Riesel base 16 - team drive #2
 

We are starting Conjectures 'R Us (CRUS) team drive #2 for Riesel base 16 starting at n=25K and continuing until all k's have a prime. Included in the drive are 12 of the remaining 17 k's that need a prime. A link to a sieved file is below. As we find primes, we will remove candidates from the files.

The file has been sieved for n=250K-500K and no more sieving is needed. The sieve depth is P=70T. As we find primes, we'll remove k's from the file for higher n-ranges.

[B]We are posting one large file that people can cut individual reservations out of. This should give people more flexibility with their ranges. Please reserve a range that will take no longer than ~4-6 weeks. IMPORTANT: Please reserve in multiples of n=2000 and begin your range with n=xxx001 and end with n=xxx000 to avoid missing or duplicating tests.[/B]

Please post all primes, reservations, and statuses in this thread instead of using other multiple threads. We'll be checking this thread frequently for primes so that we can quickly get candidates removed from the file that no longer need to be tested.

Here is a breakdown of the 17 k's that are remaining:
12 in the team drive for n=200K-500K.
3 reserved for PrimeGrid and searched to n>1M with the Riesel base 2 conjecture effort.
1 reserved for base 4 and searched to n>1M.
1 unreserved for base 4 and searched to n=500K.

Below are primes found from the team drive plus all individual efforts for Riesel base 16 for n > 25K. [COLOR=#ff0000]Red[/COLOR] indicates top-5000 primes.

Primes:
[code]
prime found by
[COLOR=red]3620*16^435506-1 KEP[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]7673*16^366247-1 KEP[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]33863*16^236436-1 Mini-Geek[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]6852*16^216571-1 MyDogBuster[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]2993*16^211161-1 antiroach[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]15068*16^204680-1 unconnected[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]13854*16^185870-1 gd_barnes[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]19413*16^181080-1 mdettweiler[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#ff0000]1478*16^147920-1 gd_barnes[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]33723*16^102191-1 gd_barnes[/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]17798*16^97394-1 kar_bon[/COLOR]
15458*16^81157-1 tnerual
16734*16^78426-1 gd_barnes
5307*16^76522-1 tnerual
27833*16^57892-1 kar_bon
18957*16^50221-1 kar_bon
8702*16^41326-1 kar_bon
17735*16^38991-1 kar_bon
[/code]Status:
[code]
n-range tested by Status # of primes
320K-500K KEP complete 2
260K-320K MyDogBuster complete 0
220K-260K Mini-Geek complete 1
216K-220K MyDogBuster complete 1
210K-216K antiroach complete 1
200K-210K unconnected complete 1
190K-200K gd_barnes complete 0
170K-190K mdettweiler complete 1 (plus 1 other)
156K-170K MyDogBuster complete 0
154K-156K Flatlander complete 0
150K-154K MyDogBuster complete 0
130K-150K gd_barnes complete 1
126K-130K mdettweiler complete 0
110K-126K gd_barnes complete 0
87.5K-110K LLRNet complete 2
85K-87.5K kar_bon complete 0
74K-85K tnerual complete 2 (plus 1 other)
71K-74K mdettweiler complete 0
25K-71K kar_bon complete 4
[/code][B]All sieved files have been tested. Eventually we will begin sieving a higher n-range.[/B]

All primes now found will be top-5000 primes so have fun and take down some k's! :grin:


Gary

ok, first one: taking 2 files 25k-43k

range 25k-35k complete, no prime

range 35k-43k complete, 2 primes:
17735*16^38991-1
8702*16^41326-1

taking 43k-50k

range 43k-50k complete, no prime

reserving 50k-56k

range 50k-56k complete, one prime:

18957*16^50221-1

taking 56k-71k (4 files)

Files now added up to n=100K

Taking 71-74K. :-)

taking 74-85k

next prime: 27833*16^57892-1 = 27833*2^231568-1

Goofy posts and goofy responses have been deleted as requested by Anon.

