mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Conjectures 'R Us

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-01-23, 20:25   #34
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

11000011010012 Posts
Default

LLRnet reserving 90K-100K.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-23, 20:57   #35
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2×5,101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
LLRnet has completed 87.5K-90K. lresults are attached. (The LLRnet results file has been converted to a normal lresults file by a Perl script that I wrote.)
Very good. The run times are kind of scary. I assume those will improve as things stabilize.

Thanks for changing the status above Anon.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-01-23 at 20:58
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-23, 21:29   #36
tnerual
 
tnerual's Avatar
 
Oct 2006

7×37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Very good. The run times are kind of scary. I assume those will improve as things stabilize.

Thanks for changing the status above Anon.


Gary
run times are not based on processor times but on "out of server time"

so if you ask for a cache of 5 k/n pair, your processing times will be multiplied by 5 ...
i work with a cache of 20 k/n pairs for 5 cores (i have a local LLR proxy server)
tnerual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-23, 21:43   #37
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnerual View Post
run times are not based on processor times but on "out of server time"

so if you ask for a cache of 5 k/n pair, your processing times will be multiplied by 5 ...
i work with a cache of 20 k/n pairs for 5 cores (i have a local LLR proxy server)
Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks!

Anyway, I guess, long story short, when dealing with lresults files made out of LLRnet results files, take the runtimes with a grain of salt.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-25, 17:21   #38
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2×5,101 Posts
Default

Sieving will complete tonight for n=100K-200K for all k-values for the continuation of this team drive.

I'll post files up to ~n=120K on Saturday or early Sunday.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-01-25 at 17:23
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-27, 07:25   #39
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·5,101 Posts
Default Team drive restarted...files posted...

The Riesel base 16 team drive has restarted. Files have been posted for n=100K-140K.

With little interest in individual-k reservations, I added 4 k's to the drive this time. This still leaves 6 individual k's, 5 of which are already reserved (3 by me), as a result of them also being base 4 k's and in some cases base 2 odd-n or even-n conjecture k's.

For k's that are for more than one base, we have to test them for the lowest base else risk doing partial double-work or adding the complexity of testing them at a higher base and then removing either all of the odd n's or even n's when testing the lower base, which would be error-prone. Hence, I will always leave them out of team drives on the higher base as is the case here.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-01-27 at 07:26
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-27, 21:43   #40
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

LLRnet has completed 90K-93.4K. (It's actually had some results come in farther up, but I'm only submitting up to the minimum outstanding n--i.e. there's no holes in this lresults file.) lresults is attached.

Note to Gary: The reason why the higher bound of the completed portion of LLRnet's range is lower than the one you marked is because my earlier rough estimate of n-range was based on the leading edge of LLRnet, not what's been completely done with no holes in between.
Attached Files
File Type: txt lresults_90K-93.4K.txt (82.0 KB, 148 views)

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-01-27 at 21:47
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-27, 23:13   #41
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·5,101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
LLRnet has completed 90K-93.4K. (It's actually had some results come in farther up, but I'm only submitting up to the minimum outstanding n--i.e. there's no holes in this lresults file.) lresults is attached.

Note to Gary: The reason why the higher bound of the completed portion of LLRnet's range is lower than the one you marked is because my earlier rough estimate of n-range was based on the leading edge of LLRnet, not what's been completely done with no holes in between.
Ah, OK. So to paraphrase Riese Sieve and SOB, the n-min is now 93.4K and n-max is 94K as of your most recent reporting (more-or-less). I believe those are the terms they use.

I changed the testing limit in the first post here.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-27, 23:19   #42
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

1020210 Posts
Default

I'll reserve Riesel base 16 n=100K-104K here. Sierp base 16 will be done for that range early Monday and I'll start on it after that. If LLRNet finds a prime in the n=93.4K-100K range, I'll remove the k from the sieved files.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-28, 08:31   #43
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

237328 Posts
Default 2 primes; 5 k's knocked out...

Don't try this at home...

