de, menu "riesel data".
Someone checked it (and all k < 10,000) to n=10000 years ago to seed those web pages.

 unconnected 2017-06-02 11:35

[QUOTE=unconnected;450202]Reserving k=2017 :smile:[/QUOTE]

Completed to n=6M and released. One prime - 2017*2^3292325-1.

 VBCurtis 2017-06-20 03:42

Status for k>300 I've been testing:
2055 and 2085 are complete to 1025k, which I believe is the point where they joined one of the megabit drives. There had been a gap in the 607-620k range. I am not testing these, but was previously doing so in the under-1M range years ago, so I filled the gap when I discovered it.
2115 is complete to 1.56M.
2145 complete to 1.36M.
2175 complete to 1.33M.
All 5 of these had a gap from 607k to 620k, and filling that gap produced one prime (posted in the small primes thread, 2115@607390).
405 is complete to 1.72M.
443 is complete to 3.31M.

 Cruelty 2017-08-02 16:44

releasing k=8515 @ n=1526469

 Dylan14 2017-08-03 15:33

Reserving and working on k=17849 if no one else has taken it yet.

 Dylan14 2017-08-29 00:58

k = 17849 has reached n = 1M. Primes and residues were posted to the "Post small primes..." thread.
I am releasing this k, and reserving k = 17851.

 Dylan14 2017-09-23 20:18

k = 17851 reached n = 500k, and the primes and residues were posted in the "Post small primes..." thread. I am releasing this k.

 Dylan14 2017-12-02 19:46

Taking k = 17849 from n = 1 M.

 Grotex 2018-05-31 04:59

Reserve 1501946985.
Grotex.

 Grotex 2018-06-02 11:35

k = 1501946985 reached n = 100k, and get primes:
1501946985*2^52613-1
1501946985*2^67832-1
1501946985*2^80577-1
1501946985*2^84024-1
1501946985*2^86544-1
now going to n = 200k

 Grotex 2018-06-18 03:40

[QUOTE=Grotex;488954]k = 1501946985 reached n = 100k, and get primes:
1501946985*2^52613-1
1501946985*2^67832-1
1501946985*2^80577-1
1501946985*2^84024-1
1501946985*2^86544-1
now going to n = 200k[/QUOTE]

k = 1501946985 reached n = 200k, and get primes:
1501946985*2^107544-1
1501946985*2^142461-1
I release this k

 vasyannyasha 2019-05-30 07:09

2641908225

Reserving 2641908225
Pre-thanks

 Dylan14 2020-03-01 03:05

[QUOTE=Dylan14;472977]Taking k = 17849 from n = 1 M.[/QUOTE]

Update on this search: I have sieved a file up to n = 2M and am testing it.
Has anyone worked on k = 50171 since amphoria released it in 2007 at n = 1.5 M? If not, I'll take it.

 Happy5214 2020-03-18 02:52

For lack of a better place to post my ongoing reservations, I'll dump them here. The mods can move this post if necessary.

I'm reserving:[list][*]All Woodall and near-Woodall k's > 10k with gaps below the (near-)Woodall prime to fill in said gaps:[list][*]197673[*]251749[*]454483[*]582833[*]586085[*]665127[*]667071[*]938237[*]1183953[*]1195203[*]1268979[*]1467763[*]8508301 (to n=4M only)[/list][*]All k's from the RPS 9th and 10th Drives, 15k < k < 35k, n < 400k, not already complete for that n range. All k's from this range that I've filled in for n < 400k are listed in the Prime-Wiki. There are 120 k's to be filled in, which is probably too many to list here.[*]The following low-weight k's, to n=1M unless otherwise noted:[list][*]612509[*]671413[*]685183[*]686711[*]700057[*]963643 (currently at n=1.5M; sieved to n=2M; double-checking and then will continue until a prime is found)[*]10453199 (currently at n=2.5M; sieved to n=3.5M; double-checking and then will continue until a prime is found)[*]10813783 (double-check to n=780k; probably will continue to at least n=1M)[*]1665624349782373 (sieved to n=1.5M; this will find the n for the prime previously claimed to have been found)[/list][*]The following miscellaneous k's:[list][*]89925 (to n=630k; already sieved)[*]242417 (sieved to n=1M)[*]1549573 (to n=300k; already sieved)[*]7828821 (sieved to n=1M)[/list][/list]
All of these reservations, except for the RPS drive k's, are either already up on Prime-Wiki or will be shortly. The RPS drive k's will be posted along with the data from the respective drives at a later date.

