-   Riesel Prime Search (
-   -   Riesel Primes k*2^n-1, k<300 [Part II] (

gd_barnes 2007-11-19 16:11

[quote=Kosmaj;118780]As I mentioned in [URL=""]post #34[/URL] of this thread, k=139 is not strictly reserved, and the name of Nuggetprime attached to it is only a placeholder meaning that he may return and keep on working on it soon.

If anybody wants to work on k=139 now he is free to do so. Actually Nugget said that he tested it to "about" 419500 but I'd like to suggest starting at 400k.


OK, excellent. I missed that original posting. I'd like to reserve k=139 for testing. I'll start at n=400K and perhaps go to n=600K-700K. It's 'behind' on my list so I'll get it 'caught up' so to speak. :smile:

If Nuggetprime wants to coordinate any sieving or testing, I'm fine with that. I wonder if he has any sieved files above n=400K?

Here's another thought. If you guys want, I could take it up to n=600K and you could still include it starting from n=600K in the 6th drive like most of the planned k's. That'd make things consistent and easy for an extra k in the drive.

For that matter, if we wanted to include it in a 6th drive, I wouldn't care if you showed it as reserved by RPS while I work it up to n=600K so nobody is wondering why the 6th drive is working on a 'reserved' k.


VBCurtis 2007-11-21 21:35

Monthly update
A slow month, due to all the k=5 and k=105 work done.
45 at 900k. (3.5 cores)
99 at 1.15M. (3 cores)
201 at 860k. (1 core)
No progress on 11,13,93,119,127,197.
111 now on 3 cores, should be complete to 1M and released by 1/1/08. Anyone wishing to test this high-weight k is welcome to begin sieving at 1M- I will not continue beyond 1M.


Flatlander 2007-11-25 18:03

Releasing k=251
Releasing into the wild k = 251. Tested to 805070.
Farewell my friend and bon voyage.

Remaining candidates to 5m, sieved to 16.35T available here:

Cruelty 2007-11-30 12:32

milestone report for k=151
k=151 tested till n=1M, I'm still working on it :flex:

gd_barnes 2007-12-01 03:33

Month end status
Since I'm now working on more than one k < 300, here is a Nov. month end status:

k=5; recently reserved range completed from n=1070K-1080.4K; no primes. All ranges completed consecutively to 1080.4K except for Patrick's partial range from 727.7K-740K.

k=139; completed from n=400K-425.5K; no primes. All ranges completed consecutively to 425.5K.

k=243; completed from n=300K-685.9K and from 745K-782.8K; primes previously posted. All ranges completed consecutively to 685.9K.


amphoria 2007-12-01 10:02

LLR Status
k=67 at n=610k.

k=81 at n=1060k.

Continuing with both.

Kosmaj 2007-12-02 04:39

A message from Justin

[QUOTE]We would like to unreserve k=69
I also would like to unreserve k=165. 165 was taken to 637K with no new primes found.
K=121 is at n=3016K
K=27 is at n=1019K

We would also like to take K=105105 for further testing. We may be making a big project out of this one. [/QUOTE]

Cruelty 2007-12-02 19:32

milestone report
k=25, 59, 101, 617, tested till n=1.2M, I'm still working on those "k"

em99010pepe 2007-12-02 21:29

I would like to reserve k=223 from 2M...

Kosmaj 2007-12-06 08:51

arminius completed k=49 to n=1.12M, no new primes.

sjtjung 2007-12-08 03:08

Monthly update
P4(Linux) LLRing 31 at 685k
Sempron LLring 31 at 764k (will stop at 765k and run Curtis' 2000's)
Celeron LLRing 31 at 878k

New Resources, 2 P4-2400Mhz, which gave me 2 new primes :george:
P4(1) LLring 207 at 646k
P4(2) LLRing 31 at 777k


Flatlander 2007-12-09 21:53

k = 35 tested to 964k.
k = 55 tested to 929k.
k = 147 tested to 572k.

kar_bon 2007-12-12 13:05

for info:
Jeffrey found 2 days ago: 61 * 2^499175-1 prime! ([url][/url])

lsoule 2007-12-13 22:03

k=39 is complete to n=1.22M, testing continues...

