20080325, 20:39  #12  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3×2,083 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20080325, 20:43  #13 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
1100001101001_{2} Posts 
Those of you who liked the teamsieve thing we did for this doublecheck effort might want to check out the new Sierpinski Base 6 Team Sieve at Conjectures 'R Us. It's just like the one we did for this doublecheck effort, except that of course it's doing different numbers.

20080325, 23:04  #14 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
6249_{10} Posts 
Taking 401405.

20080326, 06:40  #15 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10011110001010_{2} Posts 
If people wouldn't mind posting the approximate CPU time that it takes to complete a 3krange and the CPU being used, that would help us in case we need to increase or decrease future file sizes. I kind of cringed when I saw some 25000 k/n pair files but I have to remember that the nrange is much lower and that is certainly the exception. But the average CPU time may be more like a drive 3 n=2K file at n=420K, the last one before we dropped the file size to n=1K.
There may be some 3kranges that have 2 very heavyweight k's and we may want to post only a 2krange for it or viceversa for 2 very lightweight k's. The variability becomes greater as the kvalues increase so shouldn't be as much of a problem for k<400. Gary 
20080326, 11:23  #16  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
4267_{10} Posts 
Quote:
I've reserved two ranges, one with ~12K candidates, and one with ~25K. At the current rate for the smaller file, it would be 3.26 days, but it will be slowing as n increases (currently at n=~135700 and ~30 seconds per candidate at 7K used FFT). For the larger file, it's currently coming out to 4.82 days, but of course will slow as well (currently n=~124400, switching between ~20 and ~27 seconds with switching between 6K and 7K FFTs). I think it's still too early to tell if the files are too large or not. Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20080326 at 11:27 

20080326, 13:35  #17 
Mar 2006
Germany
2^{3}×349 Posts 
reserving 2125

20080326, 18:59  #18  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
10122_{10} Posts 
Quote:
It's actually more complicated then that and related to FFTlen jumps but it should give a close estimate because over the long run LLR time DOES increase with the square of the nrange. I'll have a try at some calculations. Gary 

20080326, 19:50  #19  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·3·7·241 Posts 
Quote:
Therefore: You've tested 35700 / 160000 of your nrange or 22.31%. 22.31% of your total estimate of 3.26 days means you've spent 0.727388 of a day so far. So if you've spent 0.727388 of a day so far, using algebra and incremental analysis, we can calculate that it took you .001452 of a day (I'll call that 'T' for time) to do n=100000100100, T=.001455 to do n=100100100200, etc. with the length of time increasing by the square of n such that it would take you T=.002669 to do n=135600135700 with the total of T for all 100n ranges up to n=135700 being the 0.727388 days that you presumably spent for the range. Further incrementing and summing up to n=260K shows that it should take you 8.027126 days to do n=100K260K for a file with 12000 candidates with the final range of n=259900260000 taking .009814 of a day, assuming that you used the straight multiplication to give your original estiamte. Based on this, the 25000 candidate range should take 25000/12000 * 8.027126 = 16.72318 days. And further, the average file size currently posted is 19563 candidates. Based on that, the average file size should take 19563 / 12000 * 8.027126 = 13.08639 days. So, it looks like we're in the ballpark but a little large. I suspect that you have a highspeed machine so this average is somewhat larger than I would like but not too bad. If Anon wants to mess with it, if people with slower resources want to chip in and not spend up to 4 weeks on a file, then we could consider splitting up a file or two. And finally, to prove that the incremental analysis is correct using the beginning and ending increments, the final range should take (260/100)^2 or 6.76 times as long as the first range. If you take the ratio of the time calculated for the beginning and ending ranges, you have .009814 / 001452 = 6.76. So there you have it! Math is fun! You'll have to let me know how close this is to the actual amount of time taken for the files. Edit: I did this relatively quickly in an Excel spreadsheet but I'm pretty confident of its accuracy. But I have to mention that it's still only a relatively rough estimate because the true LLR times jump in fits and spurts. The spreadsheet is a little rough and hard to read but some people may find the algebra and formulas useful. If anyone wants me to post the spreadsheet, I will. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080326 at 19:57 

