mersenneforum.org  

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-02-17, 00:41   #12
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AES View Post
Is there a reason you're not using sr2sieve?

I'll take 30e9 to 50e9
srsieve is generally faster when you have more than 60-70 k's in the sieve.

Thanks for helping out!
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 00:58   #13
AES
 
Jul 2007
Tennessee

25·19 Posts
Default

You may want test it on this sieve. I have similar hardware and with sr2...

64-bit will do 10e9 in less than 10 hours

32-bit will do 10e9 in less than 16 hours
AES is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 01:24   #14
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AES View Post
You may want test it on this sieve. I have similar hardware and with sr2...

64-bit will do 10e9 in less than 10 hours

32-bit will do 10e9 in less than 16 hours
Hmm. Okay, I'll check it out.

In the meantime, feel free to use either srsieve or sr2sieve, whichever one you find faster--they both produce compatible results, so it won't make any difference on my end.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 07:31   #15
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5·2,017 Posts
Default

It is possible that sr2sieve is now faster with 351 k's like this. It may also depend on the type of machine your using. When I started the huge sieve for 400<k<=1001 (301 k's) for n=260K-600K, srsieve was faster but that was before the most recent version of sr2sieve that Geoff put out there on 12/14/07.

The newer sr2sieve for the 50 k's for 300<k<400 for n=260K-1M is clearly faster.

So yeah, try both on your machine for these 351 k's.

BTW, the estimated optimum of 550G was an 'extraploted' guess. It assumed that an LLR test of a candidate at n=212K (70% of the n-range of n=100K-260K) took 60 secs. and it took into account the removal rate that Anon was getting on his machine at P=~19G. I didn't actually run the test. Anon or whomever, as we get past P=~200G, we'll see if we can nail down a better estimated optimum sieve depth. Technically with n-max being > 2x n-min, it's a little more efficient to break off a large chunk while continuing to sieve the higher n-ranges but personally, I don't think it's worth messing with at these lower n-ranges.

In the mean time, Anon, can you run an LLR test on your machine for a candidate around n=212K? That'll give a removal rate to shoot for on a comparable machine.

After 300<k<400 is done sieving to P=6T (and breaking off n=260K-600K) towards the end of February, I'll put 3 cores on this effort if it's not already done. That'll leave me 5-6 cores to continue 300<k< 400 for n=600K-1M for anticipated completion sometime in late March. At that point, we'll have 3 different n-ranges that people can test at for top-5000 primes. I'm hoping the higher n-ranges will draw in even more people who like to find much larger primes.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 13:40   #16
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

207710 Posts
Default

To use sr2sieve do I just download it and change "srsieve" in the .bat file?

Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2008-02-17 at 13:41
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 14:29   #17
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
To use sr2sieve do I just download it and change "srsieve" in the .bat file?
No, its command line switches are a little different. Your .bat file will need to look like this:
Code:
sr2sieve -p 10e9 -P 20e9 -i nplb-doublecheck-sieve_10G.txt
Other than that, it's pretty much the same.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-02-17 at 14:29
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 14:33   #18
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

11000011010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
It is possible that sr2sieve is now faster with 351 k's like this. It may also depend on the type of machine your using. When I started the huge sieve for 400<k<=1001 (301 k's) for n=260K-600K, srsieve was faster but that was before the most recent version of sr2sieve that Geoff put out there on 12/14/07.

The newer sr2sieve for the 50 k's for 300<k<400 for n=260K-1M is clearly faster.

So yeah, try both on your machine for these 351 k's.
I'll try that sometime today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes
BTW, the estimated optimum of 550G was an 'extraploted' guess. It assumed that an LLR test of a candidate at n=212K (70% of the n-range of n=100K-260K) took 60 secs. and it took into account the removal rate that Anon was getting on his machine at P=~19G. I didn't actually run the test. Anon or whomever, as we get past P=~200G, we'll see if we can nail down a better estimated optimum sieve depth. Technically with n-max being > 2x n-min, it's a little more efficient to break off a large chunk while continuing to sieve the higher n-ranges but personally, I don't think it's worth messing with at these lower n-ranges.

In the mean time, Anon, can you run an LLR test on your machine for a candidate around n=212K? That'll give a removal rate to shoot for on a comparable machine.
Okay, I'll do that soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes
After 300<k<400 is done sieving to P=6T (and breaking off n=260K-600K) towards the end of February, I'll put 3 cores on this effort if it's not already done. That'll leave me 5-6 cores to continue 300<k< 400 for n=600K-1M for anticipated completion sometime in late March. At that point, we'll have 3 different n-ranges that people can test at for top-5000 primes. I'm hoping the higher n-ranges will draw in even more people who like to find much larger primes.


Gary
Okay, cool.

Anon

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2008-02-17 at 14:33
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 18:13   #19
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

40358 Posts
Default

20G-30G finished.

Taking 50G-70G.

srsieve 130,000 p/sec (20G-30G)
sr2sieve 230,000 p/sec (50G-70G)

Last fiddled with by Flatlander on 2008-02-17 at 18:30
Flatlander is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 18:49   #20
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlander View Post
20G-30G finished.

Taking 50G-70G.

srsieve 130,000 p/sec (20G-30G)
sr2sieve 230,000 p/sec (50G-70G)
Oh, wow!

I'll change the instructions in the first post so that they tell people to use sr2sieve. I'll also update the sieve file archive to include the updated batch file and shell script.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 19:05   #21
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

624910 Posts
Default

Okay, I updated the first post in this thread to reflect the change to sr2sieve. The instructions are significantly different, so you'll want to read them again.
mdettweiler is offline  
Old 2008-02-17, 20:24   #22
Flatlander
I quite division it
 
Flatlander's Avatar
 
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England

31·67 Posts
Default

I'm already running this:
Quote:
sr2sieve -p 50e9 -P 70e9 -i nplb-doublecheck-sieve_10G.txt
is that ok?
Flatlander is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is more sieving power needed? jasong jasong 4 2012-03-25 19:11
Doublecheck always have shifted S0 value? ATH PrimeNet 11 2010-06-03 06:38
All things doublecheck!! masser Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 44 2006-09-24 17:19
DoubleCheck vs LL assignments Unregistered PrimeNet 9 2006-03-26 05:48
doublecheck - results TheJudger Data 4 2005-04-04 08:54

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:38.

Tue Mar 31 10:38:15 UTC 2020 up 6 days, 8:11, 0 users, load averages: 1.31, 1.31, 1.20

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.