 Happy5214 2020-03-19 05:47

I'll also tack on k=14549535 for 125k < n < 300k as a double-check.

 storm5510 2020-03-25 15:45

Q.: Is there a good generalized way to search for available [I]k's[/I]?

This is what I do. I will use "9999" as an example. I will do an entire forum search for "k=9999." Then I would follow that was just "9999." If there are a lot of hits, I look at each and use my browsers' "Find on this page" feature to search. I check the "Top 5000" web site, and the Wiki Riesel Prime database.

RPS appears to stay below any Nash value < 1000. It is hard to determine what their [I]k[/I] ceiling is at any given time. NPLB, it is difficult to see what they are working on. That area is not updated often.

After all this, if I find nothing concrete, I assume any [I]k[/I] I search for is fair-game. If there are other places to look, I would like to know what they are. Bottom line: I do [U]not[/U] want to step on anyone's toes by running something another person is working on. End of story...

 pepi37 2020-03-25 17:14

Take any k above 10001 and I am sure 99% you will not in that case step on anyone others theritory
Also you have other base then two and software to make sieve for any home project. In other words, you have near countess combination, choose one

 gd_barnes 2020-03-26 02:05

NPLB only works on k=301 to 1001. See the PRPnet servers thread there to see exactly what test depth different k-ranges are at. In a synopsis, k=301-349 is at n=~2.7M, k=351-399 is at n=2M, k=401-599 is at n=~1.59M, and k=601-1001 is at n=~1.56M.

 storm5510 2020-03-26 15:16

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;540906]NPLB only works on k=301 to 1001. See the PRPnet servers thread there to see exactly what test depth different k-ranges are at. In a synopsis, k=301-349 is at n=~2.7M, k=351-399 is at n=2M, k=401-599 is at n=~1.59M, and k=601-1001 is at n=~1.56M.[/QUOTE]

I looked at the front page: [URL]http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/stats/index.php?content=port[/URL]. Most of what I saw sailed over my head. Thank you just the same. :smile:

As [B]pepi37[/B] suggested, I will stay above 10001.

 VBCurtis 2020-03-26 15:56

There's quite a penalty for going above 10,000- you have to sieve yourself, and you can't get anywhere near the sieve depth of the primegrid files. You should estimate the size of the penalty yourself, to better get a sense of why you really ought to pick a couple k's below 10,000.

Stay above 1000 and you avoid the two main projects. 1000-2000 were all tested to some small depth, like 600k, back in the day; but you know that from the data pages.

If you want something basically untested, pick something between 2000 and 10000 and get on with it.

 pepi37 2020-03-27 00:02

Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15. It is not PG sieve depth, but that depth is OK ( in my opinion)

 storm5510 2020-03-27 00:57

Alright,[B] [I]k[/I] = 10151. [/B]Nash = 584.

I prefer running the lightweights.

[QUOTE=pepi37]Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15... [/QUOTE]

[U][I]n[/I] to 15e5 would be fine.[/U] I will not need it for a while. I am still running the upper end of [I]k[/I] = 22783. Four instances on two machines.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis]...If you want something basically untested, pick something between 2000 and 10000 and get on with it.[/QUOTE]

I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.

 pepi37 2020-03-27 01:15

[QUOTE=storm5510;541004]Alright,[B] [I]k[/I] = 10151. [/B]Nash = 584.

I prefer running the lightweights.

[U][I]n[/I] to 15e5 would be fine.[/U] I will not need it for a while. I am still running the upper end of [I]k[/I] = 22783. Four instances on two machines.

I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.[/QUOTE]

Will be sent this weekend in new batch

 VBCurtis 2020-03-27 01:52

[QUOTE=storm5510;541004]I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.[/QUOTE]

Under 10000 = sieve file already generated. No work needs to be done.
Over 10000, by 151 or 1 or any other number = work needed to make a sieve file.
"Not too bad" has nothing to do with it. There are sieve files nobody is running- just pick one of those.

 storm5510 2020-03-27 14:17

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;541009]Under 10000 = sieve file already generated. No work needs to be done.
Over 10000, by 151 or 1 or any other number = work needed to make a sieve file.
"Not too bad" has nothing to do with it. There are sieve files nobody is running- just pick one of those.[/QUOTE]

I think these are the files I asked you about a while back. Several pages of archive links as I recall.

