Help needed for doublecheck sieving! - Page 3

AES · 2008-02-17, 20:25

30-50 complete

AES · 2008-02-17, 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

I'm already running this:
is that ok?

That is correct.

mdettweiler · 2008-02-17, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

I'm already running this:
is that ok?

That's fine--it works the same as the method I mentioned.

mdettweiler · 2008-02-17, 22:57

10G-20G done.

mdettweiler · 2008-02-17, 23:04

I've released an updated sieve file, which has been sieved to a depth of 50G. Just download the sieve file, stop sr2sieve, replace your current copy of the sieve file with the new one, and restart sr2sieve--it will pick up where it left off before.

And while I'm at it, I'll reserve 70G-80G.

Flatlander · 2008-02-18, 16:49

Taking 80G-120G.

Flatlander · 2008-02-18, 18:27

50G to 70G finished.

mdettweiler · 2008-02-18, 19:03

Taking 120G-130G.

mdettweiler · 2008-02-18, 22:32

70G-80G complete.

A new sieve file has been released, sieved to 80G.

gd_barnes · 2008-02-18, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatlander

20G-30G finished.

Taking 50G-70G.

srsieve 130,000 p/sec (20G-30G)
sr2sieve 230,000 p/sec (50G-70G)

My bad here. Now I need to go back and look at how far I should have sieved 400<k<=1001 for n=260K-1M using the new version of sr2sieve. If it is worth it, I may sieve n=400K-600K to P=6T. But with only a 200K n-range, it may not be worth it.

Clearly the new version of sr2sieve sped things up a lot.

Interestingly having much faster sieving software doesn't reduce sieve time much (if done optimally) but it DOES reduce LLR time a lot. Anon, optimal may now be closer to P=1T on this range. Let's do another analysis around P=200G or so using sr2sieve.

We're really rolling on the sieving here! Thanks everyone for pitching in.

Gary

mdettweiler · 2008-02-18, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

My bad here. Now I need to go back and look at how far I should have sieved 400<k<=1001 for n=260K-1M using the new version of sr2sieve. If it is worth it, I may sieve n=400K-600K to P=6T. But with only a 200K n-range, it may not be worth it.

Clearly the new version of sr2sieve sped things up a lot.

Interestingly having much faster sieving software doesn't reduce sieve time much (if done optimally) but it DOES reduce LLR time a lot. Anon, optimal may now be closer to P=1T on this range. Let's do another analysis around P=200G or so using sr2sieve.

Okay, sounds good.

2008-02-18, 22:32	#31
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 6249₁₀ Posts	70G-80G complete. A new sieve file has been released, sieved to 80G. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-02-18 at 22:33 Reason: fixed a typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is more sieving power needed?	jasong	jasong	4	2012-03-25 19:11
Doublecheck always have shifted S0 value?	ATH	PrimeNet	11	2010-06-03 06:38
All things doublecheck!!	masser	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	44	2006-09-24 17:19
DoubleCheck vs LL assignments	Unregistered	PrimeNet	9	2006-03-26 05:48
doublecheck - results	TheJudger	Data	4	2005-04-04 08:54

2008-02-17, 20:25	#23
AES Jul 2007 Tennessee 1140₈ Posts	30-50 complete

2008-02-17, 22:57	#26
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts	10G-20G done.

2008-02-17, 23:04	#27
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 1100001101001₂ Posts	I've released an updated sieve file, which has been sieved to a depth of 50G. Just download the sieve file, stop sr2sieve, replace your current copy of the sieve file with the new one, and restart sr2sieve--it will pick up where it left off before. And while I'm at it, I'll reserve 70G-80G.

2008-02-18, 16:49	#28
Flatlander I quite division it "Chris" Feb 2005 England 31·67 Posts	Taking 80G-120G.

2008-02-18, 18:27	#29
Flatlander I quite division it "Chris" Feb 2005 England 31·67 Posts	50G to 70G finished.

2008-02-18, 19:03	#30
mdettweiler A Sunny Moo Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3×2,083 Posts	Taking 120G-130G.