mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Conjectures 'R Us (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=81)
-   -   Sierp base 3 - mini-drive Ia (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10506)

gd_barnes 2008-09-19 01:52

[quote=nuggetprime;143083]Gary,
I also have a P4 running 6/6.
This one could do 66-67.

Thanks,
nuggetprime[/quote]


Yeah, go ahead and take it. Finding lower primes helps remove a lot of candidates from testing at higher n-ranges so that would be helpful.

I'll mark you down for the reservation.

I'm going to delete the file off of the reservation list. In case you haven't gotten it yet, here it is:
66K-67K.


Thanks,
Gary

nuggetprime 2008-09-19 14:24

Gary,
I hope it doesn't matter if that file takes ~8 days. As said, it's done on a P4 3.2GHZ running 6/6.

--nuggetprime

gd_barnes 2008-09-20 04:29

[quote=nuggetprime;143170]Gary,
I hope it doesn't matter if that file takes ~8 days. As said, it's done on a P4 3.2GHZ running 6/6.

--nuggetprime[/quote]


No prob. I'm just glad to get it going. Thanks for taking it.


Gary

nuggetprime 2008-09-22 14:46

Status update
 
At n=66294. No primes yet.

em99010pepe 2008-09-27 22:15

Taking 77-85

em99010pepe 2008-09-28 08:13

16693364 77129

em99010pepe 2008-09-28 10:59

[quote=em99010pepe;143986]16693364 77129[/quote]

I'm using LLR so that's a PRP.

henryzz 2008-09-28 14:14

i just proved it using pfgw -t

em99010pepe 2008-09-28 21:01

Can I reserve from 85 to 100? Going to stay here for a while.

8090242 81633

gd_barnes 2008-09-30 05:11

[quote=em99010pepe;144013]Can I reserve from 85 to 100? Going to stay here for a while.

8090242 81633[/quote]


Sorry, I haven't been checking CRUS as much as I should. Let me ask everyone else on this as that is all of the files that we have on this drive.

Micha, on Riesel base 3, were you going to do some sieving for k<100M for n=25K-100K that we talked about in a PM? If not, did you want a couple of more files here? Henry, did you want another before we exhaust them?

I'm going to send up to n=95K to Carlos so if anyone wants more, plan on n>95K, which will likely take quite a bit longer than previous n-ranges.

Carlos, I'll send you n=85K-95K in an Email. In a couple of days, I'll send the rest if still unreserved.


Gary

em99010pepe 2008-09-30 08:05

Gary,

Too late, I'm running something else.

Carlos

michaf 2008-09-30 18:15

I'll be sieving riesel base 3, -100M, 25k-100k anyway; it's overdue :)

gd_barnes 2008-10-03 04:08

[quote=em99010pepe;144108]Gary,

Too late, I'm running something else.

Carlos[/quote]


So, what is it you're running? Are you finishing n=77K-85K that you originally took the files for are you doing n=77K-95K since I sent you the n=85K-95K file?

If you're not finishing, can you send me the results so that I can repost the (parts of) file(s) that haven't been done?


Thanks,
Gary

em99010pepe 2008-10-03 07:04

I'm only finishing 77-85.

gd_barnes 2008-10-03 20:57

[quote=em99010pepe;144368]I'm only finishing 77-85.[/quote]


OK, thanks. I'll post the rest of the files for 85-100 in 1K pieces later today.

henryzz 2008-10-05 12:27

taking 85-86

em99010pepe 2008-10-10 08:27

36173524 78327

henryzz 2008-10-10 14:33

44249222*3^85781+1 is prime
85k-86k is finished

em99010pepe 2008-10-10 15:18

My range will be completed within 30 hours unless we find more primes.

em99010pepe 2008-10-10 19:12

47214478 80452

em99010pepe 2008-10-11 06:57

41118464 82674
7111766 84512
21175348 84575

em99010pepe 2008-10-11 07:47

77-79 complete.

[url=http://em99010pepe.googlepages.com/lresults_77K-79K.zip]Results[/url]

em99010pepe 2008-10-11 10:47

79-81 complete.

[url=http://em99010pepe.googlepages.com/lresults_79K-81K.zip]results[/url]

em99010pepe 2008-10-11 17:17

81-83 complete.