AES 2007-12-15 12:12

I'd like to reserve k = 103, 143, and 167. Please let me know if anyone else is working on any of these.

k = 33 is tested to n=786,000. Testing continues.

Cruelty 2007-12-18 17:17

milestone report for k=151
k=151 tested till n=1.1M, I'm still working on it

gd_barnes 2007-12-18 20:05

k=243 complete to n=800K
I have completed testing k=243 up to n=800K to close all testing gaps. All primes were previously reported here. I do not plan to take this one further.

The range of n=230K-400K was effectively double-checked since most of it was searched by someone outside of RPS. No problems found.

I have reported the range searched to Wilfred Keller.


Kosmaj 2007-12-21 06:02

The latest update of our [URL=""]k<300 stats page[/URL] is now on the server, all updates reported here are included, k=125 released, while 7 Ks (got from Masser) we are testing now in the 9 Ks thread are marked as reserved by RPS. Three Ks reserved by AES marked too. All Ks from the 5th Drive marked as tested to 831k.

sjtjung, can you be more specific about the limits you reached. Do you mean that you tested k=31 to 685k and k=207 to 646k ?? I still have your old limits on the stats page.

Cruelty 2007-12-25 11:46

milestone report
k=25, 59, 101 tested till n=1.3M, I'm still working on those k :flex:

kar_bon 2007-12-26 01:57

k=209 tested to 828k
k=297 tested to 619k

Kosmaj 2007-12-26 07:39

The 4 Ks < 300 with minmax (smallest largest) primes are now:

k=221, n=104846
k=109, n=141227
k=283, n=149351
k=233, n=179992

All tested to 600k, and all currently reserved by Cruelty.

gd_barnes 2007-12-27 22:14

Dec. month end status
Here is a Dec. month end status for k < 300:

k=5 at n=1158.7K; no primes

k=139 at n=600K; one prime already posted

Edit: I just now sent a PM to Nuggetprime about k=139. If he now has the resources to test it for n=600K-800K, I'll release it to him and send him my sieved file.


gd_barnes 2007-12-30 00:17

Jeffrey Sax's reservations released...
I followed up with Jeffrey Sax on his reservations for k's= 9, 37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 that had no activity since early this year. He is releasing them. The prime that he reported recently on k=61 was found not long after he made the reservations. He said he tested k=61 to n=500K at that time. Here is the exact quote that I got from Jeffrey in an Email today:

"I am no longer working on any k<300, and anyone is free to do as they please with them."

Based on the above and after getting advice from two coharts, here is what I would like to do:

1. Reserve k's = 37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 and fully sieve them up to n=1M. (all except k=9). This started about 1 week ago on 4 cores after I already found out that Jeff wanted to release them. Sieving is already at P=6T with an optimum sieve depth of P=9T-10T, which should be complete in < 1 week on the same 4 cores.

2. Test all k's in #1 up to n=800K. I will have 5-6 cores on them at all times and completion should be 2 to 2-1/2 months.

3. Hand my sieved files to the team for n=800K-1M. It could be divided up however everyone sees fit; perhaps in a manner similar to the "9 k's" effort or with some individual reservation of specific k's. Perhaps Sheep or someone with huge sieving resources may want to sieve them further first.

4. Double-check k=61 for n=400K-500K.

5. On k=9, that one is now open. I would suggest a team effort. A double-check is mostly likely needed for n=850K up to Benson's prime barely > 1M. Perhaps Sheep can do some sieving there. If needed, I'd be glad to throw 2 cores at any double-check effort for that after I'm done with my current reservation for k=5 in ~2 weeks.

And finally, I see no problem with the team testing n=800K-1M while I'm doing n=585K-800K. After all, getting this all done will put all except less than a handful of k's <= 63 completed up to n=1M! :smile:


em99010pepe 2007-12-30 10:12


I agree with you. Also I would like to help on LLRing.


gd_barnes 2007-12-30 21:50


I agree with you. Also I would like to help on LLRing.