 Happy5214 2020-03-29 06:38

[QUOTE=storm5510;541004]Alright,[B] [I]k[/I] = 10151. [/B]Nash = 584.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=pepi37;540994]Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15. It is not PG sieve depth, but that depth is OK ( in my opinion)[/QUOTE]

I've never had a sieve on my machine run past [I]p[/I]=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block (that record was for 8 [I]k[/I]'s of various Nash weights, n = [250k, 1.2M], using sr2sieve), and I've always thought any sieve deeper than more than a few trillion was overkill for most low-weight [I]k[/I]'s like storm5510's. I imagine my 10yo Core 2 Quad is much slower than newer machines, but is yoyo@home [I]that[/I] much quicker to be able to make up that large of a difference? If so, I have a few sieve files that could benefit from sieving to higher [I]p[/I]'s.

 pepi37 2020-03-29 11:57

[QUOTE=Happy5214;541230]I've never had a sieve on my machine run past [I]p[/I]=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block (that record was for 8 [I]k[/I]'s of various Nash weights, n = [250k, 1.2M], using sr2sieve), and I've always thought any sieve deeper than more than a few trillion was overkill for most low-weight [I]k[/I]'s like storm5510's. I imagine my 10yo Core 2 Quad is much slower than newer machines, but is yoyo@home [I]that[/I] much quicker to be able to make up that large of a difference? If so, I have a few sieve files that could benefit from sieving to higher [I]p[/I]'s.[/QUOTE]

Just send me PM with your email : all will be arranged.

Sieve at yoyo@home is made by at least 150- 200 CPUS ( in peak was 800 )
All sieve is now done to at least 5e15, and much factors will be removed if start point is 1e14. Golden rule is : when sieve need same time to find factor, and LLR need same time to process factor sieve depth is correct, but core2 quad are old CPUs...

 storm5510 2020-03-29 14:58

[QUOTE=Happy5214;541230]I've never had a sieve on my machine run past [I]p[/I]=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block.[/QUOTE]

I feel this is where deep sieving is self-defeating when it comes to time. My current [I]k[/I] is taking 96 to 104 seconds, with [I]n[/I] > 800,000, for each term on my i7 running a double instance. Running a second instance made virtually no difference in the required time.

This CPU has four physicals and four logicals. Each instance of [I]LLR[/I] is using three threads. The CPU runs at 85°C. This is the limit and keep the rest of the interface responsive.

For now, my rule-of-thumb is a removal rate >= 125 seconds. When [I]LLR[/I] reaches this, I "think" about stopping and moving on, but I do not always stop. I usually stop a sieve at this level though. I do the best I can with the hardware I have. It would be nice if I could use my GTX 1080 for this, but that capability has yet to come along.

 VBCurtis 2020-03-29 16:05

If you run LLR single-threaded at those tiny n-values, you'll get much better production. LLR doesn't multi-thread well when FFT size is smaller than 128K * # of threads.

I'd wait until about n=2 million to bother trying 2 threaded operation.

 storm5510 2020-03-30 13:26

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;541242]If you run LLR single-threaded at those tiny n-values, you'll get much better production. LLR doesn't multi-thread well when FFT size is smaller than 128K * # of threads.

I'd wait until about n=2 million to bother trying 2 threaded operation.[/QUOTE]

Running three threads on each did not work out very well. Doing so produced enough heat to cause the CPU to throttle back when the temperature went beyond 85°C. My older i5 might benefit by reducing it to one thread per instance.

n < 2-million. In theory, I could run four instances on this i7. However, I will keep it at two, single thread each.

Many thanks! :smile:

 storm5510 2020-04-04 13:27

[U]I am going to lump these here as a group[/U]:

[I]k[/I] = 98475, Released.
[I]k[/I] = 22783, Released.

[I]k[/I] = 10019, Active. Testing to >= 1e6.
[I]k[/I] = 317605. Active, Testing to >= 1e6.

I will not be posing anything additional in the forums on this subject. Any updates I have will be in [B]kar_bon's[/B] [I]Wiki[/I] database [U]only[/U]. The active [I]k's[/I] above were taken from there. No reservations on either. There are enough unreserved there with low [I]n[/I] values to last a long time.