[url=http://em99010pepe.googlepages.com/lresults_81K-83K.zip]results[/url]

em99010pepe 2008-10-12 01:31

83-85 complete

[url=http://em99010pepe.googlepages.com/lresults_83K-85K.zip]Results[/url]

gd_barnes 2008-10-13 19:23

Nuggetprime reported completion of the n=66K-67K range in an Email. No primes.

gd_barnes 2008-10-13 19:32

[quote=henryzz;145029]44249222*3^85781+1 is prime
85k-86k is finished[/quote]

Henry,

Can you post the results file?


Thanks,
Gary

henryzz 2008-10-14 06:12

1 Attachment(s)
sorry i forgot
here it is:

Flatlander 2008-10-21 05:42

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-86K-87K.txt"]86K-87K[/URL]

Flatlander 2008-10-22 12:33

1 Attachment(s)
86-87 finished.
Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-87K-88K.txt"]87K-88K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-88K-89K.txt"]88K-89K[/URL]

Flatlander 2008-10-23 12:33

9690724*3^87558+1
Is prime.

gd_barnes 2008-10-24 10:53

[quote=Flatlander;146278]9690724*3^87558+1
Is prime.[/quote]

Nice find. k removed from all files.

Flatlander 2008-10-24 11:10

1 Attachment(s)
87-88 and 88-89 complete.
Taking 89-90.

Flatlander 2008-10-25 12:48

40809266*3^89759+1
Is prime.
It's nice that every prime I find here beats my base 3 record. :smile:

Flatlander 2008-10-25 19:07

1 Attachment(s)
89-90 complete.
Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-90K-91K.txt"]90K-91K[/URL]

michaf 2008-10-25 19:09

[quote=Flatlander;146465]40809266*3^89759+1
Is prime.
It's nice that every prime I find here beats my base 3 record. :smile:[/quote]

Ah... you have more luck then I had on my ranges :)

Way to go!

mdettweiler 2008-10-25 19:30

[quote=Flatlander;146129]86-87 finished.
Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-87K-88K.txt"]87K-88K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-88K-89K.txt"]88K-89K[/URL][/quote]
[quote=Flatlander;146372]87-88 and 88-89 complete.
Taking 89-90.[/quote]
[quote=Flatlander;146501]89-90 complete.
Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-90K-91K.txt"]90K-91K[/URL][/quote]
Chris, I just noticed something VERY important about these ranges: the results files don't include any residuals whatsoever! Are you forgetting to run Phrot with the -b=3 command line flag so that it records LLR-compatible residuals? (Without the presence of that switch, it simply records no residuals whatsoever.)

Since this is only for a relatively small chunk of n-range, and since your machine is known to be stable, no need to redo these ranges. However, if you could please run Phrot with the -b=3 option on the command line in the future, that would be great. :smile:

Edit: It appears that this also holds true for your Phrot-produced Riesel base 3 results. Again, no need to re-do them, but you'll definitely want to watch this in the future. :smile:

Flatlander 2008-10-25 19:44

Okay.:smile:
I had no idea what the numbers meant in results.out! I thought the numbers in the brackets was some sort of residue that could be doublechecked. Also, from this post: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=145781&postcount=79[/URL] I assumed that the LLR residues were invalid anway?
Is that what the *_e executables are for?

I'll add the -b=3 option for future ranges.

mdettweiler 2008-10-25 20:23

[quote=Flatlander;146505]Okay.:smile:
I had no idea what the numbers meant in results.out! I thought the numbers in the brackets was some sort of residue that could be doublechecked. Also, from this post: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=145781&postcount=79[/URL] I assumed that the LLR residues were invalid anway?
Is that what the *_e executables are for?

I'll add the -b=3 option for future ranges.[/quote]
Actually, I have no idea what the numbers in brackets are. :smile: I think they may have something to do with some "behind the scenes" stuff related to the PRP test.

