mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > No Prime Left Behind

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-03-23, 20:27   #89
em99010pepe
 
em99010pepe's Avatar
 
Sep 2004

283010 Posts
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post

I suggest that we do a team sieve (sort of like the doublecheck sieving effort; I'm sure that there are some users out there who prefer sieving to LLRing, and would be glad to help out) for 1003<k<1500 (actually, we'd leave out k=1003 since I've already got it sieved to n=500K), 10K<n<400K. Then, we can LLR it as a separate team drive (though we could make a note that it is lower priority than the main NPLB ranges).
You're going to disperse the CPU resources and delay NPLB.
em99010pepe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-23, 20:34   #90
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by em99010pepe View Post
You're going to disperse the CPU resources and delay NPLB.
Okay, you're right, we should keep that in mind whenever starting any new subprojects. Maybe we should wait until our 300<k<400 range is at n=600K before starting on 1003<k<1500?
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-24, 02:01   #91
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5·2,017 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by em99010pepe View Post
You're going to disperse the CPU resources and delay NPLB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Okay, you're right, we should keep that in mind whenever starting any new subprojects. Maybe we should wait until our 300<k<400 range is at n=600K before starting on 1003<k<1500?
I have to agree with Carlos here. Starting k=1003-1500 would not be in our best interest at this point. I personally sieved and LLR'd the entire range of k=1000-10000 for n=1 to 10K about 6 months ago. That's where Karsten got all of those primes from.

We have to find a happy medium between our aggresive goals for k=300-1001 and the subproject to test k's that are 'behind' their neighbors in testing. We are hoping to have all k<=1001 tested to n=600K by the end of 2008. Note that I'm not excluding k<300 there! I think RPS will have all of their k's <300 tested to n>=600K by the end of 2008 but if not, then it will be time for us to swoop in. lol

With all k<=1001 tested to 600K, k=1001-1500, having only been contiguously tested to n=10K, will be way behind and worthy of some attention as long as we keep in mind the longer term goal of getting all k's tested to n=1M by the end of 2011.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-24, 02:11   #92
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

235458 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Well, actually, I don't really need any help on k=1003 (it's quite low-weight, so it's relatively easy for someone with few resources like me), though of course it would be nice.
I'm not sure what was being responded to here. My statements were about making a separate thread and keeping the k/n pairs in a separate server.

As long as you do those things, I'm fine with you utilizing one of IronBits' many possible servers as long as there is a note in the thread that it is low priority and the server is not included in the official NPLB servers list. It's likely you'll be doing all or most of the testing so that's fine.

Another option is for you guys to just coordinate it all 'under the table' in PM's more like a private effort. If you do that, then I can't really ask you to report any top-5000 primes as PrimeSearch. It's when the coordination is done in threads here that I would ask that they be reported as such. I'm sure you'd report them as such either way but I'm mentioning that for other people's future reference for such efforts.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-24, 04:20   #93
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
I'm not sure what was being responded to here. My statements were about making a separate thread and keeping the k/n pairs in a separate server.
I was responding to the part of your message where you suggested that I set up a thread as sort of a "mini" team drive for k=1003. I just meant to say that I don't think we need to do a drive for k=1003 at this time, since I can easily handle it myself. (The reason why I offered it to IronBits for his server was not because I needed help for it, but because IronBits wanted more work for his server, and we had run out of drives that needed LLRnet servers.)

Quote:
As long as you do those things, I'm fine with you utilizing one of IronBits' many possible servers as long as there is a note in the thread that it is low priority and the server is not included in the official NPLB servers list. It's likely you'll be doing all or most of the testing so that's fine.
Okay. That might be useful in the future--say, if we wanted to do a few k's together from the 1003<k<1500 range for a low-priority, "on the side" team drive, as you suggested.

Quote:
Another option is for you guys to just coordinate it all 'under the table' in PM's more like a private effort. If you do that, then I can't really ask you to report any top-5000 primes as PrimeSearch. It's when the coordination is done in threads here that I would ask that they be reported as such. I'm sure you'd report them as such either way but I'm mentioning that for other people's future reference for such efforts.
Yes, that might be the best way to go for small efforts of relatively low importance such as this. For that matter, if anyone's interested in helping search k=1003, feel free to send me a PM, and I can get you a range--though I can do it all myself, I'm not going to be greedy with my sieved files.

Anon

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-03-24 at 16:50 Reason: typo
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-24, 04:21   #94
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
I have to agree with Carlos here. Starting k=1003-1500 would not be in our best interest at this point. I personally sieved and LLR'd the entire range of k=1000-10000 for n=1 to 10K about 6 months ago. That's where Karsten got all of those primes from.

We have to find a happy medium between our aggresive goals for k=300-1001 and the subproject to test k's that are 'behind' their neighbors in testing. We are hoping to have all k<=1001 tested to n=600K by the end of 2008. Note that I'm not excluding k<300 there! I think RPS will have all of their k's <300 tested to n>=600K by the end of 2008 but if not, then it will be time for us to swoop in. lol

With all k<=1001 tested to 600K, k=1001-1500, having only been contiguously tested to n=10K, will be way behind and worthy of some attention as long as we keep in mind the longer term goal of getting all k's tested to n=1M by the end of 2011.


Gary
Okay, that sounds good.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-03-24, 21:02   #95
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT)

5,647 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
I have to agree with Carlos here. Starting k=1003-1500 would not be in our best interest at this point. I personally sieved and LLR'd the entire range of k=1000-10000 for n=1 to 10K about 6 months ago. That's where Karsten got all of those primes from.

We have to find a happy medium between our aggresive goals for k=300-1001 and the subproject to test k's that are 'behind' their neighbors in testing. We are hoping to have all k<=1001 tested to n=600K by the end of 2008. Note that I'm not excluding k<300 there! I think RPS will have all of their k's <300 tested to n>=600K by the end of 2008 but if not, then it will be time for us to swoop in. lol

With all k<=1001 tested to 600K, k=1001-1500, having only been contiguously tested to n=10K, will be way behind and worthy of some attention as long as we keep in mind the longer term goal of getting all k's tested to n=1M by the end of 2011.


Gary
i completely agree
i would love to do that at some point but once we have done to ahead of our goals
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Big Can an SNFS Constant Term Be? wblipp Factoring 14 2015-03-31 23:05
GPU to 72 Goal TheMawn GPU Computing 6 2013-05-25 16:07
Longer-term plans? fivemack NFSNET Discussion 3 2008-02-21 19:26
Question about goal bit depths (for 100mdpp) OmbooHankvald Operation Billion Digits 4 2005-11-28 04:30
Short-term goal em99010pepe Operation Billion Digits 8 2005-11-26 22:53

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:51.

Tue Mar 31 01:51:05 UTC 2020 up 5 days, 23:24, 0 users, load averages: 1.61, 1.61, 1.53

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.