mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > Riesel Prime Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-08-30, 05:37   #12
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2×1,811 Posts
Default

He mailed Keller that he tested k=5 to 470k, which is usually done when one stops his search. That's my main reason to beleive that he is not working on it any more, even if he did sieve much more.

BTW, I read somewhere (Primeform?) that you are still double-checking some smaller ranges of k=3. Are you saying now that it's all done and that you are currently at 3.25M ?
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 05:47   #13
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

1020510 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Gary,
I think a little bigger than you do. I am sieving it from 470k to 10M at present. Sheep is currently running 1.3M-4M for a few k's for me; k=5 will be added to this sieve shortly, at ~150T. 4M-10M will be set aside shortly for a later sr2sieve. I could use some help running the 470k-4M part, as Sheep's work will only filter out candidates after 150T (roughly the depth he's already at). Anyone wishing to donate sieving work in units of a trillion can email me at gmail (address is my handle at gmail); I'll mail them the file for sr1sieve work after I get to 5T or so, in a week or so.

As for the siever getting half credit on found primes-- that is too generous. Sieving is 5% of the total labor, so giving 50% credit is too much. I sieve on a laptop that overheats on LLR, some others who donate time may have similar circumstances. That said, sheep cannot run LLR on his PPCs, but does huge amounts of work for me/us, so I'll continue to share with him as appropriate (I would suggest the first k=5 prime found after 1.3M be shared with sheep as "payment" for sieving).

I have a habit of writing less than I'm thinking, leaving holes in my explanation. If anyone wants clarification, please let me know. PM or email if you wish to donate a bit of sieving (1T should take a week or less on AthlonXP or newer).
-Curtis
Remarkable! Just remarkable. You're way ahead of me. I like to think I think big but I realize I don't when I meet someone who does! How's the old saying go...it's one of my favorites..."You think you are good until you meet someone who is!"

But just maybe, I can think even bigger! I'm thinking it makes sense to do a distributed effort to sieve ALL k's < 100 or < 300 (!!) up to 10M (if we can get people who have them reserved to agree to it). Now, wouldn't that be a HUGE project!! As you well know, the more you're able to sieve at once, the less total time it takes.

Heck, if you're going to sieve to 10M, why not just go after the first 10-million digit prime and start sieving around n=33.22M?!! Of course individual LLR tests would probably take 2 months (just a guess since Mersennes around 10M digits take about a month and Prime-95 is much faster than LLR). My ultimate prime fantasy would be for RPS to beat GIMPS and find one for k=3, 5, or 7 or some other small k first. Now wouldn't that shock the GIMPS folks?! It'd be like the Royals beating the Yankees! k=3 is by far the best choice for a 10M-digit prime (not counting the fact that Mersennes can be searched quite a bit faster). It's VERY high weight and you could get plenty of possible prime candidates barely larger than 10M digits without having to search nearly as high as for k=1 at GIMPS. Maybe we should start sieving all k < 20 from n=33.22M up to 40M!! Now THERE's a project! We're talking optimum sieve depth well into the quadrillions! :surprised

Regardless, this sounds like an outstanding plan for k=5. And it makes sense on the sieving effort. Sheep should definitely get at least half of the first prime or maybe even first two primes that are found.

I hate to say it, but for the first time all 10 of my currently available cores will be running consecutively on current efforts for about the next 10-12 days straight so I don't have anything to spare for sieving at this time. It took me quite a while to coordinate all of the work I have going to get them to that point and I'm very content to sit back and let them run for a change without 'messing' with them. Exactly half of them are running my high-weight k's from n=200K to 400K.

After one of my 2 double-checking cores frees up after about 12 days or so, I want to start sieving k=243 but first, I'll take a trillion or two to sieve here for k=5. I'll just rotate back and forth sieving those two k's.


Gary
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 05:49   #14
paulunderwood
 
paulunderwood's Avatar
 
Sep 2002
Database er0rr

3×5×227 Posts
Default

Quote:
BTW, I read somewhere (Primeform?) that you are still double-checking some smaller ranges of k=3. Are you saying now that it's all done and that you are currently at 3.25M ?
By and large, yes. I have yet to upload the factors, LLR residues and primes covering all n < ~3.25M and counting... subject to errors as not all LLR residues have benn double checked.

