New PRPnet drive discussion - Page 6

gd_barnes · 2011-07-18, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogue

I've submitted my change to Geoff for sr5sieve/sr2sieve. Hopefully he will implement it. If not, I will provide source updates to those who are interested. I could even provide a Win32 or Win64 build, but I would prefer that it starts with Geoff.

On a typical search sieving until the removal rate is about 2/3's of the longest PRP test is typically optimal (without a lot of time spent looking at FFT sizes, etc.). For CRUS, if about 30% of the k are removed when going from n to 2n, then a removal rate of about 1/2 is better.

I've noticed that problem. Therefore when sieving, I stop at P=1T, remove factors, and start a new sieve. I then do it again at P=5T or 10T if doing a large sieve. Then the average removal rate is quite good.

gd_barnes · 2011-07-18, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

I realy hope that the sieves not end at 200k !!!

Thats a waste of time.

Sieve should at least go to n=1M

Can you give me 6 bases so I can start sieving ? I don't know wich bases have a sievefile or not.

Lennart

1. See the suggestions that I made. We are suggesting sieving either n=100K-250K, 150K-300K, or 200K-500K, depending on the current testing limit of the bases being sievied. We've gone back and forth on this quite a bit. I think Mark said n=500K on everything a long time ago, Ian just saying to sieve to n=250K, and me the suggestion that I just put forth. I suppose we could change it back to sieve all to n=500K but we will need to decide fairly quickly what is best.

2. In our (my) humble opinion, sieving to n=1M is a waste of time because:
(a) A large chance of prime will make (part or all of) the rest of the file obsolete.
(b) The increasing speed of computer resources makes sieving anything that won't be tested within 2-3 years take a lot more of today's resources than tomorrow's resources. Just since I've been prime searching in 4 years, sr(x)sieve has more than doubled in speed (mainly 64-bit vs. 32-bit), LLR has probably added about 25-30% in speed, and PFGW has increased in speed 5 TIMES for non-power-of-2 bases. The latter has brought down the amount of sieving needed for non-power-of-2 bases substantially. For that reason, we had several large files that were well over-sieved.
(c) Many of these bases will not be tested to n>500K for many years. How many people are going to want to test base 200 to n=1M when there are plenty of smaller bases that are at smaller depths. Even with various team efforts, we'll be testing smaller bases to n=1M first. Several of the bases < 32 have been sieved to n=1M but we are not testing those with this effort since we're only testing bases at n<=200K with this effort.

3. I'll see if I can get our resident multi-base sieving guy, Matthew, to give us a list of everything that has been sieved. I have been out of town and just do not have the time to dedicate to details. The files that have been sieved are on the right side of the reservations pages. The sieve depth in each of them should be accurate.

Gary

gd_barnes · 2011-07-18, 17:59

Mathew,

Can you provide a summary of all of the files that have been sieved and their sieve depths for your most recent list of bases <= 200 with <= 5 k's remaining searched to n<250K (that aren't reserved) ?

I appreciate it. I would do it if I had time.

Gary

gd_barnes · 2011-07-18, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

I have started sieving
r67
r70
r103
r133

n 100k-1M

Lennart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

I have started sieving r158 & r162

r158
n 100k-1M

r162
n 50k-1M

Lennart

Lennart,

Thanks for your enthusiasm for this!

Can you hold off just for a little while until Mathew lists the sieve files that we already have? 2 of these bases already have files, although for a much smaller range.

Thanks,
Gary

Mathew · 2011-07-18, 22:10

Code:

Riesel [optimum sieve depth for testing to n=250K inside () at end of row]
------
 61 (100K) 4k Sieve File 100K-1M to 28T (opt. 28T)*
 67 (100K) 5k Sieve File 100K-1M to 27T (opt. 27T)*
 70 (100K) 3k Sieve File 100K-1M to 20T (opt. 20T)*
 80 (200K) 3k Sieve File 200K-1M to 17T (opt. 17T)*
 93 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 22T (opt. 22T)*
 94 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 16T (opt. 16T)*
100 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 19T (opt. 19T)*
103 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 24T (opt. 24T)*
109 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 22T (opt. 22T)*
112 (150K) 3k Sieve File 150K-1M to 42T (opt. 42T)*
123 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 24T (opt. 24T)*
133 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 27T (opt. 27T)*
152 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 15T)*
158 (100K) 3k Sieve File 100K-1M to 22T (opt. 22T)*
160 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 26T (opt. 26T)*
162  (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-1M to 58T  (opt. 58T)*
163 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 19T (opt. 19T)*
172  (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-1M to 41T  (opt. 41T)*
173 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 16T (opt. 16T)*
177 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 16T (opt. 16T)*
181 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 33T (opt. 33T)*
182 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 17T (opt. 17T)*
191 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 25T (opt. 25T)*
200 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 47T (opt. 47T)*
 
