mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-12-02, 17:28   #100
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

2×271 Posts
Default

How to proceed (sieve, LLR, P-1) depends on which method removes candidates faster. For sieving that's a bit hard to determine since it removes an n=10M almost as fast as n=1M while the LLR of the former takes 100 times more.


For P-1 vs LLR it's easy though. Just time how long LLR takes to remove 10 candidates and how long P-1 would take in the same range. I strongly suspect P-1 doesn't make sense. It's only useful for Mersennes because they are so large and have those specially formed factors including the exponent.


Here's how I do it: do a few LLR tests and write down the average time. Then sieve for 1-2 days and see if that removes candidates faster or not. If yes, continue sieving, if not, continue LLR until an LLR test again takes longer to remove a candídate than sieving did.
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-02, 18:25   #101
ValerieVonck
 
ValerieVonck's Avatar
 
Mar 2004
Belgium

15168 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post
How to proceed (sieve, LLR, P-1) depends on which method removes candidates faster. For sieving that's a bit hard to determine since it removes an n=10M almost as fast as n=1M while the LLR of the former takes 100 times more.


For P-1 vs LLR it's easy though. Just time how long LLR takes to remove 10 candidates and how long P-1 would take in the same range. I strongly suspect P-1 doesn't make sense. It's only useful for Mersennes because they are so large and have those specially formed factors including the exponent.


Here's how I do it: do a few LLR tests and write down the average time. Then sieve for 1-2 days and see if that removes candidates faster or not. If yes, continue sieving, if not, continue LLR until an LLR test again takes longer to remove a candídate than sieving did.


Thank you for your insights
1. I have retested the primes found by gd_barnes : they are confirmed
2. On my i3 I am sieving the input from gd_barnes to 260T: eta 03/22
3. On my i5 imac I am llr’ing the range 1.3m to 1.4m each candidate takes 733 seconds
4. Sieving on that latest machine I am eliminating a candidate each 500 - 550 seconds
4.1. On a sidenote gd_barnes Saïd to me you are missing factors due to a wrong setting in NewPgen, my file ranges from 1.3m to 50m and I already sieved to 260T … taking this up from the beginning will take also take time
5. I will take a stab at p-1 when my current range is done or will try it on my i7 portable (laptop)

Ftm I am recovering from a mild Covid infection

Kind regards,
Valerie
ValerieVonck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-03, 01:51   #102
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

123238 Posts
Default

If you're going to LLR test the entire file, then one should sieve until the factor-removal rate is half as fast (twice the seconds per factor) as an LLR test takes for the smallest candidate in the file.

This is due to the way the sieve scales- when you take candidates out of the sieve for LLR, the sieve speed does not change linearly. Since there is not much speed to be gained by taking candidates out, we leave the small candidates in longer than common-sense might suggest.

A rough scaling example: If you take out 10% of the candidates from the sieve file, the sieve only runs ~5% faster ("faster" as measured by p/sec).
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-08, 05:20   #103
ValerieVonck
 
ValerieVonck's Avatar
 
Mar 2004
Belgium

2×32×47 Posts
Default

I gathered a few statistics:

- Sieving yields a factor each 552 seconds
- An llr test takes 735 seconds for the range 1.3M -> 1.4M (which I am currently busy testing)
- A P-1 test takes 30 minutes, with bounds B1 = 1M
- An ECM test takes 30 minutes for each curve, with bounds B1 = 1M

For the moment, I will complete the range 1.3M -> 1.4M

Kind regards,
Valerie
ValerieVonck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-23, 09:28   #104
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

3·271 Posts
Default

P-1 is useless for Riesel candidates for the reasons bur listed. In fact, your tested B1 of 1M is higher than what GIMPS recommends even for wavefront (i.e. p~105M) Mersenne candidates (which is in the 800k range on my computer). Bounds that high are only used on numbers in the 1.3M-bit range when we're trying to (partially) factor it, not pretest before running a primality test.
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-29, 06:58   #105
ValerieVonck
 
ValerieVonck's Avatar
 
Mar 2004
Belgium

2·32·47 Posts
Default

Range 1.3M -> 1.4M completed, no new primes to report.
All ranges re-sieved up unto 260T & LLR'ed to 1.3M, the outputs are matching my results
Will sieve until 300T

Kind regards,
Valerie
Attached Files
File Type: zip lresults_1.3M_1.4M.txt.zip (220.8 KB, 11 views)
ValerieVonck is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K=13236795 Status Post ValerieVonck 15k Search 33 2005-10-31 22:54

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:51.


Fri Jul 1 16:51:22 UTC 2022 up 78 days, 14:52, 0 users, load averages: 1.53, 1.42, 1.54

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