Thanks Carlos. I'm only reserving and LLRing these five k's to n=800K while sieving them to n=1M. I'll post my sieved files for n=800K-1M and you and anyone else can fire away at them. We can have 2 separate ranges being searched on them at the same time! I'm thinking P=9T will be reached by the end of this week so I'll post them ~this coming Friday-Saturday.

Sheep and Curtis, I don't want to 'volunteer' your machines for anything but if either of you or anyone else is available to sieve k=9 from n=850K to 2M or whatever people think is a good n-max for this small k, that would probably be a good thing! :smile:

I'll be glad to help LLR k=9 on what is, in effect, probably a double-check from n=850K-1M+ where Benson found a prime.


MooooMoo 2008-01-01 00:18

1 Attachment(s)
k=19 has been fully checked to n=1112K, and I'm continuing with it. It's the first status report of the new year :smile: but there were no new primes :sad:

I've attached the residues from my last status update (1050K) to 1112K.

BlisteringSheep 2008-01-02 03:13

Sheep and Curtis, I don't want to 'volunteer' your machines for anything but if either of you or anyone else is available to sieve k=9 from n=850K to 2M or whatever people think is a good n-max for this small k, that would probably be a good thing! :smile:[/QUOTE]

I was just getting ready to ask if there were any hit-and-run sieving jobs that needed to be done.

Send me the dat file (suitable for use with sr1sieve or sr2sieve, sr1sieve preferred for single-k sieves) and I'll smash it up some.

VBCurtis 2008-01-02 06:59

OK, Sheep, I can build an sr1 file for you. But...
Is anyone going to test the files? With Benson's tainting of this k, there may not be interest. Gary/etc, I suggest a separate thread to gauge interest if you wish. Ya'll can also decide a max n for the sieve there- I suggest 1.5M, as this is very high weight; however, I don't plan to contribute LLR time, so my vote is one of reason only, not active interest.

BlisteringSheep 2008-01-02 08:14

Well, whatever y'all decide is fine with me. My only caveat is that I don't want anything too large to depend on me as I'm not going to have sieving assets for much longer (for an unknown value of much). But I am happy to do piece-work until that event happens.

Kosmaj 2008-01-02 11:21

Listen Gary,

We warned you many times to stop chasing the others with reservations, but it was obviously in vain. Some things you either don't understand, or you pretend so. And now of 6 Ks that Jeffrey released you want to reserve 5 at 500k while leaving us to sort out the mess with k=9. I consider this very selfish.

In addition, you mentioned two advices from I don't know who, why don't you mention my advise that such 5 Ks are too much for a single person because k=61 and k=63 are high weight (among k<300) and your shameless proposal to release some of them in return for certain favors from me?

We have been having troubles with you since your arrival at RPS, and I think enough is enough. Therefore I'm announcing the following:

1) I don't consider you a member of RPS anymore.

2) You are not welcome on this forum, and your help of any kind is not appreciated. This includes primes you may find in the future. Kindly report them without using RPS in your prover's code.

3) I refuse to accept your reservations of the 5 Ks and I refuse to list them on our stats page.

Leave us alone and GO AWAY!

em99010pepe 2008-01-02 11:40


This time you are totally wrong...Jeffrey released all his k's<300...therefore I'm releasing all my k's: 223 (sorry Blist), 923 (sorry Curtis) and all ranges from K=17, the 5th RPS Project and from the 9ks project. I won't send the results I have so far, you can crunch them by your own...

Best Regards,


Cruelty 2008-01-02 12:33

This is sad news :sad:

Kosmaj 2008-01-02 13:50

Carlos, sad news as Cruelty said, but no problems, good bye.

gd_barnes 2008-01-02 18:57

[quote=BlisteringSheep;121940]I was just getting ready to ask if there were any hit-and-run sieving jobs that needed to be done.

Send me the dat file (suitable for use with sr1sieve or sr2sieve, sr1sieve preferred for single-k sieves) and I'll smash it up some.[/quote]

Sheep, I can sieve k=9 for the range of n=850K-2M to P=4G or so and send it your way probably by Saturday. It's certainly a high-priority k since it's so low; similar to the situation that previously existed on k=5. I will start on it late Thursday after finishing sieving n=585k-1M to P=10T on k=37,41,43,61, and 63. It shouldn't take too long. Is P=4G a sufficient sieve depth for you to get started with? If not, let me know and I'll go further.