A mega-prime could be found by us any day soon...

Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2007-08-30 at 06:04
paulunderwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 06:48   #15
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5·13·157 Posts
Default Bull...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj View Post
1) Gary, I wonder why are you so concerned with k=5 considering the fact that you're currently taking part in no distributed efforts, and not working on any k<300?
And why not? And why is that you feel such a need to question me on what I'm doing everytime I attempt to get involved a little bit on k < 300 or some other dormant or reserved k or range? Am I invading your territory? It sure looks like it! In the first month I was here, you asked me to dedicate a couple of cores to a distributed effort. I said I wasn't interested at the time and that's because they were well covered already. On k=243, I was shot down there despite someone not having reported a status in 9+ months. Another time you said we should limit our efforts on small primes. It gets pretty darned old. I would respectfully request that you keep your opinioins to yourself about what is needed or what I am doing unless they are asked for. If I squash the server space, then please speak up. But if not, no comments are needed.

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I look for where work is really needed on the site. I don't care what size or nature the k's are. You guys have the distributed efforts well in hand. As I've said before, I'm a bit of a lone wolf but I also don't like to see things languish. The Prime Search primes are a mess so I set about to check them and got a lot of mess cleaned up. The low-weight k area is currently languishing and it bugs me. The best I could do is post all of the missing and additional primes for n < 300K to finally find primes for every k on our site < 509203 except those being searched by Riesel Sieve after a large effort to try to contact SB2. There's plenty of people in the distributed efforts but there are none to double-check, few to follow-up on langishing k's, few to find twin primes that Karsten is posting, and even fewer to encourage others to get off their butt when they haven't reported statuses on a k in a long time. It's those things that few people do that I do. I actually like the dirty work!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj View Post
2) Forgive me for putting this straight, but saying that "We're getting left in the dust!" is nonsense even with smilies.
I agree but you missed my point. That was meant in reference to k=5 only. I realize we're pretty much tearing up Proths on most k's. Even if you take out n=333333, there's still many more Riesels than Proths in the top-5000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj View Post
I agree that we can start a distributed effort on k=5. I mailed Phil about two months ago but got no reply.
And just what were you waiting for? The stars to burn out? I mean, this proves my point exactly. That you're willing to let stuff just sit around and languish while nothing is being done about it. And why did you wait 2+ years to mail him? And how long would this have gone on had I not brought it up here? Talk about ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj View Post
4) As I said elsewhere before, I'm against any dead-lines, and/or chasing people to tell us about status of their search, etc. Everybody is free to search for any prime form, including those we are already working on. We would only like to suggest to others to coordinate their efforts with us so that we don't waste resources.

I've kept quiet about this long enough. Well, Kosmaj, you're out-voted this time around! These statements are quite ludicrous and I for one am sick of seeing orphan k's laying around and nothing being done about them. Can I make myself any clearer on this issue? I mean how much effort is it to send out a PM and a post on a few k's here and there while using reasonable judgement and tact in the various situations? I'd even be glad to do the dirty work in a tactful manner. I think everyone else is agreeing this time around. No other prime-searching effort that I can think of allows this kind of crap. Do you think they allow a range to languish for 2+ years at Riesel Sieve? At TPS? At GIMPS? I think not, especially at GIMPS, the most organized effort in the history of prime searching.

And if you don't try to contact people to get a status, how is Karsten supposed to keep track of what ranges are searched so that we can avoid duplicating efforts?

The issue with n=561K to 562K on the 5th drive was ridiculous and is just like this issue on k=5. I was out of line for LLRing it at the time without checking with you or anyone else first but you were just as much out of line for allowing it to go for a year or more. In the future, if I'm interested in a k or range that is reserved but has gone 'dormant', I will attempt contact with someone 3 times after we haven't seen a status from them in 6 months. If no answer in a 2-week time frame, then I'm going to search it after 'reserving' it myself.

They say an organization takes on the traits of its leaders. Well, that is what has happened here and I think it's time for a change. If you can't push people to report their statuses in a 6-month time-frame, then the rest of us are going to pick up their k's and run with them; top-5000 primes or not. If not anyone else, then I will.

