LLRnet reserving 90K-100K. :smile:

[quote=Anonymous;123699]LLRnet has completed 87.5K-90K. lresults are attached. (The LLRnet results file has been converted to a normal lresults file by a Perl script that I wrote.)[/quote]

Very good. The run times are kind of scary. I assume those will improve as things stabilize.

Thanks for changing the status above Anon.


Gary

[QUOTE=gd_barnes;123717]Very good. The run times are kind of scary. I assume those will improve as things stabilize.

Thanks for changing the status above Anon.


Gary[/QUOTE]

run times are not based on processor times but on "out of server time"

so if you ask for a cache of 5 k/n pair, your processing times will be multiplied by 5 ...
i work with a cache of 20 k/n pairs for 5 cores (i have a local LLR proxy server)

[quote=tnerual;123720]run times are not based on processor times but on "out of server time"

so if you ask for a cache of 5 k/n pair, your processing times will be multiplied by 5 ...
i work with a cache of 20 k/n pairs for 5 cores (i have a local LLR proxy server)[/quote]
Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks! :smile:

Anyway, I guess, long story short, when dealing with lresults files made out of LLRnet results files, take the runtimes with a grain of salt. :smile:

Sieving will complete tonight for n=100K-200K for all k-values for the continuation of this team drive.

I'll post files up to ~n=120K on Saturday or early Sunday.


Gary

Team drive restarted...files posted...
 

The Riesel base 16 team drive has restarted. Files have been posted for n=100K-140K.

With little interest in individual-k reservations, I added 4 k's to the drive this time. This still leaves 6 individual k's, 5 of which are already reserved (3 by me), as a result of them also being base 4 k's and in some cases base 2 odd-n or even-n conjecture k's.

For k's that are for more than one base, we have to test them for the lowest base else risk doing partial double-work or adding the complexity of testing them at a higher base and then removing either all of the odd n's or even n's when testing the lower base, which would be error-prone. Hence, I will always leave them out of team drives on the higher base as is the case here.


Gary

LLRnet has completed 90K-93.4K. (It's actually had some results come in farther up, but I'm only submitting up to the minimum outstanding n--i.e. there's no holes in this lresults file.) lresults is attached.

Note to Gary: The reason why the higher bound of the completed portion of LLRnet's range is lower than the one you marked is because my earlier rough estimate of n-range was based on the leading edge of LLRnet, not what's been completely done with no holes in between. :smile:

[quote=Anonymous;124083]LLRnet has completed 90K-93.4K. (It's actually had some results come in farther up, but I'm only submitting up to the minimum outstanding n--i.e. there's no holes in this lresults file.) lresults is attached.

Note to Gary: The reason why the higher bound of the completed portion of LLRnet's range is lower than the one you marked is because my earlier rough estimate of n-range was based on the leading edge of LLRnet, not what's been completely done with no holes in between. :smile:[/quote]

Ah, OK. So to paraphrase Riese Sieve and SOB, the n-min is now 93.4K and n-max is 94K as of your most recent reporting (more-or-less). I believe those are the terms they use.

I changed the testing limit in the first post here.


Gary

I'll reserve Riesel base 16 n=100K-104K here. Sierp base 16 will be done for that range early Monday and I'll start on it after that. If LLRNet finds a prime in the n=93.4K-100K range, I'll remove the k from the sieved files.


Gary

2 primes; 5 k's knocked out...
 

Don't try this at home... :lol:

2 primes...5 k's on different bases knocked out!

Riesel base 4:
16734*4^156852-1 is prime
19464*4^155532-1 is prime

These 2 also take out:
Base 16:
16734*16^78426-1
19464*16^77766-1
-and-
Base 2 odd-n:
8367*2^313705-1

I'm still working on Riesel base 4 k=13854; currently at n=162K base 4. Finding one there would probably knock out k's on 3 different bases. :wink:

Who's your daddy? :lol:


Gary

Who's NOT your daddy? :-( False prime...
 

[quote=gd_barnes;124120]Don't try this at home... :lol:

2 primes...5 k's on different bases knocked out!

Riesel base 4:
16734*4^156852-1 is prime
19464*4^155532-1 is prime

These 2 also take out:
Base 16:
16734*16^78426-1
19464*16^77766-1
-and-
Base 2 odd-n:
8367*2^313705-1

I'm still working on Riesel base 4 k=13854; currently at n=162K base 4. Finding one there would probably knock out k's on 3 different bases. :wink:

Who's your daddy? :lol:


Gary[/quote]


:blush: :blush:

I had a sneaking suspicion about these primes this morning after I woke up. When other people have had LLR problems with false primes, the primes usually bunched up. In looking at the results file, I saw that these primes were only 25 tests apart so I ran a double-check:

Original test with 24 composites in between:
19464*2^311064-1 is prime! Time : 200.404 sec.
16734*2^313704-1 is prime! Time : 200.316 sec.

Double-check on same computer with no tests in between:
19464*2^311064-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 3A387A638BB025BA Time : 200.069 sec.
16734*2^313704-1 is prime! Time : 197.884 sec.

:mad: :mad: :furious:

Both tests were run on my Dell core duo work laptop, which has generally been very reliable. I do not overclock any of my machines.

I then ran a triple-check on my main desktop, a 3-Ghz P4. It confirmed the double-check; both the prime and composite residue.

So...the bad news:
1. I have to 'put back' k=19464 has having not found a prime on Riesel bases 4 and 16.
2. I have to rerun the entire batch for k=16734 and k=19464 on a different machine to see if I missed any primes. (not bad; ~2 CPU days)
3. I have to rerun the entire batch for n=100K-104K for Sierp base 16 on a different machine(s) looking for missing primes. (bad bad; ~10-12 CPU days)
4. I will have to unreserve Riesel base 16 n=100K-104K; otherwise it will just sit and wait for as much as 2 weeks. It the LLRNet server has hit n=100K before then, it may as well reserve it.

The only good news is that k=13854 is still knocked out of 3 bases, which includes k=6927 for Base 2 odd-n.

I have relegated my work laptop to sieving for now until I can figure out what is up. My 3 Dell duo laptops (1 work; 2 personal) are the fastest sievers that I have so that's not a bad thing for it.

The only thing I can figure about this is that my work laptop gets far more use on varied tasks and is carried back-and-forth between home and work in all kinds of whether (it has been very cold here last 2 weeks; warmer now) 5 days/week so perhaps one of its components has been slightly compromised. I do shut it down in between home and work.

My 2 personal machines stay at home 99% of the time so I'm comfortable that they don't have the same issue.

I think I jinxed myself when I got a little cocky. :blush:


Gary