No more goofiness!

5307*16^76522-1 is prime! Time : 559.0 sec. :love:

71K-74K complete, no primes. lresults attached.

74-80 done only one prime

15458*16^81157-1 is prime! Time : 333.0 sec.

range 56k-71k complete (one prime already posted)

taking 85k-87.5k

Taking 87.5K-90K for the LLRNet server.

[quote=Anonymous;123407]Taking 87.5K-90K for the LLRNet server.[/quote]

Pardon my techno-stupidity here. I'm assuming this means that you'll be running it through your machine but getting feeds from the server?

That is, I will show you as reserving it and you would get credit for any top-5000 prime.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;123457]Pardon my techno-stupidity here. I'm assuming this means that you'll be running it through your machine but getting feeds from the server?

That is, I will show you as reserving it and you would get credit for any top-5000 prime.


Gary[/quote]
No, all that means is that the file is going to be fed into the LLRnet server, which will hand out the individual candidates just like a regular team drive (except that it's all automated). Any top-5000 primes would be credited to whoever's computer reported the result to the server. (Carlos will send me the results files, which are pretty much regular lresults files, but with added time/date and user information. I can strip that out to make it look like a regular lresults file--should be easy with a quickie perl script.)

Thus, you should show the file as reserved by "LLRnet". :smile: (The same goes for any k's we may dedicate to the LLRnet server in the future.)

[quote=Anonymous;123466]No, all that means is that the file is going to be fed into the LLRnet server, which will hand out the individual candidates just like a regular team drive (except that it's all automated). Any top-5000 primes would be credited to whoever's computer reported the result to the server. (Carlos will send me the results files, which are pretty much regular lresults files, but with added time/date and user information. I can strip that out to make it look like a regular lresults file--should be easy with a quickie perl script.)

Thus, you should show the file as reserved by "LLRnet". :smile: (The same goes for any k's we may dedicate to the LLRnet server in the future.)[/quote]

Holy sh-moly! I'd say I'll get crackin' on sieving Riesel base 16. Jasong offered some sieving but I haven't seen him around in a while. I'll get it started and see if I can coordinate with him on helping.

Anon, instead of feeding the LLRnet server any more Riesel files, we've got a whole slew of Sierp base 16 files and nobody has reserved any work on that side since I restarted the drive except for me. I have them available all the way up to n=200K, although only posted to n=120K.

OK, how do these people know what project to report the primes under? CRUS still gets 100% credit; correct?


Gary

I've split Gary's original post into multiple parts for easier replying:
[quote=gd_barnes;123467]Holy sh-moly! I'd say I'll get crackin' on sieving Riesel base 16. Jasong offered some sieving but I haven't seen him around in a while. I'll get it started and see if I can coordinate with him on helping.[/quote]
Okay, sounds good! :smile:

[quote]Anon, instead of feeding the LLRnet server any more Riesel files, we've got a whole slew of Sierp base 16 files and nobody has reserved any work on that side since I restarted the drive except for me. I have them available all the way up to n=200K, although only posted to n=120K.[/quote]
Well, we'd have to first let the LLRnet server run dry if we were going to do that...an LLRnet server can't have more than one type of numbers (i.e. numbers with a different header in the NewPGen format file) queued up, just like regular LLR...but it still would work OK, I would think, especially since we have few enough Riesel candidates in the server that it shouldn't take long to run them dry. :smile: But, you're right, right now it would be better to do Sierp. Base 16 in the LLRnet server.

[quote]OK, how do these people know what project to report the primes under? CRUS still gets 100% credit; correct?[/quote]
Simple--in the thread that I'm going to post about the LLRnet server, it will include complete instructions for running the LLRnet client--including how to report primes. Primes are reported just as they would be in a regular team drive--remember, LLRnet is simply an automated team drive system. They are still reported as being found by LLR, too--there isn't a separate prover code for LLRnet, since it's just a frontend to LLR. Thus, LLRnet makes no difference in how the primes are reported.