I'm beginning to see why the 15k effort failed now. Things just languished forever until they finally fizzled out. We can thank Karsten for breathing some life into this effort. If it were not for him, we'd have little more than the 15k effort from before.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2007-08-30 at 06:53
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 07:26   #16
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·23·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
And just what were you waiting for? The stars to burn out? I mean, this proves my point exactly. That you're willing to let stuff just sit around and languish while nothing is being done about it. And why did you wait 2+ years to mail him? And how long would this have gone on had I not brought it up here? Talk about ridiculous.

No other prime-searching effort that I can think of allows this kind of crap. Do you think they allow a range to languish for 2+ years at Riesel Sieve? At TPS? At GIMPS? I think not, especially at GIMPS, the most organized effort in the history of prime searching.

I'm beginning to see why the 15k effort failed now. Things just languished forever until they finally fizzled out. We can thank Karsten for breathing some life into this effort. If it were not for him, we'd have little more than the 15k effort from before.
Gary
I left in the parts I find most objectionable. Gary, you are simply less patient than the rest of us; it is not the case that the k=5 situation is ridiculous, nor that kosmaj should be blamed. I emailed phil in early august, not knowing kosmaj had also. August is a time of vacation in France, and it is common for people to be on holiday for weeks at a time; further, it is perfectly reasonable for him to not answer email in order received when he returned. I had planned a followup email in a week or two, followed by a request similar to that you made to move k=5 out of reserved status. Kosmaj's email indicates he also cared enough to make an effort to find out if Phil cared about further work on k=5; that does not mean he felt compelled to announce its release. You do not have to be convinced his methods are correct, but why attack him? Why rub it in that most of us feel 5 should be released? Is there some personal victory to be won over kosmaj?

The searches you cite for not allowing "crap" happen to be coordinated with a common goal. 15k.org was designed to track progress on k's, not to achieve some goal or compete with some other project. I don't get this mindset at all. I happen to care about k=5 because smaller k's are faster to run, and all other k<31 are reserved. I see no reason whatsoever to argue about 243, when so many other k's in that vicinity are unreserved. Again, you wish to be combative, and I don't get it. GIMPS, in fact, allows 120 days from last contact before releasing an exponent, while simply checking in will keep it assigned to you indefinitely, even if you're not making progress. You cite that project as the gold standard, yet it's quite simple to have a reservation of a single candidate reserved for years.

Finally, without digging up a good number of Shane's old posts, you truly have no idea why the original 15k project "failed", as you put it. Implying a lack of leadership doomed it shows nothing more than your desire to attack kosmaj. You and Karsten have put much work into areas this project was not originally designed for; suggesting that your branching out was the only thing that kept it alive is preposterous. The k<300 page has more active reservations now than ever before, and the overall effort is more active than ever. Your interests in small primes and large regions suit your goals, but not RPS'-- why do you blame him for not sharing your goals? Go find the original statement of purpose thread, somewhere at the bottom. Kosmaj maintains the k<300 page, period. That is his service to the community- no more, no less.

I ramble, but too many things about gary's vent rubbed me the wrong way.
-Curtis

p.s. I suggest you calculate sieve depth for 33M candidates. I'll assume you were not sarcastic toward my intent to sieve to 10M, though I'm not sure what else that paragraph could have been. The things you suggest require resources beyond even sheep's.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 18:19   #17
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5·13·157 Posts
Default 10M sieve clarification

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
p.s. I suggest you calculate sieve depth for 33M candidates. I'll assume you were not sarcastic toward my intent to sieve to 10M, though I'm not sure what else that paragraph could have been. The things you suggest require resources beyond even sheep's.
I'll respond to the rest of your post separately. I just wanted to clarify this one. No sarcasm intended at all on the depth to 10M. Quite the contrary, I'm duely impressed that you would want to take on such a large range to sieve.

Going after 10M-digit primes was somewhat of a joke but I was a bit serious too. It would be cool to do but it simply takes to much in the way of resources. Just for grins, I may do a quick sieve on k=3 around n=33.22M to P=10M and pick an appropriate candidate and let it LLR for an hour or two while LLR displays the iterations every 10K or so. I'll be curious to know how long it would take to test a single candidate at such a high n. It should be easy to calculate after a few thousand iterations.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2007-08-30 at 18:19
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 20:12   #18
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

237358 Posts
Default Responses

Well maybe everything about mine rubbed you the wrong way but everything about Kosmaj's post got under my skin and it was the final straw! Responses...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> I left in the parts I find most objectionable. Gary, you are simply less patient than the rest of us. <<
No, it's not that I'm less patient then the rest of us. It's just that I'm the only who has the nerve to speak up about things that have gone dormant.