[quote=VBCurtis;121944]OK, Sheep, I can build an sr1 file for you. But...
Is anyone going to test the files? With Benson's tainting of this k, there may not be interest. Gary/etc, I suggest a separate thread to gauge interest if you wish. Ya'll can also decide a max n for the sieve there- I suggest 1.5M, as this is very high weight; however, I don't plan to contribute LLR time, so my vote is one of reason only, not active interest.

Curtis, if you can provide a starting dat file for Sheep before Saturday, go ahead. Otherwise I'll be glad to do it. Whatever gets the file fastest to Sheep makes the most sense. I'm thinking n=850K-2M because k=9 is lower weight than k=5 and we are sieving up to 4M on k=5. Does that seem reasonable?

I agree about the 'tainting' part. It is unfortunate. I'm all for accurate reporting of primes and we have no choice but to check it. But it may not be a double check! There's no way to know. Benson may have just gotten lucky by starting at n=1M and finding a prime right away. It is unfortunate that it wasn't followed up on sooner. Alas, it's all good, we'll get it taken care of. :smile:

That's not a bad idea to start a thread to guage interest. I have an alternative that people can weigh in on: Include k=9 in with the other 5 k's in some sort of "6 k's" drive (similar to the current "9 k's" drive) for the range of n=800K-1M (n=850K-1M for k=9). I think it would be more palatable to people to include what may be a partially 'tainted' effort in with a new effort with several other k's. k=61 and 63 both are higher weight than k=9 so I'm thinking k=9 would be < 20% of the total tests.

Here is a synopsis. What does everything think of this?:

A "6 k's" drive including:
k=37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 for n=800K-1M
k=9 for n=850K-1M

And finally, if people find k=9 for n=850K-1M to not be to their liking, I'll gladly double-check it myself. I've done plenty of double-checking before that were far larger efforts than this would be.


Cruelty 2008-01-02 19:23

Gary, 6-k drive sounds good to me, however right now I am thin on resources so I won't be able to participate :sad:

sjtjung 2008-01-02 19:27

Sorry for the confusion on the report that I made because I'm LLRing those k's in different machines. I'll make them much more simpler.

31 is tested up to 707k

As for 207, I haven't got a chance to get a hold to the machine that is testing it. I'll report 207 ASAP, possibly on Jan 4th.


gd_barnes 2008-01-02 19:50

[quote=Cruelty;122019]Gary, 6-k drive sounds good to me, however right now I am thin on resources so I won't be able to participate :sad:[/quote]

Thanks Cruelty. The 6-k drive can be off somewhat in the future anyway. I stated above that it would be about 2 months for me to get them all up to n=800K on 5-6 cores. I'll probably add 2 cores to that in between doing some testing on k=5, so I'm shooting for end of Feb.

Note for everyone's reference on these 6 k's; the average weight of them is well, actually BELOW average :smile:, so it's not a large effort. 2 are higher weight, 3 are lower weight, and 1 is medium weight. Below are the respective weights off of Karsten's new-and-improved k<300 page [URL="<_300_15525520.html"]here[/URL]. If you haven't seen the page, check it out. I think he updates it about every 2 weeks. Great work as usual Karsten!

k / weight:
9 / 1674
37 / 630
41 / 1174
43 / 633
61 / 2170
63 / 2807

Avg. weight 1515

Avg. weight of all k's is ~1600-1700


gd_barnes 2008-01-03 07:46

Double-check on k=61 to n=500K complete
1 Attachment(s)
A double-check on k=61 for the range of n=400K-500K is complete. No problems were found and 61*2^499175-1 was confirmed prime.

Attached are the results.


gd_barnes 2008-01-04 06:46

Sieving done for k=37,41,43,61,63; sieving k=9 now
I have completed the sieve for k=37,41,43,61,63 for n=585K-1M to P=10T. I decided to go ahead and sieve k=9 myself for n=850K-1.1M to P=10T before LLRing the 5 k's. 4 cores are on it and it will be done by Tuesday. At that time, I'll post that file as well as sieved files for k=37,41,43,61,63 for n=800K-1M in the sieved files thread.