20080326, 20:23  #20  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts 
Your extrapolation of my CPU time is practically precisely what I recorded. Task Manager told me it was ~17.5 CPU hours per instance when I did the things, and I could have made my calc's easier with using your reverseengineering. I calculated ([total pairs]/(([total pairs][pairs remaining])/[CPU hours]))/24=. For reference, yours would be 1/([completed n]/160000)*[CPU hours]/24=.
Mine would probably be a little more precise due to varying remaining pairs per n as n increases, but yours is far easier. Quote:
Quote:
Will do. I'll be sure to get the exact, or closest estimate, time each range finishes, and I can look back to when I reserved for very close estimates of when I started them. I might be able to get CPU time, too, but I'm not sure my computer won't be rebooted or I won't restart an LLR instance before then. 

20080326, 20:50  #21 
Sep 2004
2830_{10} Posts 
What about CPU timings?
With a quadcore overclocked to 2.968 GHz: Code:
27*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B033EEE9274FF1F1 Time : 7.786 sec. 29*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: 7DF93B2FC5EF6077 Time : 7.785 sec. 27*2^1000121 is not prime. LLR Res64: 69F091E95935EE0E Time : 7.797 sec. 27*2^1000131 is not prime. LLR Res64: CDAAE5C5F00C6FF5 Time : 7.794 sec. 31*2^1000191 is not prime. LLR Res64: 418D2ADE4901D642 Time : 7.807 sec. 31*2^1000391 is not prime. LLR Res64: FB1F60CAE7646CB3 Time : 7.779 sec. 31*2^1000611 is not prime. LLR Res64: 780E5645B0395BA2 Time : 7.779 sec. 31*2^1001291 is not prime. LLR Res64: CD3F553F0B3B61B4 Time : 7.808 sec. 27*2^1001331 is not prime. LLR Res64: 0E506AE171784315 Time : 7.847 sec. 27*2^2599521 is not prime. LLR Res64: A1E5B8F7FD1C606A Time : 52.654 sec. 27*2^2599731 is not prime. LLR Res64: 5036B0FD0DFDBE74 Time : 52.588 sec. 31*2^2599751 is not prime. LLR Res64: D6A76B5B89DA91F8 Time : 52.493 sec. 27*2^2600001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B5D601E69D7F123F Time : 52.633 sec. 
20080326, 21:20  #22  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
27*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B033EEE9274FF1F1 Time : 16.464 sec. 29*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: 7DF93B2FC5EF6077 Time : 16.583 sec. 27*2^1000121 is not prime. LLR Res64: 69F091E95935EE0E Time : 16.588 sec. 27*2^1000131 is not prime. LLR Res64: CDAAE5C5F00C6FF5 Time : 16.586 sec. 31*2^1000191 is not prime. LLR Res64: 418D2ADE4901D642 Time : 16.610 sec. 31*2^1000391 is not prime. LLR Res64: FB1F60CAE7646CB3 Time : 16.599 sec. 31*2^1000611 is not prime. LLR Res64: 780E5645B0395BA2 Time : 16.591 sec. 31*2^1001291 is not prime. LLR Res64: CD3F553F0B3B61B4 Time : 16.618 sec. 27*2^1001331 is not prime. LLR Res64: 0E506AE171784315 Time : 16.612 sec. 27*2^2599521 is not prime. LLR Res64: A1E5B8F7FD1C606A Time : 107.655 sec. 27*2^2599731 is not prime. LLR Res64: 5036B0FD0DFDBE74 Time : 107.636 sec. 31*2^2599751 is not prime. LLR Res64: D6A76B5B89DA91F8 Time : 107.720 sec. 27*2^2600001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B5D601E69D7F123F Time : 107.740 sec. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team drive #14: k=6001001 n=1M2M  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  9  20140902 01:21 
GPU sieving drive for k<=1001 n=1M2M  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  11  20101004 22:45 
Doublecheck drive #2: k=300400 n=260K600K  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  0  20100521 00:22 
Team drive #3: k=300400 n=260K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  255  20081112 10:43 
Team drive #2: k=4001001 n=260K333.2K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  154  20080331 02:59 