2006-02-10, 15:13 | #1 |
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3^{4}·53 Posts |
Jumping to 1 million digit LLR tests
In about month from now Thomas and I will have finished the sieving for 321search to the optimal level of division of 236 trillion. This leave only LLR work from "n" = 2.5-5 million -- That's 0.75-1.5 million digits.
The purpose of this poll is to guage interest in jumping from our current testing window to tests that have at least 1 million decimal digits. Tests at 1 million digits only take half as long as they currently do. So an average 321-LLR file will increase from 5 days to 8 days. (This will be going upto 6 days soon anyway) The primes are rarer at 1 million digits but with sufficient cruching and a little bit of luck we could find something huge in a reasonable amount of time. |
2006-02-14, 12:56 | #2 |
May 2003
2·127 Posts |
For these continuous sequences, I've never liked the idea of leaving gaps.
However, I don't contribute to 321, so my view is that of an outsider. |
2006-02-14, 19:50 | #3 |
Feb 2003
2^{7}×3×5 Posts |
I agree with Phil: Eventually we should not leave any gaps.
Nevertheless it could be attractive to some of our testers -- in particular those with the ultra-fast P4 machines -- to do some tests on million-digits candidates and having the chance of finding the very first non-Mersenne Riesel prime really soon. Actually, we already have quite a bunch of LLR blocks on the "choose your work" list (well, currently only a few are left from our current range...) and let the people decide by themselves which block they're choosing. So, why not add at least a few million-digit tests to that reservations list and see, if someone takes them? And, just in case that no-one else will do sub-million-digit tests anymore, I would still continue to close the gap from the lower end... |
2006-03-29, 00:21 | #4 |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1571_{16} Posts |
How many years do you expect the 2.5-5 million range for n to last the group?
These searches are mildly frustrating to me, in that the efficiency-maximizing person within me wants to sieve higher than I am likely to test, so I don't regret not sieving higher n; then I find myself compelled to LLR the entire range, so I don't "waste a sieve". Do you feel like when 5 million is reached, you'll be tempted to move to a different k? If not, how large an n-range would you contemplate for a new sieve? -Curtis |
2006-03-29, 00:29 | #5 |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1571_{16} Posts |
OK, I checked the project status, and your forecast of n=3M at end of 2006 seems feasible. With the growth in CPU speeds, 4M at end of 2007 is a ballpark, 5 M end 2008/sometime in 2009 is also reasonable.
That allows for ~3 years of sieving to get 5M-? ready. Hrmmm.. -Curtis |
2006-03-29, 01:18 | #6 | |||
Sep 2002
Database er0rr
3^{4}·53 Posts |
Quote:
140000*25/(24*365) ~ 400 32-bit Athlon 1GHz years. Note we have faster computers than 1GHz Athlon's in more way than one with respect to LLR. If we have 40 GHz working on 321 then it'll take about 10 years. I guess we've got more like 60GHz at the moment... Quote:
Quote:
Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2006-03-29 at 04:28 |
|||
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Million digit moonshot | MooMoo2 | Twin Prime Search | 9 | 2017-12-23 17:36 |
711 LL-tests in the 100 million digits range? | ET_ | PrimeNet | 9 | 2010-03-28 20:21 |
Jumping to 1 million digit LLR tests | paulunderwood | 3*2^n-1 Search | 3 | 2006-11-14 14:03 |
k = 2 thru 31 Ten Million Digit numbers | TTn | 15k Search | 4 | 2004-08-21 18:20 |
100 MILLION DIGIT NUMBER | lpmurray | Software | 8 | 2004-05-31 19:22 |