How many people said 'I agree' when I started this thread? At least 2 that I counted and then Karsten chimed in agreeing that a time-limit is needed so that makes 3. Maybe you and Kosmaj are the only ones that disagree about a need for a time-limit on dormant reservations.

And look what Karsten said about dormant k's when he came here? He said there were many reserved k's that had had no activity since 2004 and 2005. THAT is exactly why we need time-limits!

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
it is not the case that the k=5 situation is ridiculous, nor that kosmaj should be blamed. I emailed phil in early august, not knowing kosmaj had also. August is a time of vacation in France, and it is common for people to be on holiday for weeks at a time;
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> Further, it is perfectly reasonable for him to not answer email in order received when he returned. I had planned a followup email in a week or two, followed by a request similar to that you made to move k=5 out of reserved status.
This doesn't hold water. It's been perhaps 2 years since a status and over 3 years since a reported prime. Even if there's a 1-year holiday in France, he should have been followed up with over a year ago and should have reported his status long before he went on holiday. Had it only been 6 months, I agree that this is where judgment comes in. If a person hasn't reported a status in that time-frame and there is a known holiday in the country that they live in, then of course we give them additional time...just not 2 years!

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> Kosmaj's email indicates he also cared enough to make an effort to find out if Phil cared about further work on k=5; that does not mean he felt compelled to announce its release. <<
Why doesn't it compel him to release it? Was he waiting for Bo or Benson to start finding primes on it before he finally released it? I'm utterly amazed that no one has found another prime on it. Perhaps someone LLR'd it to n=1M or more and finally gave up after finding no primes. There's no way to know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> You do not have to be convinced his methods are correct, but why attack him? Why rub it in that most of us feel 5 should be released? Is there some personal victory to be won over kosmaj? <<
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> Finally, without digging up a good number of Shane's old posts, you truly have no idea why the original 15k project "failed", as you put it. Implying a lack of leadership doomed it shows nothing more than your desire to attack kosmaj. <<
No need to dig up the old posts and no personal victory at all needed. Yes, I misplaced the attack by blaming the 15k failure on bad leadership. My apologies for that comment but everything else still stands. Regardless, yes, I did attack. I'm tired of him following me around questioning what I'm doing at every turn and letting k's languish with no follow-up. My feeling is that instead of questioning me so frequently, he should be using that time to follow-up on dormant k's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> The searches you cite for not allowing "crap" happen to be coordinated with a common goal. 15k.org was designed to track progress on k's, not to achieve some goal or compete with some other project. I don't get this mindset at all. I happen to care about k=5 because smaller k's are faster to run, and all other k<31 are reserved. I see no reason whatsoever to argue about 243, when so many other k's in that vicinity are unreserved. Again, you wish to be combative, and I don't get it.
Since when have we not been competing with other projects? All over the threads here, I see, oh...that's prime #300 or #400 or we're 3th or 4th in most primes on top-5000, etc., etc., etc. Kosmaj would just as soon I contribute to the distributed k's so that we can get more top-5000 primes! You're right, I do compete, but you're mistaking something here. I don't compete for the most # of large primes. I compete in the same way that Karsten does. That is to have the most comprehensive and accurate list of Riesel primes anywhere on the world wide web! If we sieve and LLR k=5 to at least n=1.5M and k=243 consecutively to around k=800K, then that would go a long way towards accomplishing that at this point anyway. I hope that clarifies my way of competing.

Siting that other projects having a singular goal as a reason not to follow-up with people is, well, what are the words that you're fond of using?...pure folly! We are now a coordinated effort but we so happen to have MANY different goals unlike most other coordianted efforts. But that does not make it justifiable to let things sit around dormant.

