Choose your own K and work on finding a top-5000 prime!

[gd_barnes]

NPLB only works on k=301 to 1001. See the PRPnet servers thread there to see exactly what test depth different k-ranges are at. In a synopsis, k=301-349 is at n=~2.7M, k=351-399 is at n=2M, k=401-599 is at n=~1.59M, and k=601-1001 is at n=~1.56M.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

NPLB only works on k=301 to 1001. See the PRPnet servers thread there to see exactly what test depth different k-ranges are at. In a synopsis, k=301-349 is at n=~2.7M, k=351-399 is at n=2M, k=401-599 is at n=~1.59M, and k=601-1001 is at n=~1.56M.

I looked at the front page: http://www.noprimeleftbehind.net/sta...p?content=port. Most of what I saw sailed over my head. Thank you just the same.

As pepi37 suggested, I will stay above 10001.

[VBCurtis]

There's quite a penalty for going above 10,000- you have to sieve yourself, and you can't get anywhere near the sieve depth of the primegrid files. You should estimate the size of the penalty yourself, to better get a sense of why you really ought to pick a couple k's below 10,000.

Stay above 1000 and you avoid the two main projects. 1000-2000 were all tested to some small depth, like 600k, back in the day; but you know that from the data pages.

If you want something basically untested, pick something between 2000 and 10000 and get on with it.

[pepi37]

Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15. It is not PG sieve depth, but that depth is OK ( in my opinion)

[storm5510]

Alright, k = 10151. Nash = 584.

I prefer running the lightweights.

Originally Posted by pepi37

Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15...

n to 15e5 would be fine. I will not need it for a while. I am still running the upper end of k = 22783. Four instances on two machines.

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

...If you want something basically untested, pick something between 2000 and 10000 and get on with it.

I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.

[pepi37]

Originally Posted by storm5510

Alright, k = 10151. Nash = 584.

I prefer running the lightweights.



n to 15e5 would be fine. I will not need it for a while. I am still running the upper end of k = 22783. Four instances on two machines.



I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.

Will be sent this weekend in new batch

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by storm5510

I am only 151 over. That is not too bad, I believe.

Under 10000 = sieve file already generated. No work needs to be done.
Over 10000, by 151 or 1 or any other number = work needed to make a sieve file.
"Not too bad" has nothing to do with it. There are sieve files nobody is running- just pick one of those.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Under 10000 = sieve file already generated. No work needs to be done.
Over 10000, by 151 or 1 or any other number = work needed to make a sieve file.
"Not too bad" has nothing to do with it. There are sieve files nobody is running- just pick one of those.

I think these are the files I asked you about a while back. Several pages of archive links as I recall.

[Happy5214]

Originally Posted by storm5510

Alright, k = 10151. Nash = 584.

Originally Posted by pepi37

Storm if you decide to go upper from 10001, I can send your sieve file to YOYO, and you will get sieve done up to 5e15. It is not PG sieve depth, but that depth is OK ( in my opinion)

I've never had a sieve on my machine run past p=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block (that record was for 8 k's of various Nash weights, n = [250k, 1.2M], using sr2sieve), and I've always thought any sieve deeper than more than a few trillion was overkill for most low-weight k's like storm5510's. I imagine my 10yo Core 2 Quad is much slower than newer machines, but is yoyo@home that much quicker to be able to make up that large of a difference? If so, I have a few sieve files that could benefit from sieving to higher p's.

[pepi37]

Originally Posted by Happy5214

I've never had a sieve on my machine run past p=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block (that record was for 8 k's of various Nash weights, n = [250k, 1.2M], using sr2sieve), and I've always thought any sieve deeper than more than a few trillion was overkill for most low-weight k's like storm5510's. I imagine my 10yo Core 2 Quad is much slower than newer machines, but is yoyo@home that much quicker to be able to make up that large of a difference? If so, I have a few sieve files that could benefit from sieving to higher p's.

Just send me PM with your email : all will be arranged.



Sieve at yoyo@home is made by at least 150- 200 CPUS ( in peak was 800 )
All sieve is now done to at least 5e15, and much factors will be removed if start point is 1e14. Golden rule is : when sieve need same time to find factor, and LLR need same time to process factor sieve depth is correct, but core2 quad are old CPUs...

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by Happy5214

I've never had a sieve on my machine run past p=1e14 before the removal time went above the average LLR testing time for the block.

I feel this is where deep sieving is self-defeating when it comes to time. My current k is taking 96 to 104 seconds, with n > 800,000, for each term on my i7 running a double instance. Running a second instance made virtually no difference in the required time.

This CPU has four physicals and four logicals. Each instance of LLR is using three threads. The CPU runs at 85°C. This is the limit and keep the rest of the interface responsive.

For now, my rule-of-thumb is a removal rate >= 125 seconds. When LLR reaches this, I "think" about stopping and moving on, but I do not always stop. I usually stop a sieve at this level though. I do the best I can with the hardware I have. It would be nice if I could use my GTX 1080 for this, but that capability has yet to come along.