Testing new Ranges for Sierpinski/Riesel

[KEP]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

I don't your first post here and then your update. So are you really testing ALL of the remaining bases, for example R280 and S280? I hope not. The prime files alone would be petabytes. I don't plan to administer such monstrosities.

If you are only doing S1023, then that is OK.

I'm only doing S1023, but from that base I calculate the sievedepth for 319 other partially or untested bases and create the srbsieve.ini files for each of those bases. So even though I'm only testing S1023, once I have the 70% sievedepth for each of the 36 phases, I can calculate the 70% sievedepth for each 21 to36 phases for the remaining unstarted and partially tested bases. This in other words means, that once I reach the 70% sievedepth for the 3 currently unsieved phases for S1023, that I will be able to create the nescessary srbsieve.ini files for each remaining untested or partially tested base. Once I have the ini files, I will make them publicly available and then who knows what will happen. But as you said, S280 and R280 will not be within our reaching point anytime in the near future, however with the flood of ini files for use with srbsieve, it is not unreasonable to consider most conjectures for conjectured k<=10M possible to get to n=25K, hence it may be a good idea to have some sort of battleplan on how high to test using srbsieve and what to test like Ian has done in the recommended thread.

[gd_barnes]

Thanks for the clarification. Whew.

[KEP]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

k=1 is ALWAYS GFN or trivial. That's why we don't consider it. Yes some bases will have a GFN prime like S1018 but many will not. See the pages where it says "k=1 is a GFN with no known prime.". S1014 and S1016 are examples. See a list of known GFN primes for bases <=1030 up to n=2^17 at http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/crus/GFN-primes.htm. See that S1014 and S1016 have none. The largest known prime for bases <= 1030 is 150^2048+1. There are unlikely to be any others for n>2^17. (I believe that other projects have searched these to n=2^20.)

Thanks for the reexplanation. All srbsieve.ini files (total of 318) have now been corrected and will (when ready for release) have a minK=2 and a maxK=conjecture-k minus one (or maxK=1G, if conjectured k>1G).

Happy new year each and everyone

[rogue]

I have rewritten the recovery logic of srbsieve. There are a few things of note:

• it can only recover if you stop while srsieve or pfgw is running
• it won't update pl_remain.txt or pl_prime.txt until the entire phase is complete

I have done zero testing of the changes, but the logic is much simpler than what it was. If you happen to stop the program at any other point other than when one of those programs is running, srbsieve will require you to restart the step, which could cost you a lot of time. Note that 99.9999% of the time is spent in srsieve and pfgw, so I woudn't worry too much about that being a problem.

In theory one could use this to extend a search. For example, if you complete a large range to n=1000 then want to pass ranges on to others to get to n=25000 that should be possible.

[rogue]

I was able to do some testing today. I've worked out most of the bugs, but I don't know if all of the bugs are addressed. There are a few areas that I need to test yet. So far, I have been able to cleanly recover when in the first phase. I need to test recovery in subsequent phases and recovery when a phase is broken up into multiple sub-phases.

[pepi37]

Originally Posted by rogue

I was able to do some testing today. I've worked out most of the bugs, but I don't know if all of the bugs are addressed. There are a few areas that I need to test yet. So far, I have been able to cleanly recover when in the first phase. I need to test recovery in subsequent phases and recovery when a phase is broken up into multiple sub-phases.

I will try to test latest srbsieve with low K tested conjuncture...
Few tests I test before give me srbsieve crash at second stage...

[rogue]

Due to a request, I modified the program to support base 2.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by rogue

Due to a request, I modified the program to support base 2.

btw, are there any docs with explanations, for phases etc. and other thingies that can be added to the ini file?

[rogue]

Originally Posted by LaurV

btw, are there any docs with explanations, for phases etc. and other thingies that can be added to the ini file?

There are other posts in this thread that explain the ini file and some of them have examples.

pepi37 reported a problem. Hopefully the attached fixes it.

[pepi37]

Originally Posted by rogue

There are other posts in this thread that explain the ini file and some of them have examples.

pepi37 reported a problem. Hopefully the attached fixes it.

not fixing anything: it looks like you gave link to old file
same error :(

[rogue]

Originally Posted by pepi37

not fixing anything: it looks like you gave link to old file
same error :(

Very perceptive of you. It was a test.

Not a test a test of your ability to perceive my mistakes though. It was a test of my ability to zip the correct file.