 VBCurtis 2020-04-04 16:15

[QUOTE=storm5510;541751][U]I am going to lump these here as a group[/U]:

[I]k[/I] = 98475, Released.
[I]k[/I] = 22783, Released.
[/QUOTE]
How far did you test these?

 storm5510 2020-04-04 23:22

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;541767]How far did you test these?[/QUOTE]

98475 to [I]n[/I] = 770,000.
22783 to [I]n[/I] = 855,000.

I was frustrated with the progress on a single thread. This was before I started experimenting with multiple instances on multiple machines. I know I did not sieve them deep enough. Probably < 750e9. Everything I sieve now is a single large batch to 15e11. I may go back and pick these up again and take them to [I]n[/I] >= 1e6.

 Dylan14 2020-04-06 20:13

update on k's

k = 50171 is at n = 2.055 M, no primes found, continuing. Will likely continue beyond 2.5 M, so if yoyo can sieve up a file for me (up to say, n = 10 M), that would be nice.
k = 17849 - I don't have an update here as the machine running this is over at school and I'm not there due to the virus situation.

 pepi37 2020-04-06 20:23

[QUOTE=Dylan14;541968]k = 50171 is at n = 2.055 M, no primes found, continuing. Will likely continue beyond 2.5 M, so if yoyo can sieve up a file for me (up to say, n = 10 M), that would be nice.
k = 17849 - I don't have an update here as the machine running this is over at school and I'm not there due to the virus situation.[/QUOTE]

50171 will be sent this weekend 😊

 Dylan14 2020-05-07 18:22

update on k’s

k = 17849 is at n = 1.524 M, no primes found, continuing...
k = 50171 no change, machine that runs this k is being serviced, so no progress has been made.

 storm5510 2020-05-25 00:27

[I]k[/I] = 22783 was tested to [I]n[/I] = 1e6 ending on 2020-04-28.
[I]k[/I] = 98475 is a future project which will also be ran to [I]n[/I] = 1e6, or above.

 Dylan14 2020-06-11 20:37

Update on k's

1 Attachment(s)
k = 17849 reached n = 2M. No primes found. Residues attached - k released.
k = 50171 is at n = 2.286 M, no primes found, continuing...

 Nescro 2020-06-15 18:14

k = 3382599

Hello, I am new to the concept of manually searching. However, I did manage to search k = 3382599 from the previous n = 50,000 to n = 60,000. This was a test to see if I could take on the task of a bigger search. Now that I completed it. I would like to ask if I could search this value up to around 200k or maybe even higher?

 kar_bon 2020-06-15 21:15

Sure, this Riesel k seems not done before (upto n=50k by me to cover the SophieGermain) and there're also no further entries in the Top5000 database.

 Nescro 2020-06-16 20:48

50-200k complete

4 Attachment(s)
The k value of 3382599 has now been searched up to 200,000. Throughout this process I have found a total of 12 primes. The first 50,000 was sieved to p = ~240 billion, and the last 100,000 to p = ~150 billion. I plan on searching higher. I may wait until 500k to post the next update. Thank you for your help :)

54947
57479
61748
65944
68904
74729
85652
95728
119717
120329
139875
157759

 pepi37 2020-06-16 21:17

[QUOTE=Nescro;548197]The k value of 3382599 has now been searched up to 200,000. Throughout this process I have found a total of 12 primes. The first 50,000 was sieved to p = ~240 billion, and the last 100,000 to p = ~150 billion. I plan on searching higher. I may wait until 500k to post the next update. Thank you for your help :)

54947
57479
61748
65944
68904
74729
85652
95728
119717
120329
139875
157759[/QUOTE]

One rule you must follow ( for your own good) : you should sieve much deeper as you go up with exponents.

 Nescro 2020-06-16 22:39

Yea that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I just thought that it was taking longer to remove candidates with the sieve than it took to test each one with LLR tests. In the future ill try to sieve higher. Thanks for the tip :)

 carpetpool 2020-06-17 00:56

[QUOTE=pepi37;548200]One rule you must follow ( for your own good) : you should sieve much deeper as you go up with exponents.[/QUOTE]

True. Or until the rate at which candidates are being removed is less than a single LLR test.