And further...the reasoning that you both site for allowing a k to sit dormant, that is that there are 'plenty' of k's to search, is a logical fallacy. It's an infinite project but the fact is that we are continually filling 'holes' in the project. When a hole gets too big, action is needed regardless of the infinite other k's and ranges that can be searched. k=5 is by far the most glaring hole that needs to be filled with k=243 a distant second place. The lower the k, the higher that they must be searched to keep the holes filled because lower k's take less time. After all, isn't that why Kosmaj started distributed efforts on k=15, 17, and 105? And I'm really grateful that there is a distributed effort on k=3. There's way too much potential in that one to be sieved by a single individual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
GIMPS, in fact, allows 120 days from last contact before releasing an exponent, while simply checking in will keep it assigned to you indefinitely, even if you're not making progress. You cite that project as the gold standard, yet it's quite simple to have a reservation of a single candidate reserved for years.
Yes, but you are forced to check in at 120 days. Any checking system can be sabatoged in the manner that you describe. Even if we instituted a 6-month rule here, a person could keep saying that the next range is in 'progress'. But at some point, someone would need to step in and do something. At GIMPS, I would guess that someone at the site would start manually following up after a certain point, I'm guessing maybe 18-24 months. But that's just the point, they have a follow-up system. That's all I'm asking for here...That people check in.

Where I'm coming from on this is the mindset of where I work. That is that we work with a purpose and with urgency to get the job done in a reasonable amount of time and done correctly the first time we do it! (Hence why I'm so adament on accuracy with double-checking.) When things don't get done, we find out why. If it were up to me, I would expect a status report every 3 months on all of everyone's k's. It doesn't take but 5 minutes to do this. So 6 months has to be a happy medium, especially since GIMPS allows 4 months.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> You and Karsten have put much work into areas this project was not originally designed for; suggesting that your branching out was the only thing that kept it alive is preposterous.
I never said I had anything to do with keeping the project alive. I said it was Karsten who kept it alive! I do think we both have injected a lot of passion into the project but he started it many months before I arrived.

This effort had already been expanded long before I got here. Karsten did that when he took it upon himself to get as much info. about all k's that he could...ranges, weights, SG's, twins, a link to last reported activity, etc., etc. Wow; amazing...kudos to him! He is working with that sense of urgency and accuracy that makes things great and I'm happy to feed him as much info. as he can handle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
>> The k<300 page has more active reservations now than ever before, and the overall effort is more active than ever. Your interests in small primes and large regions suit your goals, but not RPS'-- why do you blame him for not sharing your goals? Go find the original statement of purpose thread, somewhere at the bottom. Kosmaj maintains the k<300 page, period. That is his service to the community- no more, no less. <<
Yes and quite some time back, I mentioned that the k < 300 site is a beautiful piece of work. But small 'uglinesses' have crept in like k=5 and k=243 and they need to be rectified.

That's awesome that so much work is now being done on Riesels < 300! I'm sure there are many reasons but Kosmaj's distributed searches I'm sure are a factor. Great job!

What I think is really bothering me here is that it appears like we use the same mentality for k < 300 that was originally developed way back as we now do for k > 300 since the effort has expanded. I don't think we can do that. There are many gaps and holes and dormant reservations on many k's. You can get away with allowing a few things like that to slide for k < 300 because it's such a limited range but allowing it to happen for k > 300 makes a big mess of things that quickly get out of date.

I'm interested in all sizes of primes, not just small ones. Small ones just happen to be faster to find and I don't want to 'leave a mess' behind by starting at n=333K on k's without a concurrent effort to search up to that point going on like I am doing now. I also like taking on new and different kinds of efforts that have not been so extensively searched by others. I also needed time to find the most efficient ways to sieve and search for higher primes. And I want to thank you, Curtis, for showing me some things!


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2007-08-30 at 20:19
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-30, 22:34   #19
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

2·1,811 Posts
Default

Gary, I don't intend to discuss anything with you in this way. You came here 3 months ago without a clue, and now you telling us what to do, and even flaming. Think about it.
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-08-31, 19:00   #20
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5·13·157 Posts
Default Facts and questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosmaj View Post
Gary, I don't intend to discuss anything with you in this way. You came here 3 months ago without a clue, and now you telling us what to do, and even flaming. Think about it.
Kosmaj,

Once again, I want to apologize again for the statement about former leadership at 15k. I was out of line there.

