20200529, 22:28  #397  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{2}×7×11^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Thanks for checking. 

20200529, 22:30  #398 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
6474_{8} Posts 
Here are the results for the process/thread tests:
Code:
eFarm.78 overran 2333500023340000 at 89:54 (5394s) eFarm.78b overran 2337000023375000 at 95:38 (5738s) 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. 
20200529, 22:38  #399 
Apr 2020
109 Posts 
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.

20200530, 00:14  #400 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{2}·7·11^{2} Posts 
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. 
20200530, 00:59  #401 
Apr 2020
1101101_{2} Posts 
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 6thread machines to running two clients too.

20200601, 23:51  #402 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1000100110111_{2} Posts 
Update: Q=43.1M, 114.4M relations. Yield average almost exactly 5.0, down a bit from the 2025MQ range.
Forecast is 350M or so relations by Q=100M (80MQ * 4.x yield). That leaves ~650M for ggnfs; if anyone is willing to testsieve a bit to see what Qrange that corresponds to, we can get it into the 15e queue shortly. I expect to have time to testsieve Friday or Saturday, if necessary. 
20200602, 00:43  #403  
Jun 2012
2872_{10} Posts 
Quote:


20200602, 05:51  #404 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3×13×113 Posts 
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?). 
20200607, 17:41  #405 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1137_{16} Posts 
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. 
20200608, 21:43  #406 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
3×13×113 Posts 
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. 
20200610, 03:10  #407 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1000100110111_{2} Posts 
Final tally: 319M raw relations, 251M unique. Unique doesn't mean much until I have the entire dataset.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Primes in nfibonacci sequence and nstep fibonacci sequence  sweety439  And now for something completely different  17  20170613 03:49 
Team sieve #41: C165 from 3366:i2098  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  36  20131129 07:03 
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved  petrw1  Lone Mersenne Hunters  82  20100111 01:57 
What's the next in the sequence?  roger  Puzzles  16  20061018 19:52 
Sequence  Citrix  Puzzles  5  20050914 23:33 