If no one is interested in LLRing k=9 up to n=1.1M, I'll LLR it after I've finished these 5 k's up to n=800K; probably late Feb.

k=61 is now LLR'd to n=540K on 2 cores. No more primes yet. It will be hitting n=585K about a day before k=9 is done sieving, which will put all 5 k's at the same testing point. Those 2 cores plus the above 4 plus 1 more from another effort will make it 7 cores to throw at the 5 k's. :flex:

And finally, I did a quick initial sieve on k=9 for n=1.1M-2M to P=50G. Since this is a more 'palatable' range to test for people, if anyone wants to continue the sieve, I'll gladly forward it your way. If not, I'll start sieving it deeper at the same time I'm LLRing the lower range of k=9.


sjtjung 2008-01-04 18:47

207 update
207 is tested up to 662k


Kosmaj 2008-01-05 05:28

Steven, thanks, I updated our [URL=""]stats page [/URL]accordingly.

The other news is that SlashDude checked k=23 to n=1.5M but found no new primes.

Cruelty 2008-01-06 20:13

Status report on 12k
k=109, 131, 141, 211, 221, 233, 245, 263, 269, 281, 283, 299, tested till n=640000

I am sieving all of the above for 640k<n<2M together with Curtis - this week we should be closing some gaps till p=20T and continue further.
Meanwhile I will continue LLRing k=109, 211, 221, 233, 263, 283, 299 from n=640k until I find a prime for each of these "k".
Remaining k=131, 141, 245, 269, 281 are pending further testing by Curtis.

VBCurtis 2008-01-07 03:27

k=111 complete to 1M, finally, and released.
k=93 now testing on 5 machines, should be complete and released in a month or two. If anyone wishes to begin this k at 1.2M, they are welcome to.

I have access to 8 new machines in my building at work, which will work on Cruelty's k's as he releases them to me.
Please reserve 131,141,245,269,281 to me instead of cruelty, as I will be testing them the remainder of the way.


Thomas11 2008-01-07 12:29

k=75 tested up to n=850k, verified the prime 75*2^814857-1 found by Peter Benson.

reserving k=113 from n=500k.

-- Thomas

Kosmaj 2008-01-07 13:23


[URL=""]Last time[/URL] you said you were releasing k=141 at 620k. Does it mean you kept on testing in up to 640k?

The rest will be updated in the next version of the stats page (coming very soon).

Cruelty 2008-01-07 18:57


[URL=""]Last time[/URL] you said you were releasing k=141 at 620k. Does it mean you kept on testing in up to 640k?

The rest will be updated in the next version of the stats page (coming very soon).[/QUOTE]Looks like I forgot to mention... I have merged k=141 and 269 into my sieving effort (12k), and I have also decided to equalize the starting points for each of those k @ n=640k. I guess I mentioned it somewhere else (probably in some e-mail to Curtis) and forgot about the forum :blush:

gd_barnes 2008-01-08 05:11

k=9 is now done sieving n=850K-1100K to P=10T. A sieved file has been offered in the sieving thread along with a file for k=37,41,43,61,&63 for n=800K-1000K sieved to P=10T.

I attempted to get ahold of Nuggetprime on k=139 to see if he now had the resources to work on it. No luck. I had stopped at n=600K and am now continuing on.


gd_barnes 2008-01-10 21:16

k=139 now at n=650K

k=37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 are now at n=600K all working together on 7 cores.

k=61 was previously LLR'd from n=400K-585K (n=400K-500K double-check) to catch up to the others.

No new primes to report.


Cruelty 2008-01-12 14:48

Status report
k=109, 211, 221, 233, 263, 283, 299 tested till n=650000.
I am releasing k=109 - however Curtis should have a priority on further reservation of this one.

VBCurtis 2008-01-13 07:29

Not quite monthly update
13 at 1250k.
45 at 925k, only a few holes to 1050k.
93 at 860k, active on 4 cores.
99 at 1200k.
111 complete and released at 1M (mentioned earlier).
127 at 1250k.
197 at 970k.
201 at 900k.

no work on 11, 119 just started on 2 cores.
I plan to complete and release 93,119,197 in the next month or so. 119 to 1M, 93 and 197 to 1.2M.