As for the validity of the LLR residuals produced by Phrot: no, it seems that that's just an isolated (albeit quite mysterious) circumstance. Most residuals produced by Phrot should exactly match their LLR counterparts--I've confirmed it myself a number of times. :smile:

As for the *_e executables: those have some extra error checking functionality enabled, which might help reduce the chance of an invalid LLR residual in those rare cases where one might pop up. Since I haven't heard of any recorded performance drops from using the error-checking version, you may as well use it instead of the "normal" version. (It simply adds an extra section to each results file line, enclosed in parentheses, detailing various error-checking information, though it all seems Greek to me. :smile:)

Flatlander 2008-10-26 02:03

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-91K-92K.txt"]91K-92K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-92K-93K.txt"]92K-93K[/URL]
Using the -b=3 option with the error checking version. Which (unless I've jumped an FFT or something) appears about 8% slower.

mdettweiler 2008-10-26 02:40

[quote=Flatlander;146559]Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-91K-92K.txt"]91K-92K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-92K-93K.txt"]92K-93K[/URL]
Using the -b=3 option with the error checking version. Which (unless I've jumped an FFT or something) appears about 8% slower.[/quote]
Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.

mdettweiler 2008-10-26 02:52

[quote=mdettweiler;146563]Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.[/quote]
Update: I just checked the difference in timings for myself on some Riesel base 37 candidates that I'm currently doing for CRUS. I confirm the speed difference between the error-checking version and the "regular" one--I'm getting about 7-8% speed difference, as you did.

Okay, it looks like the "regular" version is probably the way to go for most purposes. :smile:

Flatlander 2008-10-26 02:54

[quote=mdettweiler;146563]Ouch. I actually hadn't checked the timings for the regular vs. error-checking version, so I had no idea that the error-checking one was any slower.

However, from what I can tell, the residual errors are very infrequent and happen mostly on power-of-2 bases (for which it's usually more advisable to use LLR anyway). So, considering the apparent speed difference, you may as well use the regular version after all.[/quote]

Okay I'll switch back over.

The lost time was more than made up for by this:
26261252*3^91020+1 is prime.:smile:

gd_barnes 2008-10-26 08:16

The last 2 k's with primes have now been removed from all files. 80 k's remain.

Chris, if you click on the 3 links in your reservation posts here, you can get files with the k's removed for n=90K-93K.

Flatlander 2008-10-26 18:56

28071866*3^91455+1
48652642*3^92392+1
Are prime. :shock:

Flatlander 2008-10-26 22:58

30440162*3^90938+1 is prime.

Flatlander 2008-10-27 01:53

1 Attachment(s)
90-91 complete.

Flatlander 2008-10-27 11:02

1 Attachment(s)
39809884*3^91905+1 is prime.
91-92 and 92-93 complete.

Flatlander 2008-10-28 01:19

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-93K-94K.txt"]93K-94K[/URL]

Flatlander 2008-10-28 16:24

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-94K-95K.txt"]94K-95K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-95K-96K.txt"]95K-96K[/URL]

Flatlander 2008-10-28 22:03

35382962*3^93533+1
Is prime.

Flatlander 2008-10-29 01:09

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-96K-97K.txt"]96K-97K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-97K-98K.txt"]97K-98K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-98K-99K.txt"]98K-99K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-99K-100K.txt"]99K-100K[/URL]

I'll stitch them together and run them on one core. Should take 6-7 days.

mdettweiler 2008-10-29 02:34

[quote=Flatlander;147017]Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-96K-97K.txt"]96K-97K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-97K-98K.txt"]97K-98K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-98K-99K.txt"]98K-99K[/URL]
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-sierp-base3-0M-50M-99K-100K.txt"]99K-100K[/URL]

I'll stitch them together and run them on one core. Should take 6-7 days.[/quote]
Gary, I think KEP is sieving k=50K-200K right now for n=25K-100K, correct? Just curious, what/when was your last status report from him?

Once he's finished sieving that, we'll be ready to start the second Sierp. base 3 mini-drive. I was thinking that we should probably call it something like "Mini-drive - Sierp base 3 (II)" to avoid confusion with this one (while still preserving this thread and its log of events).

As for what exactly to put in the second mini-drive: do you think we should do 50K-150K (for a drive containing about as many k's as the Riesel base 3 mini-drive), or should we do the whole 50K-200K range all in one mini-drive?

KEP 2008-10-29 07:13

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;147031]Gary, I think KEP is sieving k=50K-200K right now for n=25K-100K, correct? Just curious, what/when was your last status report from him?

Once he's finished sieving that, we'll be ready to start the second Sierp. base 3 mini-drive. I was thinking that we should probably call it something like "Mini-drive - Sierp base 3 (II)" to avoid confusion with this one (while still preserving this thread and its log of events).