I have put 2 cores sieving all 27 remaining k's for Riesel base 16 from n=100K-200K (17 in the drive). I had sieved up to 25K-200K initially before breaking off n=25K-100K so I'm starting from where I left off the first piece of P=600G.

My estimate for optimal sieve is 1.1T. I can get to 1T in 2-1/2 days and am right now running P=600G-800G and P=800G-1T on the 2 cores. I'll see if Jasong is available to run P=1T-1.1T. If not, tomorrow, I'll have a 3rd core available for that. Either way, I should be ready to post files by Friday.

Optimal may be closer to 1T if we knock out 2-3 k's before hitting n=100K here.

If we're comfortable that the LLRNet server is stable and running well, if you guys want to feed a chunk of the rest of the files for Riesel base 16 to the LLRNet server before switching to Sierp, go for it.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;123505]I have put 2 cores sieving all 27 remaining k's for Riesel base 16 from n=100K-200K (17 in the drive). I had sieved up to 25K-200K initially before breaking off n=25K-100K so I'm starting from where I left off the first piece of P=600G.

My estimate for optimal sieve is 1.1T. I can get to 1T in 2-1/2 days and am right now running P=600G-800G and P=800G-1T on the 2 cores. I'll see if Jasong is available to run P=1T-1.1T. If not, tomorrow, I'll have a 3rd core available for that. Either way, I should be ready to post files by Friday.

Optimal may be closer to 1T if we knock out 2-3 k's before hitting n=100K here.

If we're comfortable that the LLRNet server is stable and running well, if you guys want to feed a chunk of the rest of the files for Riesel base 16 to the LLRNet server before switching to Sierp, go for it.


Gary[/quote]
I'm confident that it's stable and running well, but I think we should still run the Riesel queue currently in the server dry and switch to Sierp immediately, rather than dragging it out; better to run it dry BEFORE we announce the server officially than after. :smile: (Running the server dry will necessitate the server being out of work for a short time.)

[quote=Anonymous;123506]I'm confident that it's stable and running well, but I think we should still run the Riesel queue currently in the server dry and switch to Sierp immediately, rather than dragging it out; better to run it dry BEFORE we announce the server officially than after. :smile: (Running the server dry will necessitate the server being out of work for a short time.)[/quote]

Very good! You guys have the know how so I'll leave those kinds of things to you. I'll only suggest various alternatives.

80-85 done, no more prime ...
results attached

i'm now switching to the CRUS llrnet server & my base 31 testings

[quote=tnerual;123513]80-85 done, no more prime ...
results attached

i'm now switching to the CRUS llrnet server & my base 31 testings[/quote]
More customers! :wink:

Just to give you a heads-up: Within a day or two, the server will go dry for a short period of time so that we can switch over to Sierpinski work. It shouldn't take too long, though, as long as all users are returning results speedily.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;123517]More customers! :wink:

Just to give you a heads-up: Within a day or two, the server will go dry for a short period of time so that we can switch over to Sierpinski work. It shouldn't take too long, though, as long as all users are returning results speedily.[/QUOTE]

no problem ... i always run with a backup project (at a lower priority) once the main project is down, the backup project is automagicaly up ...

and in this case, i run a local llrnet-proxy that feed my computers

[quote=Anonymous;123517]It shouldn't take too long, though, as long as all users are returning results speedily.[/quote]

Less than 4 hours....

Gary, how many files would be OK for me to take for the LLRnet server from this drive? The Sierp. server will be the primary one, so this won't need as big of a range.

[quote=Anonymous;123575]Gary, how many files would be OK for me to take for the LLRnet server from this drive? The Sierp. server will be the primary one, so this won't need as big of a range.[/quote]

Take 'em all but give a few hours to let anyone else reserve one or two if they want. Server = 10 cores from my perspective; so up to 10 files per server; at least until n=200K. After that, the server can take all of them if everyone is OK with that.

