20140208, 09:12  #67 
May 2005
2×809 Posts 
You guys are really fast I see. It's a pity though that there was no prime nor other PRP in the 2M3.5M range :surprised
Since I cannot effectively compete with you, I cancel my 5M6M reservation. Good luck! 
20140225, 04:03  #68 
Jun 2003
2×3^{3}×29 Posts 
So I have sieved everything up to 55bits. When I do the LLR testing it is using AVXall complex FFTs.
Am I doing something wrong. Shouldn't the LLR be faster (and use smaller AVX length) as everything is done modulo 2^4P+1. 
20140225, 09:37  #69 
May 2005
2×809 Posts 
All technicalities aside, using LLR to search for Gaussian Mersenne Norms and Conorms always took more time than standard k*b^n+c tests. On the other hand LLR still should be faster than PFGW in that area

20140225, 16:03  #70  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2378_{16} Posts 
Quote:
1. 55bits is too low (one should sieve until the removal rate is comparable to running real tests. ~5859 bits is more like it  and that's for the low range). 2. (on an average bench machine) From 3.5 to 3.85M, iterations take 4.7ms; from 3.85M to >4.5M, iterations take 6.3ms, then higher still (I haven't benchmarked, you can do it yourself). 3. Take the values left in the sieve, and estimate the necessary time already. It is easy. Well, ... You haven't still done the time estimate, for one thing. You haven't sieved well enough, for another. Your grasp exceeds your reach, but according to Browning, this is not necessarily wrong  or else, what's heaven for. 

20140226, 02:29  #71 
Jun 2003
2×3^{3}×29 Posts 
My question was regarding the AVX all complex FFT? Is LLR choosing the right FFT type? Is there some setting I am getting wrong. Shouldn't mod 4^p+1 be faster than allcomplex FFT?
In terms of the sieving question: 55 bits is right depth for me. Given the number of 32 bit computer available and on my 64 bit computer it takes about 4 ms per iteration 5556 bit seems the correct number for me. If some how we could get a GPU to sieve then maybe 62 bits would be the right number. I have tried sieving upto 60 bits for the 3.53.6M range. There are 67499 numbers left. With 1 computer it will take ~2000 days. with 2 computers ~1000 days. I might be able to put more computers on this range (I am trying to get PRPnet to work). So definately less than 10 years. I might unreserve 4M5M, if I am unable to put more computers, so everything will be done in 1 year. I will let you know. Searching for primes is a hobby and not my profession. Batalov, I am not sure why you keep on pressurizing me to finish this range? There are plently of riesel k that members of riesel prime search have reserved and they are slowly making progress on them even if it takes them more than a year to do a 0.25 M range. No one is pressurizing them. Do you rather want to do the whole range yourself than having me compute it? I don't understand your attitude towards me? Please let me know. 
20140226, 09:14  #72 
May 2005
3122_{8} Posts 
I've started my GM/GQ effort almost 8 years ago and from ~1M I have arrived almost @ 2M. Up until recently I was reserving 0.05M ranges and it took me some time to finish each of those on a single C2Q core. Right now all that changed in light of recent increase of interest and computing power dedicated to that effort, therefore I would suggest to limit reservation ranges. So how much should one reserve at a time? Since apparently only 3 of us are particularly interested in that subject, I think we can come to some decisions quite fast
I propose that one should not reserve more than one month worth of work, and for the sake of tracking progress, report status at least once a month in this thread. Current status looks as follows: Code:
till 600k  completed by Jean PennĂ© (GQonly effort) 600k  700k  completed by Cruelty (GQonly effort) 700k  GM36  available (GQonly effort) GM36  1.95M  completed by Cruelty (2 GMs + 5 GQs found) 1.95M  2M  reserved by Cruelty (currently @ 1.98M) 2M  3.5M  completed by Batalov (1 GQ found) 3.5M  5M  reserved by Citrix (prefactored to 55 bits) What do you think? Last fiddled with by Cruelty on 20140226 at 09:20 
20140226, 17:36  #73 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
2^{3}·5·227 Posts 

20140227, 07:25  #74 
Jun 2003
61E_{16} Posts 
I have already divided the ranges from 3.53.85M among the 2 computers. I will unreserve 3.85M5M. I will update results once a month.
Is anyone else interested in finishing the 700k  GM36  available (GQonly effort) range? 
20140227, 15:24  #75 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
21570_{8} Posts 
I'll run the start of the slow range 3.85M4.00M.

20140227, 16:41  #76  
Feb 2003
3·5·127 Posts 
Quote:
Is there a newer version of this file (perhaps containing less candidates)? And what would be the right procedure and proper switches for LLR to tests those numbers? You mentioned "TestGQ=1" and "FactorOverride", but I may be missing some crucial information. And does one need the 32bit version of LLR? 

20140228, 08:47  #77  
Feb 2003
3·5·127 Posts 
Quote:
I will continue factoring and do some initial primality tests and decide later whether I can cope with the whole range 700kGM36 in reasonable time. If not, I will take at least a small section... 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
New PC dedicated to Mersenne Prime Search  Taiy  Hardware  12  20180102 15:54 
Gaussian integers use of norms  devarajkandadai  Number Theory Discussion Group  11  20171028 20:58 
Low clock speeds on Mersenne Prime search  Ammonia  Hardware  2  20160121 17:46 
Testing Mersenne cofactors for primality?  CRGreathouse  Computer Science & Computational Number Theory  18  20130608 19:12 
Can I specify the range to search the Mersenne Prime?  Unregistered  Information & Answers  22  20120320 11:38 