20080218, 22:50  #34 
Sep 2004
B0E_{16} Posts 
I think you should sieve.

20080218, 23:18  #35 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,017 Posts 

20080218, 23:20  #36 
Sep 2004
2·5·283 Posts 

20080218, 23:23  #37  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Quote:
We could, as an alternative, make it a public sieve effort, like this one. 

20080219, 08:08  #38  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2765_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I think it would have been worth it for for n=260K600K but I'm not so sure for n=400K600K. Once the LLR time has been expended for a large portion of a range, it becomes less beneficial to sieve the remaining range. I'll let you know. Done in by improving software... lol Gary 

20080219, 18:17  #39 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
14151_{8} Posts 
120G130G complete.

20080219, 19:59  #40  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,017 Posts 
Sieve depth analysis on n=260K600K / 400K600K
Quote:
Machine used for both LLR and sieving test: 1.66 Ghz Dell core duo (about equally good at sieving and LLRing) 70% nrange = 498K Candidate chosen for LLR test: 693*2^4980001 Time per iteration: .835 ms Iterations: 498K Total LLRing time: 416 secs. Sieving test on n=260K600K for 400<k<=1001: Way back when, srsieve was faster. I was getting P=67K/sec. and confirmed that with a recent test. I just now ran a test using the new version of sr2sieve. It was at P=88K/sec. :surprised Yep, it's faster now. (Previously ~P=50K/sec. if I remember right.) Analysis sieve: P=5000G5010G: Expected factors found: 271 (much more accurate than actual found) Prate/sec. using srsieve: 67K/sec. Est. seconds to process P=10G: 10G / 67K = 149254 Est secs. per factor found: 149254 / 271 = 551 The 551 sec. removal rate vs. 416 sec. LLR time confirms that I initially oversieved the range. My original analysis showed an optimal depth of P=4.25T4.5T but I wanted it to be 1015% oversieved since most everyone else would be LLRing. Now, going back and using sr2sieve instead on the entire range: Analysis sieve: P=5000G5010G: Expected factors found: 271 Prate/sec. using srsieve: 88K/sec. Seconds to process P=10G: 10G / 88K = 113636 Secs. per factor found: 113636 / 271 = 419 surprised:surprised Now, how LUCKY is that? Had I used sr2sieve originally, P=5T is almost exactly the right depth for the range: 419 secs. removal rate vs. 416 secs. LLR rate. Therefore sieving the smaller range of n=400K600K would be foolish. With only 200K/340K (58.8%) of the nrange, the removal rate would be 419 secs. / .588 = 712 secs. A 70% nrange candidate of n=540K wouldn't take nearly that long to LLR. Conclusion: No additional sieving needed for 400<k<=1001. Future: Thanks to sr2sieve, I'm sieving 300<k<400 to P=6T, which will save additional LLRing time. Thanks to Geoff for the nice increase in sr2sieve sieving speed! Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080219 at 20:00 

20080219, 22:37  #41 
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31·67 Posts 
80G120G complete.

20080219, 22:58  #42 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
New sieve file released, sieved to p=130G.

20080222, 04:40  #43 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Hi all,
We've decided to include k<300 (for the same nrange, 100K260K) in this doublecheck sieving, since it's currently doublechecked up to n=100K, just like the 300<k<1001 range. Chris (Flatlander) and I started the sieving for k<300 and caught it up to the 300<k<1001 sieve, and I've now combined the two sieve files into one. Please make sure you download the new sieve file before starting on any new (i.e. past 130G) reservations. The new sieve file contains a total of 500 k's, and thus a given range will take a little longer (probably about 25% longer, I'm guessingthough that's not much more than a guess; please feel free to post information on what speeds you're getting with the new sieve file). As we had agreed before for 300<k<1001, we'll be taking the whole thing up to 1T (though when we reach 200G Gary will do another analysis, to confirm that estimate). (For the uninitiated, 1T=1000G. ) Have fun! Anon 
20080222, 06:06  #44  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
5·2,017 Posts 
Quote:
With the efficiency of more k's, sieve depth should increase slightly. After I said it, 1T seemed a little high but it might be real close with 500 vs. 351 k's. It's very unusual to sieve to 1T for a nontop 5000 range but then again, it's very unusual to sieve 500 k's at once too! G 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Is more sieving power needed?  jasong  jasong  4  20120325 19:11 
Doublecheck always have shifted S0 value?  ATH  PrimeNet  11  20100603 06:38 
All things doublecheck!!  masser  Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5  44  20060924 17:19 
DoubleCheck vs LL assignments  Unregistered  PrimeNet  9  20060326 05:48 
doublecheck  results  TheJudger  Data  4  20050404 08:54 