Anyone want some Riesel base 16 files before we put them on the LLRNet server?

I'll post new Riesel files for n>100K on Friday.

I'm going to start sieving Sierp base 6 on 3 cores here in a short while.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;123595]Take 'em all but give a few hours to let anyone else reserve one or two if they want. Server = 10 cores from my perspective; so up to 10 files per server; at least until n=200K. After that, the server can take all of them if everyone is OK with that.

Anyone want some Riesel base 16 files before we put them on the LLRNet server?

I'll post new Riesel files for n>100K on Friday.

I'm going to start sieving Sierp base 6 on 3 cores here in a short while.


Gary[/quote]
Don't worry, it will be a day or two before we'll need Riesel numbers for the server. The server will be busy for a couple of days doing doublechecks, as well as needing to do some more numbers from the original file that Carlos needed to re-insert due to an error. So, that should give users plenty of time to reserve Riesel Base 16 files before the LLRnet server takes them all.

Or, we could do something else entirely: Have LLRnet take the few remaining unreserved Riesel Base 16 k's, and leave the files here for manual reservation. What do you think?

Edit: Never mind, LLRnet won't be able to take those k's because we're still waiting on the sieving for them past n=100K.

85K-87.5K complete, no primes

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.)

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

[quote=gd_barnes;124097]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[/quote]

Unreserving n=100K-104K due to problem with false prime shown in report primes thread.

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

???

you meant
16734*4^156852-1, 16734*16^78426-1 and 8367*2^313705-1???
or?

[quote=kar_bon;124173]???

you meant
16734*4^156852-1, 16734*16^78426-1 and 8367*2^313705-1???
or?[/quote]

I'm having a very bad day! :rolleyes:

Yes of course you are correct. k=16734 is knocked out for Riesel bases 4 and 16 and k=8367 is knocked out for Riesel base 2 odd-n. k=13854 and k=6927 remain.

I simply cannot keep these k's straight. They all sound alike...starting in a 1 and ending in a 4. Sheesh. At least one of them will be gone now.


G

Taking 100K-110K for LLRnet (5 files).

93.4K-95.4K completed by LLRnet. lresults attached.

first prime (?) from the LLRnet-Riesel-server:

client says 17798*2^389576-1 is prime,

so 17798*16^97394-1 is prime. :banana:

[quote=kar_bon;124437]first prime (?) from the LLRnet-Riesel-server:

client says 17798*2^389576-1 is prime,

so 17798*16^97394-1 is prime. :banana:[/quote]
Yep, that's not only the first prime from the Riesel server, it's our first LLRNet prime ever! :banana: Now we just need to find a Sierpinski prime to match it! :wink:

95.4K-97.5K completed by LLRnet. lresults attached.

I am nearing n=100K through LLRnet for Riesel base 16. Are there any untested k/n pairs below where I started testing? My first test was 19772*2^392580-1, i.e. 19772*16^98145-1.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;125611]I am nearing n=100K through LLRnet for Riesel base 16. Are there any untested k/n pairs below where I started testing? My first test was 19772*2^392580-1, i.e. 19772*16^98145-1.


Gary[/quote]
Hmm...I dunno. Carlos, can you please send me results files for both CRUS servers? I can then generate new stats from them, and easily find out exactly where the lowest outstanding n is. :smile:

[quote=Anonymous;125618]Hmm...I dunno. Carlos, can you please send me results files for both CRUS servers? I can then generate new stats from them, and easily find out exactly where the lowest outstanding n is. :smile:[/quote]

Done.

[quote=em99010pepe;125649]Done.[/quote]
Thanks! :smile:

user=gd_barnes
[02/18/08 17:49:58]
33723*16^102191-1 is prime!

As part of my processing for LLRnet results, I'm going to need the full sieve files for all of the k's from this drive for n=100K-110K; can someone please either post that here or send it to me?

Thanks!

In the meantime, since I have enough of the sieve file to process results up to n=100K, LLRnet has completed 97.5K-100K. :smile: lresults are attached.