As for what exactly to put in the second mini-drive: do you think we should do 50K-150K (for a drive containing about as many k's as the Riesel base 3 mini-drive), or should we do the whole 50K-200K range all in one mini-drive?[/QUOTE]

Hi Max

Regarding k>50M to k<=100M, it is sieving around 107G at the moment. It is removing 1 k/n pair for that range every 46-130 seconds. If you can wait 4.3 days, then I'll have it taken to 150G, and it was never the intention nor does it look efficient to take it further than 150G in sieve.

Hope this helped clear out some things

KEP!

gd_barnes 2008-10-29 12:37

[quote=mdettweiler;147031]Gary, I think KEP is sieving k=50K-200K right now for n=25K-100K, correct? Just curious, what/when was your last status report from him?

Once he's finished sieving that, we'll be ready to start the second Sierp. base 3 mini-drive. I was thinking that we should probably call it something like "Mini-drive - Sierp base 3 (II)" to avoid confusion with this one (while still preserving this thread and its log of events).

As for what exactly to put in the second mini-drive: do you think we should do 50K-150K (for a drive containing about as many k's as the Riesel base 3 mini-drive), or should we do the whole 50K-200K range all in one mini-drive?[/quote]


I assume you mean k=50M-150M and 50M-200M not 50K-150K and 50K-200K. (lol)

Obviously you don't remember the first part of our Riesel base 3 mini drive very well. Doing a k=150M range for n=25K-100K would be insane! You think a k=100M range was hard to administer at the lower n-ranges, try doing a k=150M range. Not a chance!

Keep in mind I have to balance k's remaining on not just the k-range being processed in post 1 of the thread for the drive but also on my web pages for all k-ranges for the base as well as list primes there, remove k's remaining, etc. Everything must balance and be in sync at nearly all times.

First, we'll do k=50M-100M for n=25K-100K to get it 'on the same page' as the Riesel side. In the mean time, one person like me (when I free up a resource or 2) or anyone else who wants to volunteer for it, can run k=100M-200M for n=25K-35K or 25K-40K. Later on, we can start a drive for that k-range for n=35K (or 40K) to 100K. It's best that only one person or at most 2 do it. If that works out well, we'll plan on doing it that way for future mini drives.

I have no desire to run a drive again with a k=100M range for n=25K-100K. There are too many primes at the lower n-ranges for such a large k-range. When ranges are completed out of order, it makes things difficult and extra CPU hours are used.

One thing to remember though, we still have plenty of work on the Riesel base 3 drive for n=50K-100K. Micha has sent me a sieved file for it and I think it's mostly sufficient for n=50K-60K (while continuing to sieve n=60K-100K) but I have to remove some k's yet and then divide it up into n=1K files. Also, I needed a break from that drive for a bit. I'll likely post more files some time on Friday after I'm back from my business trip. Let's think about getting the Riesel drive closer to n=70K or so before starting a Sierp base 3 drive II.

I agree on making the Sierp drive a different thread and drive...as you indicated a 'II' prefix is good. After that, we'll do it in k=100M ranges adding one to a Roman-numeral prefix each time.


Gary

gd_barnes 2008-10-29 12:49

[quote=KEP;147051]Hi Max

Regarding k>50M to k<=100M, it is sieving around 107G at the moment. It is removing 1 k/n pair for that range every 46-130 seconds. If you can wait 4.3 days, then I'll have it taken to 150G, and it was never the intention nor does it look efficient to take it further than 150G in sieve.

Hope this helped clear out some things

KEP![/quote]


Yes, 150G is sufficient. We may sieve the n=50K-100K part of it to 175G.

You are also running k=100M-200M at the same time...Is that correct? I'm asking because if not, it's more efficient for you to do so.


Gary

KEP 2008-10-29 13:43

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;147076]Yes, 150G is sufficient. We may sieve the n=50K-100K part of it to 175G.

You are also running k=100M-200M at the same time...Is that correct? I'm asking because if not, it's more efficient for you to do so.