Sierpinski [optimum sieve depth for testing to n=250K at end of row]
----------
 37 (200K) 3k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 10T)*
 55 (200K) 4k Sieve File 200K-1M to 24T (opt. 24T)*
 68 (200K) 2k Sieve File 200K-1M to 20T (opt. 14T)*
 70 (100K) 5k Sieve File 100K-1M to 53T (opt. 28T)*
 73 (200K) 2k Sieve File 200K-1M to 21T (opt. 21T)*
 75 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 15T (opt. 10T)*
 86 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 14T)*
100 (100K) 5k Sieve File 100K-1M to 34T (opt. 34T)*
102 (100K) 3k Sieve File 100K-1M to 23T (opt. 23T)*
107 (100K) 4k Sieve File 100K-1M to 15T (opt. 14T)*
112 (150K) 2k Sieve File 200K-1M to 28T (opt. 28T)*
118 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 17T (opt. 17T)*
122 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 13T)*
133 (100K) 3k Sieve File 100K-1M to 37T (opt. 37T)*
135  (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-1M to 38T  (opt. 38T)*
140 (100K) 2k Sieve File 100K-1M to 19T (opt. 19T)*
148 (150K) 1k Sieve File 150K-1M to 30T (opt. 30T)*
155 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 14T)*
157 (100K) 3k Sieve File 100K-1M to 27T (opt. 27T)*
165 (100K) 4k Sieve File 100K-1M to 52T (opt. 52T)*
173 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 24T (opt. 24T)*
174 (200K) 1k Sieve File 200K-1M to 15T (opt. 15T)*
183 (150K) 1k Sieve File 150K-1M to 40T (opt. 40T)*
185 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 21T (opt. 21T)*
187 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 33T (opt. 33T)*
189 (100K) 1k Sieve File 100K-1M to 25T (opt. 25T)*
191  (50K) 4k Sieve File 50K-1M to 46T  (opt. 46T)*

* - sieveing complete

Like this?

Lennart,

R133,162 already have sieve files. I think R133 is good where it is. However extending R162 could not hurt.

Lennart · 2011-07-18, 22:57

I'll do
R67 R70 R103 R158 100K-1M

r133 200k-1M
R162 100K-1M

Is that ok ?

Lennart

gd_barnes · 2011-07-20, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

I'll do

R67 R70 R103 R158 100K-1M

r133 200k-1M

R162 100K-1M

Is that ok ?

Lennart

Lennart,

Yes that is fine. To be even more helpful, for the bases that already have a sieve file, please combine them with yours when you reach the depth of the files already sieved. That should add very little additional time to the sieving.

How about this though: Would you like to sieve all bases for the new server to n=1M? I'm asking because I know you like sieving and have a lot of resources.

If you decide to do that, what I would suggest is that you sieve them all to P=10T and send me the files. I'll then calculate an optimum depth on each one for breaking off testing at n=250K. I think P=10T for quite a few of the bases would be deep enough for testing to n=250K although it may be quite a bit higher since sieving a large n-range.

I'm just now back from my trip and need time to think through what the best course of action is. If you only choose to sieve part of the files to n=1M, I think I'm going to suggest that the rest of us sieve the remaning bases to n=500K and P=5T and then I'll calculate an optimum depth at that point.

This is all just seat-of-my-pants thinking right now. It'll probably be late tonight or on Thurs. before I can do a detailed look at things. One thing that has crossed my mind is to include some reserved bases also for the n-range above which they are reserved to (after checking to make sure the individual does not plan to continue higher). That would probably be at most 5 more bases. I kind of hate to leave them out and only searched to n=~100K just because someone happened to have been testing them for n=~50K to ~100K when we started this effort.

Gary

gd_barnes · 2011-07-20, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathew

<snip>
Like this?

Lennart,

R133,162 already have sieve files. I think R133 is good where it is. However extending R162 could not hurt.

Awesome list! Thanks Mathew.