Edit: whoops, forgot the attachment.

[quote=Anonymous;127169]As part of my processing for LLRnet results, I'm going to need the full sieve files for all of the k's from this drive for n=100K-110K; can someone please either post that here or send it to me?

Thanks![/quote]
Never mind that, I just got a PM from Gary saying that he was able to get the lowest-outstanding-n information (which is what I would use the sieve file to determine) from Carlos a different way. :smile:

[quote=Anonymous;127172]Never mind that, I just got a PM from Gary saying that he was able to get the lowest-outstanding-n information (which is what I would use the sieve file to determine) from Carlos a different way. :smile:[/quote]

I think we're all still confused. Namely me.

That info. from Carlos was not meant to replace us checking to make sure that all k/n pairs are in the results files. We cannot bypass doing that. Also, what he gave me was where LLRnet testing was at at the time on the Sierp side. It had nothing to do with the Riesel side.

I will post the n=100K-110K file here shortly. The results still need to be checked vs. the sieve file.

In the future, I will just run one test on the LLRnet server to find out where server testing is at. That's all that I wanted all along.

We do know this: The n-max, that is the max n that has been tested on Riesel base 16 is now at n=110K because the server has intentially been run dry at that point. I nor nobody knows where the n-min is, that is the max n that has been tested with no gaps below it. We won't know that for sure until the results files are verified with the sieve files.

There's some 'growing pains' associated with the LLRnet server and its verification. (Mostly on my side I think.) I'll put together a procedure that needs to be followed by all of us to avoid any future confusion.


Sorry for the confusion...


Gary

Here is a link to the n=100K-110K file: [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-riesel-base16-100K-110K.txt"]100K-110K[/URL]

Reserving n=110K-114K (2 files)

[quote=gd_barnes;127200]Here is a link to the n=100K-110K file: [URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-riesel-base16-100K-110K.txt"]100K-110K[/URL][/quote]
Thanks! :smile:

[quote=gd_barnes;127199]I think we're all still confused. Namely me.

That info. from Carlos was not meant to replace us checking to make sure that all k/n pairs are in the results files. We cannot bypass doing that. Also, what he gave me was where LLRnet testing was at at the time on the Sierp side. It had nothing to do with the Riesel side.

I will post the n=100K-110K file here shortly. The results still need to be checked vs. the sieve file.

In the future, I will just run one test on the LLRnet server to find out where server testing is at. That's all that I wanted all along.

We do know this: The n-max, that is the max n that has been tested on Riesel base 16 is now at n=110K because the server has intentially been run dry at that point. I nor nobody knows where the n-min is, that is the max n that has been tested with no gaps below it. We won't know that for sure until the results files are verified with the sieve files.

There's some 'growing pains' associated with the LLRnet server and its verification. (Mostly on my side I think.) I'll put together a procedure that needs to be followed by all of us to avoid any future confusion.


Sorry for the confusion...


Gary[/quote]
Okay, I'll be sure to run the lowest-outstanding-n tests with the file you just gave me. :smile:

Actually, the reason why I didn't have a copy of the exact sieve file that was placed into the server is because that file was reserved when this project was pretty new to LLRnet, so I probably didn't think to keep it around at the time. That shouldn't be a problem any more. :smile:

Anon

[quote=Anonymous;127210]Okay, I'll be sure to run the lowest-outstanding-n tests with the file you just gave me. :smile:

Actually, the reason why I didn't have a copy of the exact sieve file that was placed into the server is because that file was reserved when this project was pretty new to LLRnet, so I probably didn't think to keep it around at the time. That shouldn't be a problem any more. :smile:

Anon[/quote]

Not a problem. I knew LLRnet was new at the time. I would foward you the entire sieved file for n=110K-200K except for one issue. I remove k's as we find primes but not k's from the LLRnet server files. I only remove them from k's on files that are ABOVE the highest range reserved by the LLRnet server files.

