20100414, 13:31  #1 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
13230_{8} Posts 
Sierp base 63  team drive #5
I have been running some tests to estimate the effort involved for S63. I would like to get it to n=10000. Based upon my tests I estimate that close to 70% of the k (of 237,036) have primes for n < 10000. Based upon my tests I also estimate that testing 10000 k to n=10000 will take about 2 months on a single core of a C2D at 2.4 GHz.
I used srsieve to sieve to a depth of 1e10. I then took the ABC file that srsieve output (using the w switch) and modified the first line to read as follows: ABC $a*63^$b$c // {number_primes,$a,1} I then ran the file (sr_63.pfgw) through PFGW without any additional switches. In my test I only did 100 k, so my test results are an extrapolation. You can certainly use sr2sieve, but you would have to break up the one file into multiple files. It might save some time sieving, but takes more time to manage. I have created 23 files, each with 10,000 k (I've already taken the last file with 7036 k). To join in this effort, please select a file from one of the following links and state your reservation into this thread. When you have completed processing the file, please zip up the primes you have found and attach them to a post in this thread. Based upon the success of this thread I might do a second drive in the future. Group 1 (complete by Mathew Steine; 2444 k's remaining) Group 2 (complete by Lennart; 2381 k's remaining) Group 3 (complete by Lennart; 2419 k's remaining) Group 4 (complete by Lennart; 2343 k's remaining) Group 5 (complete by Lennart; 2365 k's remaining) Group 6 (complete by Lennart; 2360 k's remaining) Group 7 (complete by rogue; 2456 k's remaining) Group 8 (complete by Xentar; 2322 k's remaining) Group 9 (complete by Lennart; 2384 k's remaining) Group 10 (complete by rogue; 2393 k's remaining) Group 11 (complete by appeldorff; 2368 k's remaining) Group 12 (complete by MiniGeek; 2437 k's remaining) Group 13 (complete by rogue; 2394 k's remaining) Group 14 (complete by rogue; 2462 k's remaining) Group 15 (complete by kar_bon; 2369 k's remaining) Group 16 (complete by Lennart; 2359 k's remaining) Group 17 (complete by rogue; 2327 k's remaining) Group 18 (complete by rogue; 2389 k's remaining) Group 19 (complete by rogue; 2348 k's remaining) Group 20 (complete by rogue; 2379 k's remaining) Group 21 (complete by rogue; 2427 k's remaining) Group 22 (complete by rogue; 2344 k's remaining) Group 23 (complete by rogue; 2380 k's remaining) Group 24 (complete by rogue; 1698 k's remaining) Any comments or suggestions are welcome. The drive is now complete! 180488 primes were found. 56548 k's remain at n=10K. 76.14% of all k's were eliminated for n=1K10K! Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20110222 at 21:12 Reason: status update 
20100414, 14:13  #2 
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
4267_{10} Posts 
I was playing around with group 1, (not reserving it) and I have a very useful (though maybe obvious) tip for anybody planning on doing this: when starting out the sieve, make srsieve quiet by setting m to the same as P. Otherwise, when srsieve hits m's value (default 100K), it slows down tremendously trying to print every one of the millions of factors found.
Also, sr2sieve is impractical for very large k's (e.g. everything except group 1) and large groups of k's (e.g. any of these groups unless you split them up). Even in group 1, you'd definitely want to only spend the half hour to generate the Legendre tables once (run "sr2sieve c i sr_63.abcd" once, it'll save it to sr2cache.bin where all other sr2sieve runnings will automatically look). Even with the first 1000 k's, it took 120 MB of RAM to run, so it might not be practical, depending on how it behaves with all 10000 k's and your RAM limits. I'm not sure how good sr2sieve x (no Legendre lookup) would be. Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20100414 at 14:20 
20100414, 14:29  #3 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
14151_{8} Posts 
Cool idea! However, to avoid confusion with the "real" Drive #1 (S16), I suggest that we rename this to either:
"Sierpinski base 63  team drive #4" "Sierpinski base 63  minidrive 1" per our established naming conventions for team efforts. Since this effort, at my rough approximation, will take about 4 CPUyears, I'm not sure it exactly fits in the category of a minidrive, and am thinking that designating it team drive #4 would be more appropriate. Gary, what do you think? 
20100414, 15:05  #5  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
23642_{8} Posts 
Quote:
The minidrive designation applies to only the base itself and would be appropriate if we were doing only a portion of the k's with this drive like we did for base 3. But since we're doing all of them, then this wouldn't be considered a minidrive. Once complete to n=10K, then this drive could be simply extended to n=15K or 25K like we've done for base 16. Otherwise if we made it another team drive for n>10K, we'd have to have another thread and would ultimately innundate ourselves with threads and drives. We've kind of done that already, especially for base 3, which is why I unstickied all of those long ago. :) Therefore I think team drive #4 is the way to go. Thoughts from anyone else on it? Gary 

20100414, 15:11  #6  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·3·19·89 Posts 
Quote:
If anyone would care to post their timings on srsieve vs. sr2sieve with the x option, that would be helpful. Gary 

20100414, 15:17  #7  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
2^{3}×3×241 Posts 
Quote:


20100414, 16:04  #9 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
5784_{10} Posts 
I have done some testing and can state that for the range I'm doing that srsieve is faster than sr2sieve.
Using srsieve with P and m, I am getting about 40000 p/s (1500 k's in the file). Using sr2sieve with P, q, and x, I am getting about 25000 p/s on the same file. 1e10 is not be the optimal sieve depth. It is a ballpark number. In reality it could be more or less dependent upon the number of k's in the input file. In my original test I had 100 k's (the lowest 100), but I also used sr2sieve. 1e10 was slightly deeper than necessary, but not by much. 
20100414, 20:27  #10 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2×3×19×89 Posts 
OK, I've changed it to team drive #5. I've also showed Lennart's reservations in the 1st post.
Does anyone want group 1? 
20100415, 13:31  #11 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
2^{3}·3·241 Posts 
Since larger k take longer to test, so my estimate of two months is most likely incorrect. I have split group 24 (not shown in this thread) across 4 CPUs (2 of which are 'borrowed" for a few days) and will be able to provide a better estimate in a few weeks.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Sierp base 6  team drive #3  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  373  20140611 21:31 
Sierp base 16  team drive #1  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  254  20140610 16:00 
Sierp base 3  minidrive II  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  46  20091026 18:19 
Sierp base 3  minidrive Ib  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  43  20090306 08:41 
Sierp base 3  minidrive Ia  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  170  20081111 05:10 