 Happy5214 2020-06-17 15:18

1 Attachment(s)
My work filling in the RPS 9th Drive [I]k[/I]'s has reached [I]n[/I]=300k. I've attached the primes here, and I will also post them (and the smaller primes for these [I]k[/I]'s) to Prime-Wiki.

 Dylan14 2020-06-23 17:16

update

1 Attachment(s)
k = 50171 reached 2.5 M, no primes found, continuing with the deep file provided to me from yoyo. Residues from the 1.5-2.5M range attached.

 storm5510 2020-06-28 01:03

[QUOTE=pepi37;548200]One rule you must follow ( for your own good) : you should sieve much deeper as you go up with exponents.[/QUOTE]

Ditto.

By deeper, he means higher, as in trillions. I never sieve below three-trillion, and have gone as high as five-trillion. Depending on your hardware, this can take several days. The more terms you can remove, the less time you will spend testing.

 pepi37 2020-06-28 07:19

[QUOTE=storm5510;549253]Ditto.

By deeper, he means higher, as in trillions. I never sieve below three-trillion, and have gone as high as five-trillion. Depending on your hardware, this can take several days. The more terms you can remove, the less time you will spend testing.[/QUOTE]

Sweet spot is thousand trillions is a quadrillion :) Especially if it is done by external source (YOYO) , and will in total remove more then few more percent of total sieve size.
And that is important if you work with huge candidates.

 storm5510 2020-06-28 15:38

[QUOTE=pepi37;549271]Sweet spot is thousand trillions is a quadrillion :) Especially if it is done by external source (YOYO) , and will in total remove more then few more percent of total sieve size.
And that is important if you work with huge candidates.[/QUOTE]

Not everyone has, or wants, access to YoYo@home. I have an account, but do not use it. It runs what it wants to run and not what I want it to run, and on my GPU, not theirs.

I rarely run any [I]k's[/I] longer than five digits. Based on the formula's for calculating digits, larger [I]k's[/I] would make little difference. [I]n's[/I], on the other hand, would make really large differences. Some here have the CPU horsepower to run really large [I]n's[/I] in rapid succession with LLR. I do not. Above 700K, the performance drop-off is quite pronounced on my i7. It would be nice to run these on my GTX 1080, but that option is not available, as far as I know.

 pepi37 2020-06-28 19:08

[QUOTE=storm5510;549296]Not everyone has, or wants, access to YoYo@home. I have an account, but do not use it. It runs what it wants to run and not what I want it to run, and on my GPU, not theirs.

I rarely run any [I]k's[/I] longer than five digits. Based on the formula's for calculating digits, larger [I]k's[/I] would make little difference. [I]n's[/I], on the other hand, would make really large differences. Some here have the CPU horsepower to run really large [I]n's[/I] in rapid succession with LLR. I do not. Above 700K, the performance drop-off is quite pronounced on my i7. It would be nice to run these on my GTX 1080, but that option is not available, as far as I know.[/QUOTE]
Proth2.0 run on GPU for base2
[URL]https://github.com/galloty/proth20[/URL]

 storm5510 2020-06-29 13:20

[QUOTE=pepi37;549308]Proth2.0 run on GPU for base2
[URL]https://github.com/galloty/proth20[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]proth20 is a new highly optimised GPU application, created in 2020.[/QUOTE]There is a link for an older CPU version, but not the one above. :confused:

 Viliam Furik 2020-06-30 15:42

Hello, I would like to test primes for k=20020913 (my birthday date :smile:). Could somebody please guide me to how far sieve, and what program to use? I have Radeon VII, RTX 2080Ti, and Ryzen 9 3900X available for testing. I would also like to ask if there is any difference between searching in k=20020913 and k=2002913?

In case there isn't a difference, I reserve the k=20020913, and the other one is for the future me.

 VBCurtis 2020-06-30 16:15

I suggest you make a short project out of n=1 to n=400k to find small primes, and then decide how large an 'n' you want to set up a sieve for.

For the small primes, srsieve or newpgen to create the sieve file, then sr1sieve because it's faster than the other two. One generally sieves until the average time to find a factor is equal to the LLR time for a candidate 70% of the way from n-min to n-max; in this example, that would be at n=280k.
The reason I don't give a sieve depth number is that the proper depth depends quite a bit on how many candidates remain in the sieve, which is a way of saying the weight of the k-value. Different k's have different patterns of small factors that eliminate a bunch of candidates, so some k's need sieve depths an order of magnitude larger than others.