Gary[/QUOTE]

I've split the sieve over 3 cores, because it lowered the completion time from ~30-35 days, to ~10 days. I know it is not all to efficient, but the difference is only a few percent, so I decided to do it this way. I may add, that I only sieve the 3 ranges to 150G and not any further. Once the 50M-100M range completes, I'll e-mail you the sieve file, and then continue complete the other 2 ranges, starting with 100M-150M and then six days later complete the 150M-200M range in about 10 days :smile:

Regards

KEP

Flatlander 2008-10-29 20:26

29548672*3^96142+1
Is prime.

gd_barnes 2008-10-29 20:32

[quote=KEP;147083]I've split the sieve over 3 cores, because it lowered the completion time from ~30-35 days, to ~10 days. I know it is not all to efficient, but the difference is only a few percent, so I decided to do it this way. I may add, that I only sieve the 3 ranges to 150G and not any further. Once the 50M-100M range completes, I'll e-mail you the sieve file, and then continue complete the other 2 ranges, starting with 100M-150M and then six days later complete the 150M-200M range in about 10 days :smile:

Regards

KEP[/quote]


Oh, OK. That sounds great. Thanks for the excellent sieving work! :smile:

mdettweiler 2008-10-29 21:48

@Gary: Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that sounds good. :smile:

gd_barnes 2008-10-29 22:40

[quote=mdettweiler;147158]@Gary: Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, that sounds good. :smile:[/quote]


I was just thinking of one more thing. To keep the Roman-numeral prefixes in sync, so to speak, I think we'll just call the Sierp drive for k=50M-100M 'Mini-Drive - Sierp base 3 I(b)' after which we'll go II, III, IV, V, etc.

I kind of like the idea of Roman numeral prefixes for drives of the same base. :smile:


Gary

Flatlander 2008-10-29 23:45

1 Attachment(s)
94-95 and 95-96 complete. No primes.

When the n is below 50,000, say, do you think things would be more manageable if the files were available as ks rather than ns? i.e. 3 or 5 ks per file. It would then just be a case of each tester removing the k from their file when they find a prime.

gd_barnes 2008-10-30 10:42

[quote=Flatlander;147175]94-95 and 95-96 complete. No primes.

When the n is below 50,000, say, do you think things would be more manageable if the files were available as ks rather than ns? i.e. 3 or 5 ks per file. It would then just be a case of each tester removing the k from their file when they find a prime.[/quote]


Is 93-94 complete?

Funny you mention that. That's how I've been doing the conjecture searches over several cores for quite a while now. For instance, I have Sierp base 31 divided up on 2 cores; one running k=~1 to 3.1M and the other k=~3.1M-6.2M. Much less duplication of testing that way.

I have to think of the best way to design that for a drive. The problem is, one person could end up with 3 k's that never yield a prime over a large n-range. Therefore, it'd have to be something like 3 k's over n=25K-50K or something like that.

The myriad of situations that could arise has prevented me from running a drive like that yet. The main problem being one person ending up with a file that takes far longer to test than another person; and possibly even longer than they care to continue testing. It would be far easier to administer but a little difficult to manage workload properly.


Gary

Flatlander 2008-10-30 14:01

1 Attachment(s)
[quote=gd_barnes;147226]Is 93-94 complete?
Gary[/quote]
Yes, sorry.

Flatlander 2008-11-02 13:30

23243282*3^99009+1
Is prime.

Flatlander 2008-11-03 21:07

1 Attachment(s)
96-100 complete.
:party:

gd_barnes 2008-11-04 04:49

[quote=Flatlander;147745]96-100 complete.
:party:[/quote]


Thanks, Chris, for your immense contribution to the base 3 efforts! :smile:

Flatlander 2008-11-08 14:53

[quote=gd_barnes;147075]...

First, we'll do k=50M-100M for n=25K-100K to get it 'on the same page' as the Riesel side. [B]In the mean time, one person like me (when I free up a resource or 2) or anyone else who wants to volunteer for it, can run k=100M-200M for n=25K-35K or 25K-40K. [/B]Later on, we can start a drive for that k-range for n=35K (or 40K) to 100K. It's best that only one person or at most 2 do it. If that works out well, we'll plan on doing it that way for future mini drives.
...
Gary[/quote]
I'll do it. (Unless this is now not the most efficient way, it light of Karsten's scripts? Perhaps it's now more efficient if I started with n even lower, using the scripts?)

Is it time to rename and unsticky this thread?

