mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Aliquot Sequences

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-05-29, 22:28   #397
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

C8D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
The first WU didn't restart for me. The original range was 22690000-22695000; I noticed almost immediately that I'd got the wrong number of threads and killed the client. When I started again with --override t 6 the client was given 22695000-22700000 instead. Maybe changing the number of threads made the server think it wasn't the same client?
It could have something to do with cleanup, I suppose. My successes with such have been with my local LAN "farm" and I have to use double CTRL-C to ensure my scripts don't remove the download files.

Thanks for checking.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-29, 22:30   #398
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

321310 Posts
Default

Here are the results for the process/thread tests:
Code:
eFarm.78 overran 23335000-23340000 at 89:54 (5394s)
eFarm.78b overran 23370000-23375000 at 95:38 (5738s)
I have returned eFarm.78 to one process.

I have added eFarm.19 and eFarm.20 for testing. Although an i7 and i5, respectively, each with enough RAM, I don't really expect them to succeed. They are set to only run once. I will evaluate their runs later.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-29, 22:38   #399
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

4616 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Edit: I'm also noticing that the 6-thread machines aren't quite running at full load; I'm seeing load averages around 5.75. This isn't happening with the 4-thread machines. Maybe there is some inefficiency in running more than 4 threads per client?
I've killed one of these clients and started two clients with -t 3 on the same machine instead. They are both running at a load of almost exactly 3, as expected. I'll watch the timings to see if this is producing a genuine improvement.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-30, 00:14   #400
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

321310 Posts
Default

Both 19 and 27 overran 3600 and have been set aside. 78 overran using 4 threads. I've restarted 78 with all 8 threads and will keep an eye on it.

That's probably all the testing I'll try. I remember there was a hard stoppage last time due to too many timeouts, caused by my farm. I hope to avoid that issue this time.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-30, 00:59   #401
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

1068 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
I've killed one of these clients and started two clients with -t 3 on the same machine instead. They are both running at a load of almost exactly 3, as expected. I'll watch the timings to see if this is producing a genuine improvement.
Definitely looking like a slight speedup - WUs are taking ~42 min on average with 3 threads compared to ~23 min with 6 threads. I'll switch the other 6-thread machines to running two clients too.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-01, 23:51   #402
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10000011100012 Posts
Default

Update: Q=43.1M, 114.4M relations. Yield average almost exactly 5.0, down a bit from the 20-25MQ range.

Forecast is 350M or so relations by Q=100M (80MQ * 4.x yield).
That leaves ~650M for ggnfs; if anyone is willing to test-sieve a bit to see what Q-range that corresponds to, we can get it into the 15e queue shortly. I expect to have time to test-sieve Friday or Saturday, if necessary.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-02, 00:43   #403
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·3·467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Update: Q=43.1M, 114.4M relations. Yield average almost exactly 5.0, down a bit from the 20-25MQ range.

Forecast is 350M or so relations by Q=100M (80MQ * 4.x yield).
That leaves ~650M for ggnfs; if anyone is willing to test-sieve a bit to see what Q-range that corresponds to, we can get it into the 15e queue shortly. I expect to have time to test-sieve Friday or Saturday, if necessary.
I’ll be happy to test sieve from Q=100 until we get ~650M relations, and then queue it in 15e. Just to confirm, we are using the poly in post 374 of this thread, correct? Should I use the same parameters translated from CADO (in which case what are they?) or is using the same polynomial all that matters? In other words, am I free to use 2 LPB / 3 LPB, sieve on either side etc to maximize yield?
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-02, 05:51   #404
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3·23·61 Posts
Default

Correct poly. I used 268/400M for lim's, and 33LP 64/95 for mfb's.
Basically, I chose params as if ggnfs was all we were using for the job, also the ones we used for the job that we just sieved in this same hybrid way.
If you leave 33LP and lim's the same, anything else should be fine to change as far as generating compatible relations- and Greg stated flatly for 2,1165+ that even lim's can be changed without worry (let's not try that here, ok?).
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-07, 17:41   #405
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×23×61 Posts
Default

Update:
We're at Q=88.2M, so CADO sieving will wrap up tonight or Monday morning.
280M relations so far, looks like total from our CADO effort will be 320M or so.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-08, 21:43   #406
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×23×61 Posts
Default

We have reached the end of the CADO portion of the sieving for this C197. Results files at Q=99.8 and 99.9M are coming in now. If you get a workunit above 100M, please shut down your client.

I'll kill the server in half an hour or so when the incoming WUs exceed 100M.
319M raw relations; I'll post more stats after I kill the server and uniquefy the results.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-10, 03:10   #407
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×23×61 Posts
Default

Final tally: 319M raw relations, 251M unique. Unique doesn't mean much until I have the entire dataset.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Primes in n-fibonacci sequence and n-step fibonacci sequence sweety439 And now for something completely different 17 2017-06-13 03:49
Team sieve #41: C165 from 3366:i2098 RichD Aliquot Sequences 36 2013-11-29 07:03
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved petrw1 Lone Mersenne Hunters 82 2010-01-11 01:57
What's the next in the sequence? roger Puzzles 16 2006-10-18 19:52
Sequence Citrix Puzzles 5 2005-09-14 23:33

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:46.

Fri Jul 3 14:46:30 UTC 2020 up 100 days, 12:19, 1 user, load averages: 1.26, 1.44, 1.63

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.