2 primes...5 k's on different bases knocked out!

Riesel base 4:
16734*4^156852-1 is prime
19464*4^155532-1 is prime

These 2 also take out:
Base 16:
16734*16^78426-1
19464*16^77766-1
-and-
Base 2 odd-n:
8367*2^313705-1

I'm still working on Riesel base 4 k=13854; currently at n=162K base 4. Finding one there would probably knock out k's on 3 different bases.

Who's your daddy?


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-01-28 at 08:40
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-01-28, 16:33   #44
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·5,101 Posts
Default Who's NOT your daddy? :-( False prime...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Don't try this at home...

2 primes...5 k's on different bases knocked out!

Riesel base 4:
16734*4^156852-1 is prime
19464*4^155532-1 is prime

These 2 also take out:
Base 16:
16734*16^78426-1
19464*16^77766-1
-and-
Base 2 odd-n:
8367*2^313705-1

I'm still working on Riesel base 4 k=13854; currently at n=162K base 4. Finding one there would probably knock out k's on 3 different bases.

Who's your daddy?


Gary



I had a sneaking suspicion about these primes this morning after I woke up. When other people have had LLR problems with false primes, the primes usually bunched up. In looking at the results file, I saw that these primes were only 25 tests apart so I ran a double-check:

Original test with 24 composites in between:
19464*2^311064-1 is prime! Time : 200.404 sec.
16734*2^313704-1 is prime! Time : 200.316 sec.

Double-check on same computer with no tests in between:
19464*2^311064-1 is not prime. LLR Res64: 3A387A638BB025BA Time : 200.069 sec.
16734*2^313704-1 is prime! Time : 197.884 sec.



Both tests were run on my Dell core duo work laptop, which has generally been very reliable. I do not overclock any of my machines.

I then ran a triple-check on my main desktop, a 3-Ghz P4. It confirmed the double-check; both the prime and composite residue.

So...the bad news:
1. I have to 'put back' k=19464 has having not found a prime on Riesel bases 4 and 16.
2. I have to rerun the entire batch for k=16734 and k=19464 on a different machine to see if I missed any primes. (not bad; ~2 CPU days)
3. I have to rerun the entire batch for n=100K-104K for Sierp base 16 on a different machine(s) looking for missing primes. (bad bad; ~10-12 CPU days)
4. I will have to unreserve Riesel base 16 n=100K-104K; otherwise it will just sit and wait for as much as 2 weeks. It the LLRNet server has hit n=100K before then, it may as well reserve it.

The only good news is that k=13854 is still knocked out of 3 bases, which includes k=6927 for Base 2 odd-n.

I have relegated my work laptop to sieving for now until I can figure out what is up. My 3 Dell duo laptops (1 work; 2 personal) are the fastest sievers that I have so that's not a bad thing for it.

The only thing I can figure about this is that my work laptop gets far more use on varied tasks and is carried back-and-forth between home and work in all kinds of whether (it has been very cold here last 2 weeks; warmer now) 5 days/week so perhaps one of its components has been slightly compromised. I do shut it down in between home and work.

My 2 personal machines stay at home 99% of the time so I'm comfortable that they don't have the same issue.

I think I jinxed myself when I got a little cocky.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Riesel base 6 - team drive #4 - EIGHT OR BUST! gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 401 2015-05-27 15:15
Sierp base 63 - team drive #5 rogue Conjectures 'R Us 146 2011-04-20 05:12
Sieving drive Riesel base 6 n=1M-2M gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 40 2011-01-22 08:10
Sieving drive Riesel base 6 n=150K-1M gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 27 2009-10-08 21:49
Riesel base 3 - mini-drive I gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 199 2009-09-30 18:44

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:21.

Mon Sep 21 13:21:51 UTC 2020 up 11 days, 10:32, 1 user, load averages: 1.37, 1.35, 1.47

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.