Cruelty 2008-01-13 18:42

milestone report for k=151
k=151 tested till n=1.2M, I'm still working on it

arminius 2008-01-15 18:51

LLR complete to 1160k.
No new primes.

amphoria 2008-01-18 18:26

k=67 at 886k.

k=81 at 1150k.

Cruelty 2008-01-21 21:22

milestone report
k=25, 59, 101 tested till n=1.4M, I'm still working on those "k" :flex:

AES 2008-01-25 02:17

k = 33 at n = 855,000

I'm going to take k = 71 for a while

sjtjung 2008-01-31 18:47

monthly update
31 is tested up to 735k

207 is tested up to 704k


gd_barnes 2008-02-01 00:13

Jan. month end status for k < 300
[SIZE=2]Here is a Jan. month end status for k < 300:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]k=5 at n=1252K; no primes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2](finishing up reservation of 1240-1260 in k=5 thread)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]k=139 at n=726K; no primes this month[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]k=37, 41, 43, 61, 63 all at n=705K; 1 prime this month already reported[/SIZE]


AES 2008-02-01 14:38

I'll take k=9 for n>1M

Cruelty 2008-02-03 20:43

k=211, 221, 233, 263, 283, 299 tested till n=690000.
I am releasing k=211 - Curtis should have a priority on further reservation of this one.

lsoule 2008-02-05 00:15

k=39 is tested up to n=1.263M and continuing :whistle:

Cruelty 2008-02-09 07:25

k=221, 233, 263, 283, 299 tested till n=700000, I'm still working on those k.

Cruelty 2008-02-10 19:48

milestone report for k=151
k=151 tested till n=1.3M, I'm still working on it :flex:

Kosmaj 2008-02-11 02:16

Rob is still working on k=243, he is currently at 1.14M.

Flatlander stopped k=35 at n=978400. He sent me his file to n=2M sieved through p=15.1T. I'm reserving 978400-985000. Is anybody else interested to work on it, at least to 1M? If there is interest we can start a team effort to test it.

arminius 2008-02-12 17:17

Sieving at 21T to 2M,
LLR complete to 1.20M, Continuing....
No new primes.

amphoria 2008-02-12 17:53

Monthly Status
k=67 at 1015k.

k=81 at 1200k.

Continuing with both.

VBCurtis 2008-02-14 10:17

I am continuing Cruelty's work on k=109 and 211, two numbers he found a prime for and discontinued. I now have 7 k's formerly reserved by Cruelty, together LLRing. If anyone takes an interest in these k's, I am happy to share well-sieved files for single k's from the list of numbers marked as reserved to me, but tested most recently by Cruelty. Absent such interest, I will make slow-but-sure progress on them together, at least up to 750k or more.

Cruelty 2008-02-22 09:12

milestone report for k=25
k=25 tested till n=1.5M, I'm still working on it.

VBCurtis 2008-02-22 22:36

45 at 1.05M. (3 cores)
93 at 890k. (4 cores)
99 at 1.22M. (3 cores)
127 at 1.45M. (3 cores)
197 at 1.03M. (2 cores)

13,201,119 all active, but no progress to report. Cruelty k's also active, with more cores added as pieces of the above k's finish and cores open up.

Cruelty 2008-02-23 20:20

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;126530]45 at 1.05M. (3 cores)
93 at 890k. (4 cores)
99 at 1.22M. (3 cores)
127 at 1.45M. (3 cores)
197 at 1.03M. (2 cores)[/QUOTE]15+ cores? :shock:

Kosmaj 2008-02-24 08:11

Flatlander stopped and released k=55 at 946k, and k=147 at 600k. He sent me his sieved files and they are available on request.