Carlos initially indicated that it would be too big of a hassle to have a rally here due to have to remove k's where primes were found. I responded that I thought it was more hassle than what it was worth to remove k's from LLRnet files and that it wouldn't be necessary for a rally. After all, if we keep a k in there for a little too long, we might find a 2nd top-5000 prime on it! :smile: So we have decided to not mess with it, at least at these lower n-ranges. Now, if n>1M base 2, that may be a different story!

I just thought of something. CRUS is certainly not the first Conjectures project to use LLRnet. Both base 5 and the prime Sierp project deal with it too. You might ask Masser at base 5 how they deal with the removal of k's while still matching up the original sieved files with results files. I'm wondering if there is even any matching done on the larger projects like RieselSieve and SOB. Perhaps not and that is part of why they end up with missing primes.

Let me know if you do that. If not, I'll contact him at some point.


Thanks,
Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;127234]Not a problem. I knew LLRnet was new at the time. I would foward you the entire sieved file for n=110K-200K except for one issue. I remove k's as we find primes but not k's from the LLRnet server files. I only remove them from k's on files that are ABOVE the highest range reserved by the LLRnet server files.

Carlos initially indicated that it would be too big of a hassle to have a rally here due to have to remove k's where primes were found. I responded that I thought it was more hassle than what it was worth to remove k's from LLRnet files and that it wouldn't be necessary for a rally. After all, if we keep a k in there for a little too long, we might find a 2nd top-5000 prime on it! :smile: So we have decided to not mess with it, at least at these lower n-ranges. Now, if n>1M base 2, that may be a different story![/quote]
Okay, that sounds good--that makes things MUCH easier on my end when I compare results with input files! :smile:

[quote]I just thought of something. CRUS is certainly not the first Conjectures project to use LLRnet. Both base 5 and the prime Sierp project deal with it too. You might ask Masser at base 5 how they deal with the removal of k's while still matching up the original sieved files with results files. I'm wondering if there is even any matching done on the larger projects like RieselSieve and SOB. Perhaps not and that is part of why they end up with missing primes.[/quote]
Big projects such as those use MySQL databases for their LLRnet servers, so they don't need to worry about comparing results files and input files, since that is essentially done automatically.

And because I know you'll ask, no, it probably wouldn't be possible for small projects like CRUS and NPLB to switch over to a completely MySQL-based system easily and quickly. :smile:

Anon

[quote=Anonymous;127236]Okay, that sounds good--that makes things MUCH easier on my end when I compare results with input files! :smile:


Big projects such as those use MySQL databases for their LLRnet servers, so they don't need to worry about comparing results files and input files, since that is essentially done automatically.

And because I know you'll ask, no, it probably wouldn't be possible for small projects like CRUS and NPLB to switch over to a completely MySQL-based system easily and quickly. :smile:

Anon[/quote]


Interestingly, I would not have asked about a MySQL database. But if I did, it would be off in the future and it would be for THIS project, not NPLB. Where one is needed the most is on a project where we know we have to search ridiculously deep before the project even gets a little off the ground.

Imagine what we'll have to do here just for Sierp base 6! Now take a look at base 3 and then there's base 16 on both sides. Even though there are fewer k's left, I anticipate that we'd have to search further to prove the Sierp conjecture than SOB or RieselSieve will, simply because there's only 1/4th as many n-values base 2 'available' for base 16.

As the above demonstrates, there will come a time on CRUS where there will be certain bases that we have to have a MySQL database set up for but that is long off. This project is theoretically exponentially larger than SOB and RieselSieve combined. I would expect it or it's successor project(s) to still be operating over 100 years from now even if bases are not expanded beyond 32 and power of 2 up to 256.