Can we now focus on the facts about the situation? I'll state only facts as I understand them in a numbered list. No opinions or questions until after the final numbered item.

1. This effort was expanded beyond it's original intent quite a while before I got here. I believe its intent when it was moved here was for k < 300, 15k, low-weight, and high-weight. So when I got here, it apparently was in a transitional phase or perhaps that phase was over.

2. We have 10's or possibly up to 100 k's greater than k=300 that are reserved but have had no status since 2006; some longer. A small sampling of these include k=23437, 67773, 2308121, 4278899, 4471935, 7753875, 8331405, 11955659, 14961487, 19370947, 39418665, etc.

3. Karsten has stated that he saw many k's from the prior 15k effort that had no activity from 2004 and 2005 and agrees that a 6-month time-frame is needed.

4. Two others agreed that we need to search k=5 even though it was still showing reserved. There wasn't specific clarification on whether they thought a 6-month rule is needed but I think a reasonable person could infer such. I could send them a PM to clarify for sure.

5. When we don't pursue dormant k's, then other efforts are more likely to find the primes before us, especially for k < 300. This is a given by default.

6. When we allow others to find the primes before us, we frequently are not sure what ranges have been searched causing us a possible large amount of double-checking of ranges already searched and no additional primes. I found this out on k=289 and I see some other 'questions' about searched ranges on older reserved k's in some threads here.

7. When we don't pursue dormant k's, then relavent prior information about search ranges can be lost, causing us double-work. Once again a given by default.

I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else what to do. That's exactly what has frustrated me with your comments in the past so if you or anyone else feels that way, then I have presented myself incorrectly (which wouldn't be a first). Of course I want to see holes filled and have attempted to fill them when I can. I've attempted a dialog on reserved low-weights with SB2 with no success after an initial response that gave no detail. I've attempted contact twice on k=243 with no success. I'm not just going about and searching people's reserved k's without a reasonable attempt at contact (561K-562K range on 5th drive taught me a lesson). But when I hear that we should just let the reserved k's go because there are other k's to search, then I get 'flamed' after it happens enough times and I get asked 'why am I suddenly interested in so-and-so'. That's where I'm coming from.

OK, opinion now...
I feel that we're missing some things in the big picture of our entire effort as it exists now. We're no longer just k < 300, high-weight, low-weight, and 15k. I really feel (rightfully or wrongfully) that some things need to be tended to. As crazy as it may sound, I just want what is best for RPS in the long-run.

But forget my opinions. Like you implied, I'm in no position to tell you or anyone else what to do. Let's just look at some questions about the facts of the situation and one opinion for you:

1. Would you agree that other efforts will find primes before we do, especially on k < 300, if we don't tend to our dormant reserved k's?

2. Would you agree that it is sometimes difficult to know what ranges are searched when others find primes before us causing us much double-checking?

3. Would you agree that documentation about searched ranges can be lost if we let k's sit dormant for too long?

4. Would you agree that it doesn't look very good to have dormant reserved k's sitting around for a very long time?

If you would be kind enough to answer those questions, then maybe we can go foward from there.


Thanks,
Gary
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-03, 11:33   #21
fatphil
 
fatphil's Avatar
 
May 2003

3·7·11 Posts
Default

Apologies, I've been away for a while. Alas I am unable to find any records of the range that I searched. I didn't do it on my machine, but on a machine I bought for a friend, and she's unable to find any records at all on her machine. I can't even find any progress report emails from her either. Consider the range yours. Apologies for the delay.
fatphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-09-03, 13:05   #22
Kosmaj
 
Kosmaj's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

362210 Posts
Default Phil

Thank you for your mail. No problems about missing reports. But you did it to 470k as you reported to Keller, right?
Kosmaj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reservations ET_ Operazione Doppi Mersennes 489 2020-09-19 14:24
Reservations? R.D. Silverman NFS@Home 15 2015-11-29 23:18
Reservations R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 15 2011-03-04 21:01
Expiring policy for V5 Server lycorn PrimeNet 16 2008-10-12 22:35
Reservation policy gd_barnes Riesel Prime Search 6 2007-10-01 18:52

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:18.

Sun Sep 27 08:18:26 UTC 2020 up 17 days, 5:29, 0 users, load averages: 1.85, 1.63, 1.46

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.