20080325, 20:39  #12  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
1869_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20080325, 20:43  #13 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
3·2,083 Posts 
Those of you who liked the teamsieve thing we did for this doublecheck effort might want to check out the new Sierpinski Base 6 Team Sieve at Conjectures 'R Us. It's just like the one we did for this doublecheck effort, except that of course it's doing different numbers.

20080325, 23:04  #14 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
6249_{10} Posts 
Taking 401405.

20080326, 06:40  #15 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×3,361 Posts 
If people wouldn't mind posting the approximate CPU time that it takes to complete a 3krange and the CPU being used, that would help us in case we need to increase or decrease future file sizes. I kind of cringed when I saw some 25000 k/n pair files but I have to remember that the nrange is much lower and that is certainly the exception. But the average CPU time may be more like a drive 3 n=2K file at n=420K, the last one before we dropped the file size to n=1K.
There may be some 3kranges that have 2 very heavyweight k's and we may want to post only a 2krange for it or viceversa for 2 very lightweight k's. The variability becomes greater as the kvalues increase so shouldn't be as much of a problem for k<400. Gary 
20080326, 11:23  #16  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
1000010101011_{2} Posts 
Quote:
I've reserved two ranges, one with ~12K candidates, and one with ~25K. At the current rate for the smaller file, it would be 3.26 days, but it will be slowing as n increases (currently at n=~135700 and ~30 seconds per candidate at 7K used FFT). For the larger file, it's currently coming out to 4.82 days, but of course will slow as well (currently n=~124400, switching between ~20 and ~27 seconds with switching between 6K and 7K FFTs). I think it's still too early to tell if the files are too large or not. Last fiddled with by MiniGeek on 20080326 at 11:27 

20080326, 13:35  #17 
Mar 2006
Germany
2764_{10} Posts 
reserving 2125

20080326, 18:59  #18  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×3,361 Posts 
Quote:
It's actually more complicated then that and related to FFTlen jumps but it should give a close estimate because over the long run LLR time DOES increase with the square of the nrange. I'll have a try at some calculations. Gary 

20080326, 19:50  #19  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3·3,361 Posts 
Quote:
Therefore: You've tested 35700 / 160000 of your nrange or 22.31%. 22.31% of your total estimate of 3.26 days means you've spent 0.727388 of a day so far. So if you've spent 0.727388 of a day so far, using algebra and incremental analysis, we can calculate that it took you .001452 of a day (I'll call that 'T' for time) to do n=100000100100, T=.001455 to do n=100100100200, etc. with the length of time increasing by the square of n such that it would take you T=.002669 to do n=135600135700 with the total of T for all 100n ranges up to n=135700 being the 0.727388 days that you presumably spent for the range. Further incrementing and summing up to n=260K shows that it should take you 8.027126 days to do n=100K260K for a file with 12000 candidates with the final range of n=259900260000 taking .009814 of a day, assuming that you used the straight multiplication to give your original estiamte. Based on this, the 25000 candidate range should take 25000/12000 * 8.027126 = 16.72318 days. And further, the average file size currently posted is 19563 candidates. Based on that, the average file size should take 19563 / 12000 * 8.027126 = 13.08639 days. So, it looks like we're in the ballpark but a little large. I suspect that you have a highspeed machine so this average is somewhat larger than I would like but not too bad. If Anon wants to mess with it, if people with slower resources want to chip in and not spend up to 4 weeks on a file, then we could consider splitting up a file or two. And finally, to prove that the incremental analysis is correct using the beginning and ending increments, the final range should take (260/100)^2 or 6.76 times as long as the first range. If you take the ratio of the time calculated for the beginning and ending ranges, you have .009814 / 001452 = 6.76. So there you have it! Math is fun! You'll have to let me know how close this is to the actual amount of time taken for the files. Edit: I did this relatively quickly in an Excel spreadsheet but I'm pretty confident of its accuracy. But I have to mention that it's still only a relatively rough estimate because the true LLR times jump in fits and spurts. The spreadsheet is a little rough and hard to read but some people may find the algebra and formulas useful. If anyone wants me to post the spreadsheet, I will. Gary Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20080326 at 19:57 