I expect to expand bases on this up to 100 perhaps sometime in 2009 (and maybe even powers of 2 bases to 1024 or 4096 depending on what the next 'interesting' base is). There's already one person that contacted me via Email who may be searching higher bases now or at least determining their lowest conjectured values with numeric covering sets.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;127237]Interestingly, I would not have asked about a MySQL database. But if I did, it would be off in the future and it would be for THIS project, not NPLB. Where one is needed the most is on a project where we know we have to search ridiculously deep before the project even gets a little off the ground.

Imagine what we'll have to do here just for Sierp base 6! Now take a look at base 3 and then there's base 16 on both sides. Even though there are fewer k's left, I anticipate that we'd have to search further to prove the Sierp conjecture than SOB or RieselSieve will, simply because there's only 1/4th as many n-values base 2 'available' for base 16.

As the above demonstrates, there will come a time on CRUS where there will be certain bases that we have to have a MySQL database set up for but that is long off. This project is theoretically exponentially larger than SOB and RieselSieve combined. I would expect it or it's successor project(s) to still be operating over 100 years from now even if bases are not expanded beyond 32 and power of 2 up to 256.

I expect to expand bases on this up to 100 perhaps sometime in 2009 (and maybe even powers of 2 bases to 1024 or 4096 depending on what the next 'interesting' base is). There's already one person that contacted me via Email who may be searching higher bases now or at least determining their lowest conjectured values with numeric covering sets.


Gary[/quote]
You know, considering the scale of this effort, who knows, maybe once Riesel Sieve and SoB prove their respective conjectures, they might want to team up with CRUS to help us get our conjectures proven so much faster. :smile:

Just think of all the resources we'd have--not least of which would be an already-set-up BOINC server with lots of active users! :smile:

Anon

Testing has been completed to n=110K on LLRnet. Verification of all k/n pairs is now in progress.

Here's the lresults for LLRnet's range 100K-110K (already marked as complete). :smile:

[quote=Anonymous;127617]Here's the lresults for LLRnet's range 100K-110K (already marked as complete). :smile:[/quote]

Thanks for finishing that up Anon!

Meanwhile:

n=110K-114K complete; no primes

reserving n=114K-118K (2 files)

reserving n=118K-122K

n=118K-122K complete; no primes

I'm not sure where to put this update:
k=443 riesel is tested to 740k base 2, 185k base 16. LLR is active to 1.2M, sieving active on 1.2M-3M base 2.

-Curtis

[quote=VBCurtis;129388]I'm not sure where to put this update:
k=443 riesel is tested to 740k base 2, 185k base 16. LLR is active to 1.2M, sieving active on 1.2M-3M base 2.

-Curtis[/quote]

Thanks for the update Curtis. This is as good a place as any to report it. It can also be reported in the general reservations/statuses thread since the k is not in the team drive.

This also puts Riesel base 256 k=7088 at n=92.5K. I have both the base 16 and base 256 k's reserved for you.

It seems doubtful that we'll find a prime for Riesel base 256 k=7088 in our lifetime, but who knows? We might get lucky.


Gary

Reserving n=122K-124K

n=122K-124K complete; no primes

Reserving n=124K-126K.

Long dormant stretch here. There has to be another prime in here somewhere! :smile:

n=124K-126K complete; no primes

Taking 126K-130K (2 files) to keep one of my cores busy during my upcoming vacation. :smile: (I trust that, given the low volume of reservations on this drive, my reserving these files ~4 days before I plan to start on them will not hold anything up. :smile:)

126K-130K complete, no primes. lresults attached. :smile:

k=443 Riesel is tested to 825k base 2 (206k base 16).
I am likely to move this to a faster machine, or add a second machine, when I hit 1 megabit. This will allow me to continue >50k/month progress.
-Curtis

[quote=VBCurtis;133009]k=443 Riesel is tested to 825k base 2 (206k base 16).
I am likely to move this to a faster machine, or add a second machine, when I hit 1 megabit. This will allow me to continue >50k/month progress.
-Curtis[/quote]


Karsten, please reflect this status update for base 2 on the 300<k<2000 page.

This affects bases 16 and 256 for CRUS. I will make the changes for those.