Flatlander 2008-11-08 17:29

[quote=Flatlander;148351]I'll do it. (Unless this is now not the most efficient way, it light of Karsten's scripts? Perhaps it's now more efficient if I started with n even lower, using the scripts?)

Is it time to rename and unsticky this thread?[/quote]

I don't mind some sieving if you start it off and pass it to me.

gd_barnes 2008-11-09 09:50

[quote=Flatlander;148351]I'll do it. (Unless this is now not the most efficient way, it light of Karsten's scripts? Perhaps it's now more efficient if I started with n even lower, using the scripts?)

Is it time to rename and unsticky this thread?[/quote]


KEP has done all the sieving for Sierp base 3 k=50M-100M for n=25K to 100K. I know he's fully sieved for n=25K-50K and need to check if he was high enough for n=50K-100K. Regardless, in the next 2-3 days, I will start "Mini drive Ib - Sierp base 3" and post files up to either 35K or 40K depending on demand. After that all drives will be Roman numeraled like Mini drive II, Mini drive III, etc. for k=100M-200M, 200M-300M, etc. We'll run both Riesel and Sierp that way k=100M at a time unless something drastic changes as a result of Karsten's scripts.

KEP is also still in the process of sieving Sierp base 3 for k=100M-200M. With Micha sieving somewhat further on Riesel base 3 for k<100M for n=60K-100K, I think we're good on sieving for a while. But if you wanted to do some sieving for a while, you could work on Riesel base 3 for k=100M-200M.

Micha, were you about finished sieving Riesel base 3 for k<100M for n=60K-100K? Whenver you send me an updated file, I'll post some files in the Riesel effort for n>60K.

After a couple of responses to this post, I'll unsticky this thread and rename it to "Mini drive Ia - Sierp base 3".


Gary

Flatlander 2008-11-09 13:19

[quote=gd_barnes;148473]... I think we're good on sieving for a while...
Gary[/quote]
Okay, I'll give the R. base 27 file a good sieve instead, it's looking well behind.
(I'm also Phroting it, currently @ 104,774.)

gd_barnes 2008-11-10 05:54

[quote=Flatlander;148351]I'll do it. (Unless this is now not the most efficient way, it light of Karsten's scripts? Perhaps it's now more efficient if I started with n even lower, using the scripts?)

Is it time to rename and unsticky this thread?[/quote]


Oops. I realized you made a statement here that was unrelated to the next question that you asked about sieving.

Yes, when KEP is done sieving Riesel base 3 for k=100M-200M, I'll send you n=25K-40K to test for that range. Then we'll start "Mini-drive II - Riesel base 3" for n=40K-100K. That will save my sanity greatly! :smile:


Gary

KEP 2008-11-10 15:43

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;148596]Oops. I realized you made a statement here that was unrelated to the next question that you asked about sieving.

Yes, when KEP is done sieving Riesel base 3 for k=100M-200M, I'll send you n=25K-40K to test for that range. Then we'll start "Mini-drive II - Riesel base 3" for n=40K-100K. That will save my sanity greatly! :smile:


Gary[/QUOTE]

A little correction:

I'm currently sieving Sierp base 3 for k>100M to k<=200M. Sieving is pending resumption, due to lack of availeable cores. However ranges remaining will be completed in 6-9 days. And sieving will most likely resume in 2-3 days and then run uninterrupted up to p=150G!

Regards

KEP

gd_barnes 2008-11-11 05:10

[quote=KEP;148640]A little correction:

I'm currently sieving Sierp base 3 for k>100M to k<=200M. Sieving is pending resumption, due to lack of availeable cores. However ranges remaining will be completed in 6-9 days. And sieving will most likely resume in 2-3 days and then run uninterrupted up to p=150G!

Regards

KEP[/quote]


I can't keep the bases straight! I guess I should just look at my own web pages! lol Since KEP is sieving Sierp base 3 instead of Riesel base 3 for k=100M-200M, we will only start "Mini drive Ib - Sierp base 3" for k=50M-100M sometime on Tues.

Because it is only a k=50M range, it will be easier to administer the entire range of n=25K-100K so there will be no need to any "pre"-testing up to n=40K.

It's only the k=100M range drives that we will run for k>100M on both Riesel and Sierp that we'll need the pre-testing done to make them easier to administer.


Gary


All times are UTC. The time now is 05:12.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.