mersenneforum.org Team drive #5: k=400-600 n=600K-1M
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-12-19, 12:19 #1 gd_barnes     May 2007 Kansas; USA 2·36·7 Posts Team drive #5: k=400-600 n=600K-1M This is team drive #5 for No Prime Left Behind. We will be searching all k=400-600 for n=600K-1M. Karsten (kar_bon) has created a web page that shows details for the drive here. He maintains a site that has almost all known Riesel primes. There is a page for the range of 300
 2008-12-19, 18:33 #2 Mini-Geek Account Deleted     "Tim Sorbera" Aug 2006 San Antonio, TX USA 10AB16 Posts Reserving 605-606. That would be about equivalent to a n=333 on Drive 1, right? (ignoring the slightly-increasing n-value and related FFT change...out of curiosity, just how many k's are in each drive now versus the full 400
2008-12-19, 18:42   #3
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

1020610 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mini-Geek Reserving 605-606. That would be about equivalent to a n=333 on Drive 1, right? (ignoring the slightly-increasing n-value and related FFT change...out of curiosity, just how many k's are in each drive now versus the full 400

OK, I'll send you the file; likely sometime on Monday when port 400 begins handing out n>600K.

Yes, an n=1000 range here would be like an n=333 range on the 1st drive. It will technically be slightly smaller because the new files are sieved to P=26T instead of P=5T...perhaps 3-5% smaller. I haven't checked them specifically just yet.

ALL odd k's are in the drives so you can almost take the k-range and divide by 2. But since we were including k=1001 in the 1st drive, that made for a total of 301 k's. So in the 5th drive here, there are 100 k's with 100 k's in the 6th drive and 101 k's in the 7th drive.

For the 8th and 9th drives for k=1005-2000, there will be 498 k's since we're excluding k=1001 included in the 7th drive and k=1003 that was previously searched by Max up to n=500K.

Gary

 2008-12-19, 18:58 #4 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 131328 Posts are you going to do a double check of 1003 at some point Gary
2008-12-19, 19:38   #5
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz are you going to do a double check of 1003 at some point Gary
Well, the machines I did it on (primarily my dualcore, but a little bit from a P3 laptop) should be pretty stable--however, yes, I agree, we should still doublecheck it (albeit with less priority than the rest of 1005-2000 since it was already searched once through). Maybe we could do it as a special adjunct to the Doublecheck Drive #1?

In fact, users could even put unstable machines on a k=1003 doublecheck if they want, as a stability test of sorts--I have the original residuals, so thus there is essentially no margin of error in such a doublecheck. (This is different from the rest of the Doublecheck Drive #1, for which we do *not* have first-pass residuals.)

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-12-19 at 19:39

2008-12-20, 10:49   #6
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

2×36×7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Well, the machines I did it on (primarily my dualcore, but a little bit from a P3 laptop) should be pretty stable--however, yes, I agree, we should still doublecheck it (albeit with less priority than the rest of 1005-2000 since it was already searched once through). Maybe we could do it as a special adjunct to the Doublecheck Drive #1? In fact, users could even put unstable machines on a k=1003 doublecheck if they want, as a stability test of sorts--I have the original residuals, so thus there is essentially no margin of error in such a doublecheck. (This is different from the rest of the Doublecheck Drive #1, for which we do *not* have first-pass residuals.)

IMHO, no, a double-check is not necessary as long as you have the results file available that you can send me. If so, then it becomes no different than NPLB searching new k's that had never been searched for the 1st drive or people searching the individual-k drive.

The key here is that it is a "known" regular NPLB searcher with stable machines that has the results file available. Had it been anyone outside of NPLB, I would have suggested that we include it in the sieving range to begin with and hence the drive.

That's only my opinion. If you'd like to add it on the end of the double-check drive, it's not a big deal one way or another.

Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-12-20 at 20:53

2008-12-20, 15:19   #7
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes IMHO, no, a double-check is not necessary as long as you have the results file available that you can send me. If so, then it becomes no different than NPLB searching new k's that had never been searched for the 1st drive nor people searching the individual-k drive. The key here is that it is a "known" regular NPLB searcher with stable machines that has the results file available. Had it been anyone outside of NPLB, I would have suggested that we include it in the sieving range to begin with and hence the drive. That's only my opinion. If you'd like to add it on the end of the double-check drive, it's not a big deal one way or another. Gary
Okay, yeah, I see what you mean about it being no different than any regular NPLB first-pass effort. Given that, I won't add it to the doublecheck drive; we'll just hit it a few years down the road when we eventually doublecheck k=1003-2000 for that range.

2008-12-20, 20:52   #8
gd_barnes

May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·36·7 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Okay, yeah, I see what you mean about it being no different than any regular NPLB first-pass effort. Given that, I won't add it to the doublecheck drive; we'll just hit it a few years down the road when we eventually doublecheck k=1003-2000 for that range.

I said that assuming that you have the results files available to send me. Can you forward that when you get a chance?

2008-12-21, 03:00   #9
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by gd_barnes I said that assuming that you have the results files available to send me. Can you forward that when you get a chance?
Okay, sure. Actually, even better: you can see the post here where I reported completion of k=1003 to n=500K at RPS and attached the results. (That post contains the results for 100K-500K; I had previously posted the results for n=10K-100K a little earlier in that thread.)

 2008-12-22, 17:22 #10 mdettweiler A Sunny Moo     Aug 2007 USA (GMT-5) 3·2,083 Posts Hi all, Now that all servers have passed n=600K, I'll post some manual files for the various n>600K drives, starting with this one. First of all, Mini-Geek, here's your file for 605K-606K: NPLB5-605K-606K.txt Secondly: I'll take 606K-606.2K for myself. You guys should see some manual files showing up shortly... Edit: Files now posted. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-12-22 at 17:27
2008-12-22, 20:31   #11
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted

"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

426710 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler First of all, Mini-Geek, here's your file for 605K-606K: NPLB5-605K-606K.txt
Got it. ETA for full range is 1/11, for the first two n=200's is 12/30. (I'll report it when I complete n=200x2, n=200x2, then n=100x2 finishing it. To make it simpler next time I'll reserve an even number of files.)

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 127 2011-07-15 14:25 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 89 2011-03-10 12:34 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 675 2009-02-24 16:37 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 255 2008-11-12 10:43 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 38 2008-10-22 16:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:27.

Tue Sep 29 11:27:44 UTC 2020 up 19 days, 8:38, 0 users, load averages: 1.25, 1.24, 1.33