Curtis, thanks a bunch for keeping us updated. That is one very stubborn k! :smile:


Gary

reserving n=130K-140K (5 files)

My range is at n=135K; no primes...continuing.

n=130K-140K is complete. No primes.

What's up with this huge primeless n-gap on Riesel base 16? Sierp continues to pour out primes but Riesel is completely dry. Pretty soon we're going to have less k's remaining for Sierp then Riesel for TWICE the k-range! :surprised There are only 4 more Sierp k's vs. Riesel k's remaining now!

Primes never cease to amaze and amuse me! :smile:


Gary

reserving n=140K-150K

Taking 150K - 154K

[quote=MyDogBuster;151320]Taking 150K - 154K[/quote]
Great! We could really use a boost on this drive right about now--thanks for helping out. :smile:

BTW, you know how over in the Sierp. base 3 thread we were talking about having to prove the primes with PFGW? Well, just wanted to let you know that since base 16 is a power of 2, LLR can do a regular old LLR test like it does with base 2 numbers, and thus all primes are automatically a final proof. No need to re-prove them with PFGW. :smile:

[quote]Well, just wanted to let you know that since base 16 is a power of 2, LLR can do a regular old LLR test like it does with base 2 numbers, and thus all primes are automatically a final proof. No need to re-prove them with PFGW. :smile:
[/quote]

Thanks Max, All these nuggets of help will get me up to speed. I was wondering why LLR was doing base 2 tests.

Taking:
[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-riesel-base16-154K-156K.txt"]154K-156K[/URL]

FINALLY, Riesel base 16 scores one!:

1478*16^147920-1 is prime

submitted as:
739*2^591681-1

An interesting side note on this one: The CRUS project beat the NPLB project by < 1-2 weeks to this prime. NPLB will hit n>590K for all k=400-1001 within the next 1-2 weeks. I'll have it to show it as a known prime there now.

I hate it when the 2 projects compete with one another. lol

Riesel base 16 is now complete to n=148K. n=148K-150K is running now and should complete in ~2-3 days.

BTW, if anyone wants to remove k=1478 from their sieved file, they can. Personally, I like to leave them in there if it's in top-5000 territory and I'm already running a file for the higher n-range. Sometimes you might get a 2nd top-5000 prime for the same k. Regardless, I'll remove the k from the currently posted files here in a little while.

Edit: This also knocks out one for Riesel base 256: 1478*256^73960-1


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;152002]FINALLY, Riesel base 16 scores one!:

1478*16^147920-1 is prime

submitted as:
739*2^591681-1

An interesting side note on this one: The CRUS project beat the NPLB project by < 1-2 weeks to this prime. NPLB will hit n>590K for all k=400-1001 within the next 1-2 weeks. I'll have it to show it as a known prime there now.

I hate it when the 2 projects compete with one another. lol

Riesel base 16 is now complete to n=148K. n=148K-150K is running now and should complete in ~2-3 days.

BTW, if anyone wants to remove k=1478 from their sieved file, they can. Personally, I like to leave them in there if it's in top-5000 territory and I'm already running a file for the higher n-range. Some[COLOR=#000000]times[/COLOR] you might get a 2nd top-5000 prime for the same k. Regardless, I'll remove the k from the currently posted files here in a little while.

Edit: This also knocks out one for Riesel base 256: 1478*256^73960-1


Gary[/quote]
have you been checking NLPB primes to see if they knock out a CRUS k

[quote=henryzz;152038]have you been checking NLPB primes to see if they knock out a CRUS k[/quote]

Yep. It's very few and far between. Almost all of the k's that we are searching for Riesel bases that are powers of 2 are > 1001 and so don't apply.

k=1478, which happens to convert to k=739 base 2, for Riesel base 16 and 256 was a rare exception.

Taking 156K - 160K

[URL="http://gbarnes017.googlepages.com/sieve-riesel-base16-154K-156K.txt"]154K-156K[/URL]
is complete.