VBCurtis 2008-02-24 08:22

Cruelty- I have LLR running on 19 cores, with 4 cores as sievers. All LLR machines are P4 or Athlon64, save for a single Core2 at home (at 2800 mhz).
Average speed is around Celeron-2.2Ghz per core, so roughly 40Ghz of LLR going, most of them 24-7. I'm putting multiple cores on k's I can complete this winter (93 and 197), so that I can move 5-8 cores to the k's you pass on to me by spring. With 99 and 45, I'm just trying to keep up with Sheep's sieving.

Kosmaj 2008-02-24 09:49

My recent progress
k=7 at 2.07M
k=79, 83, 89, and 91 at 780k, and some higher ranges
k=85 at 1120k
k=177 at 1280k
k=193 and 277 at 885k

Kosmaj 2008-02-27 04:54

Reserving k=161 and 163 from 500k.

Kosmaj 2008-02-28 09:23

Rob informed me that he tested k=243 to 1.15M. He stopped there and is releasing it.

AES 2008-02-29 04:32

k=9 tested from n= 850,00 to 1,200,000
k=33 tested to n= 900,000
k=71 tested to n= 833,000
k=107 tested to n= 641,000
k=103, 143, and 167 tested to n= 684,000 --thanks for the help VBCurtis

amphoria 2008-02-29 18:08

Reserving k=165 from 637k.

Cruelty 2008-03-01 19:22

k=221, 233, 263, 283, 299 tested till n=740000.
I am releasing k=221 - Curtis should have a priority on further reservation of this one.

mdettweiler 2008-03-03 18:53

Reserving k=157 from n=500K. :smile:

VBCurtis 2008-03-15 09:15

As Cruelty suggested, I'll take 221 from 740k where cruelty left off.
Status update:
45 1050k -> 1.2M now. Sheep tested 1.1M to 1.2M for me-- thanks!
119 500k -> 1M now, unreserved.
197 1.03M -> 1.1M now.
201 900k -> 950k now.

93 going on many cores, but there are holes all over the place, so a large range will complete in a few weeks.

mdettweiler 2008-03-27 15:50

Reserving k=147 from n=600696, I plan to take it to 1.5M. :smile:

arminius 2008-04-07 17:23

LLR complete to 1240k.
No new primes.

VBCurtis 2008-04-30 16:18

13 complete to 1.3M.
201 complete to 1.0M.
93 complete to 980k.
127 complete to 1.65M.
All are still in progress.

mdettweiler 2008-05-03 02:08

157*2^802321-1 is prime! :big grin: (My largest yet!)

MooooMoo 2008-05-04 06:52

1 Attachment(s)
k=19 is complete to n=1206K, and I'm releasing that k.

The last time I posted residues was at n=1112K, so I'm attaching the results from n=1112K to n=1206K.

No primes were found in that range :sad:

gd_barnes 2008-05-25 01:48

k=37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 complete to n=965K; still going to n=1M. ETA is ~3 weeks now on 3 cores.

I see that a nice prime was found for k=63 at n>1.1M by Kosmaj. Nice find! :smile:

As you all may already know, I'm only going to n=1M on all of these so if you haven't already, feel free to take them for n>1M.

kar_bon 2008-06-03 08:09

k=209 at n=870k
k=297 at n=647k

arminius 2008-06-29 06:01

LLR complete to 1300k.

Cruelty 2008-07-06 22:31

k=233, 263, 283, 299 tested till n=920000.
I am releasing k=263 - Curtis should have a priority on further reservation of this one.

Kosmaj 2008-07-07 00:23

MinMax Status Update
Last time mentioned [URL=""]here[/URL]

The only two k<300 with largest known prime smaller than 200k bits are now:

k=283, n=149351
k=233, n=179992

Both tested to 920k and reserved by Cruelty.

gd_barnes 2008-07-07 02:29

I forgot to report this a couple of weeks ago:

k=37, 41, 43, 61, and 63 are complete to 1M. Primes already reported.

I'm done with these. Good luck with them everyone. They are nice low k's to test.


