mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-05-31, 18:37   #1
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

7378 Posts
Default

Hi all,

Is it of any use if I start a srsieve for all Sierpinski's?

Actually, I started one yesterday, and it went to 4.5B in about 21 hours, for ALL remaining sierpinksi's (90) upto n=300000. Now taking about 15 seconds per n to be eliminated

There are now 233616 remaining pairs upto 300k.

I just hope I didn't duplicate too much work :> It'll teach me to return to my computer before I go to bed...

Cheers, Micha
michaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 19:19   #2
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

107578 Posts
Default

I am currently sieving all the k's (Sierpinskis as well as Riesels) for n <= 2M. Current depth is p=5G. Probably some duplication is happening.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 19:32   #3
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

479 Posts
Default

darn :>

ah well... Is there a way I can join in the sieving;
If I understand correctly, it is easy to distribute the load a bit?

- That is, is there an intermediate sieve-file available
- should there be a distributed sieving-effort with ''sieve-parts'' of about 1G-size (or whatever is a good size)?

Last fiddled with by michaf on 2006-05-31 at 19:56
michaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 20:38   #4
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

4,591 Posts
Default

I've moved the last three posts out to a new thread.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 20:46   #5
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

479 Posts
Default

Thanks for moving it :>

How large are the save-files
- how much k/n pairs are remaining?
- what is the size of the file zipped up?

The found-factor files should be rather small, some 30 bytes per factor, so these could be easily mailed.
michaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 20:48   #6
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

4,591 Posts
Default

Distributing the sieving should be relatively straightforward.

Currently there are 353 files - about 135 MB. It is around 20 MB when zipped. So, to distribute the sieving, you'll have to download the sieve files, and then we can have some sort of reservation thread (like RieselSieve).

The problem, as I see, is that currently the k's are at low n values (especiaaly the Riesel k's). That means, a lot of them will be eliminated pretty quickly, which means that a lot is sieving effort will be wasted. So I am reluctant to go for a full blown distributed sieving effort at this time.
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 21:04   #7
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

479 Posts
Default

That is very true.
Happy to see them eliminated quickly though...

I'd say they get much harder to find when n=100k is reached.
When 100k is reached, I reckon there will be about as much riesels left as sierpinskis? some 200 total?

is that a viable limit to start 'distributed sieving' for both riesel & sierp.?

Is there an estimate around to when that will be when going with the current rate?

Oh, and how quickly are you eliminating k/n pairs with your sieving right now?

Enough questions for the day :>
michaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 21:21   #8
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

4,591 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaf
I'd say they get much harder to find when n=100k is reached.
When 100k is reached, I reckon there will be about as much riesels left as sierpinskis? some 200 total?
You're very optimistic! I expect another 20-30 k to be eliminated. That'd still leave us with 320-330 k's

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaf
is that a viable limit to start 'distributed sieving' for both riesel & sierp.?

Is there an estimate around to when that will be when going with the current rate?
Probably. Although, I think we can start sooner than that -- like, maybe once the Riesel k's reaches 70000. At that point, we would have eliminated enough k's to not worry about possible sieve wastage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaf
Oh, and how quickly are you eliminating k/n pairs with your sieving right now?
At this very moment, I am not sieving the whole thing -- instead I am doing a focused sieve on Riesel k's for n<=100,000. However, when I stopped the sieving, it was doing around 1 k/n pair every 5 seconds or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaf
Enough questions for the day :>


Anyway, all the above are just my opinions. If there is enough interest, we can start up a distributed sieving effort in short order. Of course, we need some serious bandwidth and hosting space to put up the sieve files
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-05-31, 23:50   #9
geoff
 
geoff's Avatar
 
Mar 2003
New Zealand

13×89 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn1
Of course, we need some serious bandwidth and hosting space to put up the sieve files
I gather you are saving the files in NewPGen format, which is a bit inefficient. It should be quite a bit more compact to save in the default srsieve format. You can convert between these formats with the srfile utility.

I could quite easily add any other file format. I suggest the ABCD format, which only stores the 'deltas', the difference between the n values instead of the whole n value. ABCD can be read by pfgw, and is easy to convert to any other format, but is not very good for hand editing. Storing the three terms 1396*5^1000-1, 1396*5^1006-1, 1396*5^1020-1 would look like this:

ABCD 1396*5^$a-1 [1000]
6
14

The total usage would probably average about two bytes per remaining term, uncompressed, though I haven't seen the data. Any other sugestions?
geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-06-01, 18:26   #10
michaf
 
michaf's Avatar
 
Jan 2005

1DF16 Posts
Default

I'd say the ABCD format would be nice for space-savings, but then,
20Mb is doable these days (not to mention that the file will be getting
smaller every 5 seconds :>)

How much candidates are left in total? as in how much k/n pairs?

say x: x*2 bytes in ABCD format --> compressed about 1/4th of that, so that would be x/2 bytes

with sr-sieve format that is 7 digits on average --> x*7/4 bytes
About 4 times as large as with ABCD format.

Is the human-readability of any relevance? The formats are easily converted to one another after all.
michaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-06-01, 18:32   #11
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

10001111011112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
I gather you are saving the files in NewPGen format, which is a bit inefficient. It should be quite a bit more compact to save in the default srsieve format. You can convert between these formats with the srfile utility.
Yes, I am using the NewPGen format. What is srfile utility? How do you compile it? Do you have the make file?

Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff
I could quite easily add any other file format. I suggest the ABCD format, which only stores the 'deltas', the difference between the n values instead of the whole n value.
[snip]
The total usage would probably average about two bytes per remaining term, uncompressed, though I haven't seen the data. Any other sugestions?
I did some testing.
Code:
Format      Size in KB      Size in KB     Size in KB  
          (Uncompressed)   (Compressed)      (Ultra)
--------- --------------  -------------   -----------
NewPGen             707            90              87
Default             364            83              80
Delta               193            46              36
As you can see, when compressed, only the delta format make any significant difference.

Ofcourse, since the idea of distributed sieving is to _sieve_, there is no requirement on the format being compatible with any testing programs. As long as the format can hold both Sierpinskis and Riesels together, it should be fine. The other requirement is that it should be easy for the siever to quickly remove a k (when a prime is found). This will avoid repeated downloads of the sieve file(s).
axn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soapbox Discussions only_human Soap Box 41 2019-11-16 15:46
Our discussions here: how can we improve things? Brian-E Soap Box 105 2013-11-10 12:26
n=390000 discussions and old reservations Mini-Geek Twin Prime Search 31 2010-05-22 23:13
Primegrid discussions pacionet Twin Prime Search 17 2007-01-20 11:22
Automated PRP discussions ltd Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 20 2006-09-02 22:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:21.

Thu May 28 19:21:12 UTC 2020 up 64 days, 16:54, 0 users, load averages: 2.87, 1.78, 1.56

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.