LLR is the primality-testing program; there is a version for GPU, but it's best described as alpha-version quality. Rogue has srsieve2 package of programs, some of which are GPU-enabled; peruse that thread (or wait for someone who knows more than I do here) to see if you can sieve on GPU and test LLR on CPU.

Large sieve ranges are more efficient than small ones; after you run to 300k or 400k for the first sieve and test all those candidates, I'd make a second sieve that covers any range you are likely to ever test- 400k to 4M isn't crazy, but that's core-years of searching; 400k to 2M could be completed in a few months.
The second k will yield different primes, so "saving" that for future-you makes sense.
Happy hunting!

 Viliam Furik 2020-06-30 18:54

First prime, before any tests!

BTW, before any tests, I found 20020913*2^12-1 to be prime. I simply calculated the value and used an online tool ([url]https://primes.utm.edu/curios/includes/primetest.php[/url]) to find out whether it is prime.

 Happy5214 2020-07-01 08:58

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;549446]LLR is the primality-testing program; there is a version for GPU, but it's best described as alpha-version quality. Rogue has srsieve2 package of programs, some of which are GPU-enabled; peruse that thread (or wait for someone who knows more than I do here) to see if you can sieve on GPU and test LLR on CPU.[/QUOTE]

Mark Rodenkirch (rogue) has stated before that the discrete log algorithm used in srsieve2 (BSGS) doesn't really benefit much from the expanded parallelism provided by AVX or GPUs, so such versions of srsieve2 don't exist.

 Viliam Furik 2020-07-01 19:06

I meant the GPUs for LLR testing. Is there a program for GPU testing, not sieving? Especially if it had properties as gpuOwl, it would be really fast on Radeon VII.

 paulunderwood 2020-07-01 19:13

[QUOTE=Viliam Furik;549554]I meant the GPUs for LLR testing. Is there a program for GPU testing, not sieving? Especially if it had properties as gpuOwl, it would be really fast on Radeon VII.[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is any Riesel-GPU application. Why not crunch Mersenne-PRP with gpuOwl on your Radeon VII?

I asked Yves Gallot about Proth on GPUs, downloaded and compiled the source and it was equal to 4 CPU cores, whereas Mersenne is like 40 cores :surprised:

 storm5510 2020-07-01 23:28

Unless I am way behind, the only form gpuOwl will accept would be [I]k[/I] = 1. There was no way to specify a higher [I]k[/I] the last time I looked at it. It would be nice if it would.

 Happy5214 2020-07-02 09:18

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;549446]LLR is the primality-testing program; there is a version for GPU, but it's best described as alpha-version quality.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=paulunderwood;549555]I don't think there is any Riesel-GPU application. Why not crunch Mersenne-PRP with gpuOwl on your Radeon VII?

I asked Yves Gallot about Proth on GPUs, downloaded and compiled the source and it was equal to 4 CPU cores, whereas Mersenne is like 40 cores :surprised:[/QUOTE]

[url]https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=14608[/url] describes llrCUDA, which is what I believe VB is referring to. There does not appear to have been any work on it since 2018, and it is definitely alpha-level. As the name suggests, it's CUDA-only.

 kuratkull 2020-07-02 12:33

llrCUDA works, I have been running one for months. But it's slow, much slower than a CPU in the same class .
I am getting 1.1ms per iteration on n=3.8M on a 1080TI
While the same n is getting 0.271 ms per iteration on 5 threads and 0.7ms on 1 thread on an i7-6700K

 Happy5214 2020-07-14 08:05

My work on filling in gaps for (near-)Woodall [I]k[/I]'s has reached [I]n[/I]=300k. Three primes were found:[list][*]8508301*2^261263-1[*]1195203*2^262935-1[*]8508301*2^296247-1[/list]
A prime for [I]k[/I]=197673 was found earlier.

The list of [I]k[/I]'s tested to [I]n[/I]=300k is:[list][*]197673[*]251749[*]582833[*]586085[*]665127[*]938237[*]1183953[*]1195203[*]1268979[*]1467763[*]8508301[/list]
Updates will be posted to Prime-Wiki shortly.

I'm also reserving [I]k[/I]=1993191 (the latest near-Woodall [I]k[/I]) for [I]n[/I] < 3986382.

All times are UTC. The time now is 05:44.