VBCurtis 2008-07-14 03:33

not-quite-monthly update:
I haven't updated in a while because I've taken a long time to fill in lower ranges- I spread some k's over many machines, and waited for all ranges to finish to report.
11 is complete to 1.55M (2 cores)
13 to 1.5M. (1 core)
45 to 1.25M (2 cores)
93 to 980k (might be same as before, I have a hole 980-1000k left to fill)
99 to 1.3M (3 cores)
127 to 1.85M (1 core)
197 to 1.14M (only going to 1.2, almost done on one core)
201 1.04M (1 core)

109,131,141,211,245,269,281 all done to 700k. These are being tested as a group, so the going is slow for now, until some of the above projects finish or I buy a Quad.
I have a sieve for these last ones to 52T, and welcome assistance. I'm willing to "rent out" 100k blocks for any single k. 141 is spoken for, the rest are available 765k-865k.

arminius 2008-08-15 18:01

k = 49
Sieving at 35T to 5M,
LLR complete to 1.34M.

mdettweiler 2008-08-26 04:41

Hi all,

As part of a new effort to help push forward a number of k<300 that are significantly "behind" their neighbors as far as testing level is concerned, the No Prime Left Behind project is reserving the following currently unreserved k's, all searched to n=600K except k=289:

65, 115, 149, 175, 179, 185, 199, 215, 227, 229, 239, 241, 257, 265, 271, 289, 293

With the exception of k=289, which we will be reserving for the range of n=520K-1M, all of the above k's are reserved for the range of n=600K-1M.

We will be starting a public team sieve for these k's within the next week or two, and plan to start an LLR team drive when that is concluded, so if any of you guys want to help search these k's, feel free to come on over! :smile:

Anon :smile:

Kosmaj 2008-08-26 06:55

Prime Search has never searched k<250, and since several years ago they haven't searched k<300 either (with exception of Griffin at k=255). On the other hand RPS, and 15k before, have been committed to k<300 from the beginning. We've searched some Ks from as low as n=20k.

In other words, [B]your reservation makes no sense[/B]! You have your 300 < k < 1000, 350 of them, that's more than enough.

And Ks at 600k are [B]not[/B] "behind" for prime search in general. Some k<100 of the k*2^n+1 form are still not completely tested below 500k!

VBCurtis 2008-08-26 08:32

I assume this means you will credit RPS as the project, not primesearch?

What is the reasoning to start another team drive when we have a drive on k's of very similar size already sieved yet untested at the levels you are aiming at?
RPS has a history of having some k's tested as team drives, others left open to reservation for individual testers. We have many files already sieved in the 600k to 1M range, yet many longtime RPS members like to sieve for themselves. If your main goal is to get as many k's to 1M as possible, test the Masser files, or the 6th drive. We don't need more sieving done right now, but we do like having individual k's available at a level where an individual with 1-3 machines can make useful progress on his/her own. If you take all remaining k's currently under 1M, that opportunity is lost to the extent that megabits are MUCH slower for individuals with few machines to make progress on. This is exactly the reason I left these k's out of the 6th drive- I could have sieved all of them, but we like the idea of leaving some for individual reservations.
There is efficiency in sieving many k's all at once, but a yet greater efficiency in sieving a large range of n all at once. If you do go ahead with a k<300 search, please consider honoring our wishes to leave some k's for individual RPS members; you can compensate for this by taking fewer k's higher than 1M- high enough to make a project of similar length, and likely with a more efficient sieve.

Please explain how you conclude these k's are "behind". I'm interested in the thought process, why you are choosing RPS k's instead of some other smaller unsearched candidates (proths under 300? Riesels in 1000-2000? etc). The top-5000 cutoff is ~400k, I think; primes that take twice as long to test as the cutoff prime don't seem behind to me, particularly when there are quite a few k's in 300-400 also only tested to 600k-- and you already have those sieved to 1M!

I suspect by the time you test 300-400 to 1M, many of these k's under 300 would be reserved and advanced toward 1M, if not higher. With so much already sieved and ready to test both in RPS and NPLB, I hope you will reconsider your effort, which removes the opportunity for individuals to run individual k's start-to-finish with their own sieving effort. Review AES's entry into RPS and reservations for an example of a recent individual tester- he has both team participation and his own k's.


em99010pepe 2008-08-26 10:27

My concern here is the excess of work to be tested on such limited CPU power.

em99010pepe 2008-08-28 20:31

Taking k=191 from 1M.

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.