MyDogBuster · 2011-07-20, 22:14

I'm going to take R93 from 200K to 500K up to 5T

Lennart · 2011-07-20, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Lennart,

Yes that is fine. To be even more helpful, for the bases that already have a sieve file, please combine them with yours when you reach the depth of the files already sieved. That should add very little additional time to the sieving.

How about this though: Would you like to sieve all bases for the new server to n=1M? I'm asking because I know you like sieving and have a lot of resources.

If you decide to do that, what I would suggest is that you sieve them all to P=10T and send me the files. I'll then calculate an optimum depth on each one for breaking off testing at n=250K. I think P=10T for quite a few of the bases would be deep enough for testing to n=250K although it may be quite a bit higher since sieving a large n-range.

I'm just now back from my trip and need time to think through what the best course of action is. If you only choose to sieve part of the files to n=1M, I think I'm going to suggest that the rest of us sieve the remaning bases to n=500K and P=5T and then I'll calculate an optimum depth at that point.

This is all just seat-of-my-pants thinking right now. It'll probably be late tonight or on Thurs. before I can do a detailed look at things. One thing that has crossed my mind is to include some reserved bases also for the n-range above which they are reserved to (after checking to make sure the individual does not plan to continue higher). That would probably be at most 5 more bases. I kind of hate to leave them out and only searched to n=~100K just because someone happened to have been testing them for n=~50K to ~100K when we started this effort.

Gary

I take this first.

R172 (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-100K to 1T
S135 (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-100K to 1T
S37 (200K) 3k
R100 (200K) 1k
S 100 (100K) 5k

I do them to n=1M and combine the existing sievefiles

I will sieve them to 15T and send them to you. I have 4 bases at 13T now.

Lennart

gd_barnes · 2011-07-21, 05:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart

I take this first.

R172 (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-100K to 1T
S135 (50K) 5k Sieve File 50K-100K to 1T
S37 (200K) 3k
R100 (200K) 1k
S 100 (100K) 5k

I do them to n=1M and combine the existing sievefiles

I will sieve them to 15T and send them to you. I have 4 bases at 13T now.

Lennart

I now have several questions:

1. Are you still sieving all of the files in this post to n=1M? If so, like you are doing with the above 5 bases, I will assume that you will also combine the sieve files with files already done.

2. If yes to #1, will you be sieving them to P=15T also?

3. After you are done with the current 11 bases, will you continue sieving 5 or 6 bases at a time like this?

4. If yes to #3, will they continue taking you only 2-3 days to do 5-6 bases?

5. If yes to #4, would you care to do them all to P=15T?

I'm asking all of this because if the answer to #4 and #5 is yes, I will suggest that others just stop their efforts and leave the sieving to you. That will be a lot easier for you and me than coordinating with others on the same bases. It also means that all bases will be ready to go in ~2-1/2 weeks, which would be an excellent accomplishment.

I think what I will do for a little while is edit Mathew's post for sieving efforts past and present. Edit: That is now up to date.

Gary

2011-07-18, 22:57	#61
Lennart "Lennart" Jun 2007 2⁵·5·7 Posts	I'll do R67 R70 R103 R158 100K-1M r133 200k-1M R162 100K-1M Is that ok ? Lennart Last fiddled with by MyDogBuster on 2011-07-21 at 20:57

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PRPnet 2nd drive-51 bases with <= 5 k's to n=250K	gd_barnes	Conjectures 'R Us	158	2013-08-12 03:18
PRPnet 1st drive-R/S base 2 even-k/even-n/odd-n	mdettweiler	Conjectures 'R Us	153	2011-08-10 06:54
Bigger and better GPU sieving drive: Discussion	henryzz	No Prime Left Behind	75	2010-10-31 16:51
PRPNET & Phrot discussion	masser	Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5	27	2010-09-08 03:10
PRPnet	mdettweiler	No Prime Left Behind	80	2010-02-09 21:31

2011-07-18, 17:59	#58
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 101×103 Posts	Mathew, Can you provide a summary of all of the files that have been sieved and their sieve depths for your most recent list of bases <= 200 with <= 5 k's remaining searched to n<250K (that aren't reserved) ? I appreciate it. I would do it if I had time. Gary

2011-07-20, 22:14	#64
MyDogBuster May 2008 Wilmington, DE 2²×23×31 Posts	I'm going to take R93 from 200K to 500K up to 5T