20081226, 03:01  #12 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10011101101011_{2} Posts 
Reserving n=606K610K for port 5000.

20081229, 05:57  #13 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Reserving 610K620K for LLRnet IB5000. At its current processing rate, the server will dry in ~2 days or less, and it's moving somewhat more quickly than IB400, so hence I'm reserving a larger chunk for it. (If IB5000's current rate is kept up, it will complete the 610K620K range in about 5 days, that is, 5 days after the ~2 days to complete 606K610K.)
Edit: Gary, it seems that we will be having at least 1 already known prime in this 610K620K range. Can you update the first post of this thread to reflect all such primes? Thanks. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 20081229 at 05:59 
20081229, 06:49  #14  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10,091 Posts 
Quote:
?? Max, I appreciate your enthusiasm but can you check with me first next time? This is way more than we need. First, there appears to be a very large error in your calculations. Second, to keep the drives relatively even, when this drives gets close to the 5th drive, I will likely split my cores between ports 400 and 5000 since Ian likes to be on port 4000. Third, I may pull off another quad to finish the k=10052000 sieving by Jan. 15th. Calculations as of 1 AM EST on Dec. 29th assuming current processing rate: Current remaining in port 5000: ~14,400 pairs 610K620K: ~37,000 pairs Total thru 620K: ~51,400 pairs Current processing rate: ~3,700 pairs / day Dry current pairs: 14,400/3,700 = ~4 days Dry thru 620K: 51,400/3,700 = ~14 days It's not a big deal. We'll dry it eventually. It's just nice to give out manual reservations a little closer to where the servers are testing. Thanks, Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20081229 at 06:52 

20081229, 07:01  #15  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Quote:
And, of course, assuming that the rate of n=2K per day remained roughly constant, then n=10K would take about 5 days to complete. Of course, you're right, I shouldn't have been quite so impulsive with sending such a big file for the server, and should have first considered the distinct possibility that the processing rate would drop somewhat since, as you said, you'll probably be shifting some of your IB5000 cores to other work once the server reaches 610K. Oh wellas you said, it will dry eventually. Max 

20081229, 07:08  #16  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10091_{10} Posts 
Quote:
No biggie. Shall I post more files? 

20081229, 07:16  #17 
I ♥ BOINC!
Oct 2002
Glendale, AZ. (USA)
459_{16} Posts 
range added to knpairs
You can always keep an eye on how much is being processed by hour and by day right here http://nplb.ironbits.net/progress_5000.html and here http://nplb.ironbits.net/progress_400.html Last fiddled with by IronBits on 20081229 at 07:17 
20081229, 18:50  #18  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Quote:
BTW: Thanks Gary for posting more files here. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 20081229 at 18:50 

20081229, 23:19  #19  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10,091 Posts 
Quote:
I think you are doing some sort of that new "fuzzy" math again. Now, Max, you should no better than to debate me on something mathrelated. It'd be about like me trying to debate you on something computerrelated. lmao Of course this is about 1012 hours later but let me show you how it is done (lol)... As of 6 PM EST: Port 5000 has 48358 remaining knpairs! <<  knpairs.txt  Size: 531962 Last Updated: 12/29/2008 3:15:39 PM first k/n pair 663 602715 last k/n pair 725 620000 From progress report of yesterday  3711 pairs processed From progress report of 2 days ago  3698 pairs processed Analysis of current users processing: Same as yesterday per progress report today. Therefore estimate  3700 pairs / day <<  (same as my estimate early this morning) Actual estimate: 48358 / 3700 = ~13.1 days It's about 1/2day less then the 13.613.7 day estimate (rounded to 14 days) that I gave before...exactly what one would expect for an estimate 1012 hours later. So ETA would be Jan. 11th around 78 PM EST if no one, including me, touched their machines before then, assuming no increase in testing times / fftlen changes, etc. for the everincreasing nrange. If you account for slightly increasing testing times, I'm speculating that might add another 28 hours so this estimate is acutally a bit low. I think the problem in your estimate is that you can't use nranges processed per day to get an accurate estimate because what is returned to the server can vary widely from one minute to the next or one hour to the next. Good luck debunking this one! And finally...I know you probably won't but I just like to rib you so don't take anything personally. More than anything, I just want to make sure you know a way to come up with a more accurate estimate like this. Gary 

20081229, 23:42  #20  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Quote:
Oh, wait...I just figured out where I went wrong! I took the # of k/n pairs processed yesterday on IB5000, but divided them into the # of k/n pairs remaining in IB400! Max 

20081230, 00:41  #21 
I ♥ BOINC!
Oct 2002
Glendale, AZ. (USA)
3×7×53 Posts 
Max's problem with his estimation is due to not having control over where your quads are going to be, to make his predictions come true

20081230, 07:50  #22 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
6249_{10} Posts 
LLRnet IB5000 has completed 600K605K, lresults emailed to Gary.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team drive #7 k=8001001 n=600K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  127  20110715 14:25 
Team drive #5: k=400600 n=600K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  135  20101123 14:27 
Team drive #1: k=4001001 n=333.2K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  675  20090224 16:37 
Team drive #3: k=300400 n=260K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  255  20081112 10:43 
Team drive #4, 15 k's < 300 for n=600K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  38  20081022 16:20 