k=1110M to 1125M done, 79 k's remaining

files emailed

R3 k=1125M to 1140M complete, 78 k's remaining

results mailed

R3 k=1140M to 1155M complete, 84 k's remaining

results emailed

k=240M-250M complete to n=100K
32 primes found
18 k's remain
Results sent

k=1155M to 1170M tested to n=25k, 77 k's remaining

Results emailed

k=1170M to 1185M tested to n=25k, 77 k's remaining

Results emailed

Reserving k=4M-10M upto n=500k
This might take a while but I am willing to share the sieve file if I start getting in someone's way(judging by activity on taking past 100k sofar I won't).

k=1185M to 1200M tested to n=25k, 70 k's remaining

Results emailed

[QUOTE=henryzz;261478]Reserving k=4M-10M upto n=500k
This might take a while but I am willing to share the sieve file if I start getting in someone's way(judging by activity on taking past 100k sofar I won't).[/QUOTE]
Sieving is going well so far. Sieved upto 450G sofar and removing a candidate every 55 sec. Should sieve upto 4.5T(4T probable because of removals) as test at 340K(60% through) takes 556 secs. Would you suggest splitting off 100M-250M(or 200M) early?

[QUOTE=henryzz;261870]Sieving is going well so far. Sieved upto 450G sofar and removing a candidate every 55 sec. Should sieve upto 4.5T(4T probable because of removals) as test at 340K(60% through) takes 556 secs. Would you suggest splitting off 100M-250M(or 200M) early?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you might test a candidate at n=190K (60% of n=100K-250K) and see how long that takes, then stop sieving when the removal rate equals that. Then do testing of n=100K-250K. Then remove all k's with primes for the n=250K-500K range, test a candidate at n=400K (60% of n=250K-500K), stop sieving at that removal rate for that n-range, and then finish up testing n=250K-500K. You could also split off n=100K-200K and follow it up with n=200K-500K but I tend to want to put the higher n-ratio (i.e. n-max/n-min) on the lower range when breaking off n-ranges so my preference would be n=100K-250K/250K-500K.

Although it involves more personal hassle, splitting up n-ranges would be a fair amount more CPU-efficient, especially since base 3 is probably the most prime-heavy of all bases.

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;261872]Yeah, you might test a candidate at n=190K (60% of n=100K-250K) and see how long that takes, then stop sieving when the removal rate equals that. Then do testing of n=100K-250K. Then remove all k's with primes for the n=250K-500K range, test a candidate at n=400K (60% of n=250K-500K), stop sieving at that removal rate for that n-range, and then finish up testing n=250K-500K. You could also split off n=100K-200K and follow it up with n=200K-500K but I tend to want to put the higher n-ratio (i.e. n-max/n-min) on the lower range when breaking off n-ranges so my preference would be n=100K-250K/250K-500K.

Although it involves more personal hassle, splitting up n-ranges would be a fair amount more CPU-efficient, especially since base 3 is probably the most prime-heavy of all bases.[/QUOTE]
I think I will do that. A test at 190M took 145 seconds which would imply a sieve depth of ~1.5T. Any hints on what depth 250k-500k will then be sieved to. What depth if 1 or 2ks are removed? It might be possible to be worked out now based on how many primes in 100k-250k but you should be able to make an educated guess much easier I think. A test at 400k takes 655 seconds.