mersenneforum.org Wilson-prime search practicalities
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2011-09-03, 19:25 #12 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2·7·461 Posts Those are figures starting from zero; I think the behaviour is a bit different with (for example) start=1e9 end=1e9+1e8 which I have just run four times, getting interval=10000: 23287.8 seconds (lots of blocks) interval=100000: 5348.9 seconds (about 60 blocks) interval=1000000: 2816 seconds (seven blocks) interval=10000000: 2162.8 seconds (three blocks) start=1e11, end=1e11+1e9, interval=1e8 (i.e. very much larger than the ~40 million primes in the range, of which we never look at more than half at once) took 22489 seconds for the first chunk, which was all the 5-mod-12 primes (whereas interval=1e6 took 13169 seconds for about 10% of the 5-mod-12 primes); quite a lot of RAM (up to 3.3 gigabytes), but I have quite a lot of RAM so that's OK. start=5e10, end=6e10, interval=4e7 is taking up to 3.6 gigabytes at times and hasn't yet finished an interval; this would suggest that interval=2e8, which would hold all the primes and finish the job in three bites, would take about twenty gigabytes. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-03 at 19:47
2011-09-03, 20:59   #13
R. Gerbicz

"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary

112×13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MrRepunit Not irrelevant, but there is an optimal value of the interval. Here are my timings: pmax interval seconds 5000000 2000000 69 5000000 1000000 66 5000000 500000 64 5000000 100000 73 5000000 50000 61 5000000 10000 44 5000000 5000 42 5000000 1000 52 You can see that the optimal interval value is always 1/1000 of the upper boundary.
Yes, there is obviously an optimal interval. These are really small tests, the times are very close: [42,73] sec., and this is due to the fast calculation of n! mod T^2.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fivemack start=1e11, end=1e11+1e9, interval=1e8 (i.e. very much larger than the ~40 million primes in the range, of which we never look at more than half at once) took 22489 seconds for the first chunk, which was all the 5-mod-12 primes (whereas interval=1e6 took 13169 seconds for about 10% of the 5-mod-12 primes); quite a lot of RAM (up to 3.3 gigabytes), but I have quite a lot of RAM so that's OK.
The code uses O(log(en)*interval) memory; yes the test uses about ~20 million primes of that range for p==1 mod 3, so the product tree holds only the product of ~20 million primes. But you will see (much) larger product tress in this test also because when when we calulcate the tail of the (p-1)! mod p^2 the "func" calculates the product of approx. "interval"/2 consecutive integers with product tree.

Thanks for your times, those gives that an interval of k*1e7 for these high p values (p>>1e10) uses a little less than k GB of RAM.

Last fiddled with by R. Gerbicz on 2011-09-03 at 21:03 Reason: grammar

 2011-09-04, 07:33 #14 rajula     "Tapio Rajala" Feb 2010 Finland 32×5×7 Posts Now that we have some coordination: I'll check the range 6e10 to 7e10. I decided to collect the data (at least temporarily) on this web page so as to give an easier reference for the reservations and results. If you come up with more appropriate place (a dedicated and updated thread here? Or another place where other results are also gathered?) I'll remove that page.
 2011-09-04, 09:54 #15 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2×7×461 Posts I am currently also doing 100G .. 102G (might as well do my calibration runs in useful territory); 100G-101G is currently in the final stage, writing out about an 80M range of residues every eleven minutes with 600M to go. Reserve 102G-110G also. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-04 at 10:10
 2011-09-04, 10:45 #16 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 144668 Posts got one! 100660783343 -1+87p (100G..101G complete, took 79427.6 seconds utime and 3.647G maximum memory, using interval size '1e8' i.e. whole interval at once, on one core of 1.9GHz Magny Cours) Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-04 at 12:11
 2011-09-06, 07:38 #17 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2·7·461 Posts 101G-102G complete; 200194.42 seconds on one core of 1.9GHz Magny Cours, using interval 4e6 (11 blocks). Maximum memory usage 0.397GB. No interesting primes found. Code: Testing p=101000000051...101405292671, p==11 mod 12, time=131 sec. 35080 Testing p=101000000011...101202702379, p==1 mod 3, time=35211 sec. 10799 Testing p=101000000033...101405467049, p==5 mod 12, time=46010 sec. 19699 Testing p=101202702439...101405417359, p==1 mod 3, time=65679 sec. 12196 Testing p=101405292839...101810835047, p==11 mod 12, time=77875 sec. 40467 Testing p=101405417539...101608187797, p==1 mod 3, time=118342 sec. 11902 Testing p=101405467061...101811138809, p==5 mod 12, time=130244 sec. 18794 Testing p=101608187887...101810900473, p==1 mod 3, time=149038 sec. 11539 Testing p=101810835143...101999999987, p==11 mod 12, time=160577 sec. 25263 Testing p=101810900479...101999999923, p==1 mod 3, time=185840 sec. 11258 Testing p=101811138917...101999999897, p==5 mod 12, time=197098 sec. 12504 Done the st=101000000000-en=102000000000 interval. Time=209602 sec. 200194.42user 1538.25system 58:13:21elapsed 96%CPU Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-06 at 07:45
2011-09-06, 10:20   #18
R. Gerbicz

"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary

112·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fivemack 101G-102G complete; 200194.42 seconds on one core of 1.9GHz Magny Cours, using interval 4e6 (11 blocks). Maximum memory usage 0.397GB. No interesting primes found.
Thanks, your table also shows the speed ratio is somewhat close to the theoretical ratio: 1:2:3 for different type of primes.
(Don't see the last three blocks, because in those there are less than "interval" primes.)

Last fiddled with by R. Gerbicz on 2011-09-06 at 10:33

 2011-09-06, 17:57 #19 rajula     "Tapio Rajala" Feb 2010 Finland 4738 Posts First (near) hit here: 60373446719 -1-48pMy new (cheap) computer should arrive soon so I can use more than just my laptop to this and other things...
 2011-09-06, 19:03 #20 MrRepunit     Mar 2011 Germany 97 Posts I also found a few more: 12896325149 -1+86p 13286279999 -1+52p 21950810731 -1+93p 23607097193 -1+97p 41659815553 -1+55p 42647052491 -1+10p Still the range is not completed yet...
 2011-09-06, 22:50 #21 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 144668 Posts Reserve 110G..111G for further calibration exercise: how does interval=2e7 behave differently memory-wise from interval=1e8 when both are larger than the total number of primes? Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-06 at 22:52
 2011-09-06, 23:38 #22 Jeff Gilchrist     Jun 2003 Ottawa, Canada 117310 Posts I would like to help out with the search. You guys are taking R. Gerbicz's code and compiling it, but what command line parameters are you using? I see talk about different ranges are better for things, but if you have core2 based CPUs what would the best settings be? Did I see that someone said it is better to run it on 1 core because running it on multiple ends up being the same speed?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MooooMoo Twin Prime Search 115 2010-08-29 17:38 Kosmaj Riesel Prime Search 7 2007-07-13 22:15 Kosmaj Riesel Prime Search 6 2006-11-21 15:19 David John Hill Jr Science & Technology 2 2006-05-10 14:10 bouayoun Math 3 2004-03-12 18:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:39.

Fri Aug 12 00:39:27 UTC 2022 up 35 days, 19:26, 2 users, load averages: 0.97, 1.08, 1.19