Riesel base 46 is complete to n=25K; 17 k's remain; now unreserved.

Sierp base 46 is complete to n=25K; 30 k's remain; now unreserved.

Sierp base 60 is at n=10K; 50 k's remain; continuing to n=25K.

New reservation: Riesel base 60 for n=10K-25K. I'll sieve and test it concurrently with Sierp base 60. With 131 k's total combined, a lot of efficiency will be gained sieving them both at once.

Riesel base 94 is complete to n=100K; results attached for 70K-100K. Releasing.

Reserving Riesel base 93 for n=50K-100K. :smile:

Riesel base 60 is at n=12.5K; 7 primes found for n=10K-12.5K; 74 k's remaining; continuing to n=25K.

Sierp base 60 is at n=13.5K; 8 primes found for n=10K-13.5K; 42 k's remaining; continuing to n=25K.

Is taking Sierp base 63 to n=5K, ETA on sieving is sometime tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and after that I'll put 1 core on crunching the NewPGen (ABCD language) file, to n=5K. I expect there to be around 85612 k's remaining at n=5K for Sierp base 63, given the previously stated 37 % reduction is a stable removal of k's per doubleling of n value :smile:

Regards

Kenneth

That's a good target to go after for that monster base, Kenneth. Good luck! :smile:

Riesel base 60 is at n=16K; 12 primes found for n=10K-16K; 69 k's remaining; continuing to n=25K.

Sierp base 60 is at n=18K; 11 primes found for n=10K-18K; 39 k's remaining; continuing to n=25K.

Smoking along on one fast core each using the new version of PFGW. The substantially increased speed is great news for this project!

With the faster software, I'll be reserving 3 more Sierp bases and one Riesel base to n=25K as I get close to completing both sides of base 60 to n=25K. It's quite easy searching a base that is likelty to have 50 k's remaining at n=25K on just one fast core.


Gary

Just for fun, I tried using PFGW to take the first 5 k's of Riesel base 39 (all of which were at n=1K) and see how many I could knock out. I found three primes:

506*39^1059-1
346*39^1303-1
206*39^1377-1

The remaining two k's of the batch, 474 and 596, are at n=10K. I'll reserve these for n=10K+. Results are attached for n=1K-10K. :smile:

[quote=mdettweiler;183491]Just for fun, I tried using PFGW to take the first 5 k's of Riesel base 39 (all of which were at n=1K) and see how many I could knock out. I found three primes:

506*39^1059-1
346*39^1303-1
206*39^1377-1

The remaining two k's of the batch, 474 and 596, are at n=10K. I'll reserve these for n=10K+. Results are attached for n=1K-10K. :smile:[/quote]

Great! Isn't the faster PFGW awesome? PFGW is my favorite prime testing program anyway because it's so flexible. Now it's even better.

It's been a huge boon to my Sierp base 31 that has ~1600 k's remaining at n=~13.5K right now. The testing time savings on 1600 k's at such a n-depth is rather substantial. The other benefit: The stop on prime. I was previously using Phrot, which was still much faster than LLR or the old PFGW even without the stop on prime. The annoyance was that I had to stop it about every 1000n to remove the k's with primes...a tribulation that I didn't really relish. Now it just runs at break neck speed and I just copy off primes from time to time.

BTW, my time savings on the new PFGW vs. the most up to date Phrot was much less on Sierp base 31 than what most people are experiencing. I was getting about 50% more work done. The tests were coming in at 9 secs. vs. 13.5 secs. [(13.5-9) / 9 = 50%] I suspect that is because I'm testing a low n-range. I think the 2-5 times speed up that people are getting is at high n-ranges.

I dare you to take all 10000+ k's up to n=5K on base 39. lol

[quote=gd_barnes;183495]Great! Isn't the faster PFGW awesome? PFGW is my favorite prime testing program anyway because it's so flexible. Now it's even better.

It's been a huge boon to my Sierp base 31 that has ~1600 k's remaining at n=~13.5K right now. The testing time savings on 1600 k's at such a n-depth is rather substantial. The other benefit: The stop on prime. I was previously using Phrot, which was still much faster than LLR or the old PFGW even without the stop on prime. The annoyance was that I had to stop it about every 1000n to remove the k's with primes...a tribulation that I didn't really relish. Now it just runs at break neck speed and I just copy off primes from time to time.

BTW, my time savings on the new PFGW vs. the most up to date Phrot was much less on Sierp base 31 than what most people are experiencing. I was getting about 50% more work done. The tests were coming in at 9 secs. vs. 13.5 secs. [(13.5-9) / 9 = 50%] I suspect that is because I'm testing a low n-range. I think the 2-5 times speed up that people are getting is at high n-ranges.[/quote]
Indeed--the new PFGW is quite handy. Just today I discovered how useful the stop-on-prime option is, compared to Phrot's comparatively simpler stop-on-prime setting which stops the whole program on a prime (not just the k that found the prime).

Previously, the best option for having a k automatically stopped as soon a prime was found on it, without stopping the whole job, was to run a PRPnet server with the worktype set to Sierpinski/Riesel. Of course, that's still an option for when you want to combine the efforts of multiple cores or machines simultaneously, but it's nice to have a simpler option for simpler jobs. :smile:
[quote]I dare you to take all 10000+ k's up to n=5K on base 39. lol[/quote]
Yes, that's something I considered. Right now I don't think I'll have the resources to spare, though I might take you up on that one sometime in the near future. :smile:

Thanks Gary, I'm currently constructing the input file, which is going to be an effort that will most likely take approximately 24 hours to complete :smile: So with a little luck, by midnight tonight (local danish time) I'll start hammering out (hopefully) ~145000 k's that this current range will remove if the 37% removal rate is approximately constant. The RAM use by the way, when dealing with 237036 k's going a range from n=1001 to n=5000, is about 1 GB. Well as mentioned earlyer I'll consider if any further approach towards an attack on this base is worth my time and effort, as I reaches n=5K. But I'm just glad that this base may be taken below 100K k's remaining :smile:

Take care

Kenneth