20080326, 20:23  #20  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts 
Your extrapolation of my CPU time is practically precisely what I recorded. Task Manager told me it was ~17.5 CPU hours per instance when I did the things, and I could have made my calc's easier with using your reverseengineering. I calculated ([total pairs]/(([total pairs][pairs remaining])/[CPU hours]))/24=. For reference, yours would be 1/([completed n]/160000)*[CPU hours]/24=.
Mine would probably be a little more precise due to varying remaining pairs per n as n increases, but yours is far easier. Quote:
Quote:
Will do. I'll be sure to get the exact, or closest estimate, time each range finishes, and I can look back to when I reserved for very close estimates of when I started them. I might be able to get CPU time, too, but I'm not sure my computer won't be rebooted or I won't restart an LLR instance before then. 

20080326, 20:50  #21 
Sep 2004
2·5·283 Posts 
What about CPU timings?
With a quadcore overclocked to 2.968 GHz: Code:
27*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B033EEE9274FF1F1 Time : 7.786 sec. 29*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: 7DF93B2FC5EF6077 Time : 7.785 sec. 27*2^1000121 is not prime. LLR Res64: 69F091E95935EE0E Time : 7.797 sec. 27*2^1000131 is not prime. LLR Res64: CDAAE5C5F00C6FF5 Time : 7.794 sec. 31*2^1000191 is not prime. LLR Res64: 418D2ADE4901D642 Time : 7.807 sec. 31*2^1000391 is not prime. LLR Res64: FB1F60CAE7646CB3 Time : 7.779 sec. 31*2^1000611 is not prime. LLR Res64: 780E5645B0395BA2 Time : 7.779 sec. 31*2^1001291 is not prime. LLR Res64: CD3F553F0B3B61B4 Time : 7.808 sec. 27*2^1001331 is not prime. LLR Res64: 0E506AE171784315 Time : 7.847 sec. 27*2^2599521 is not prime. LLR Res64: A1E5B8F7FD1C606A Time : 52.654 sec. 27*2^2599731 is not prime. LLR Res64: 5036B0FD0DFDBE74 Time : 52.588 sec. 31*2^2599751 is not prime. LLR Res64: D6A76B5B89DA91F8 Time : 52.493 sec. 27*2^2600001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B5D601E69D7F123F Time : 52.633 sec. 
20080326, 21:20  #22  
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
17×251 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
27*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B033EEE9274FF1F1 Time : 16.464 sec. 29*2^1000001 is not prime. LLR Res64: 7DF93B2FC5EF6077 Time : 16.583 sec. 27*2^1000121 is not prime. LLR Res64: 69F091E95935EE0E Time : 16.588 sec. 27*2^1000131 is not prime. LLR Res64: CDAAE5C5F00C6FF5 Time : 16.586 sec. 31*2^1000191 is not prime. LLR Res64: 418D2ADE4901D642 Time : 16.610 sec. 31*2^1000391 is not prime. LLR Res64: FB1F60CAE7646CB3 Time : 16.599 sec. 31*2^1000611 is not prime. LLR Res64: 780E5645B0395BA2 Time : 16.591 sec. 31*2^1001291 is not prime. LLR Res64: CD3F553F0B3B61B4 Time : 16.618 sec. 27*2^1001331 is not prime. LLR Res64: 0E506AE171784315 Time : 16.612 sec. 27*2^2599521 is not prime. LLR Res64: A1E5B8F7FD1C606A Time : 107.655 sec. 27*2^2599731 is not prime. LLR Res64: 5036B0FD0DFDBE74 Time : 107.636 sec. 31*2^2599751 is not prime. LLR Res64: D6A76B5B89DA91F8 Time : 107.720 sec. 27*2^2600001 is not prime. LLR Res64: B5D601E69D7F123F Time : 107.740 sec. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team drive #14: k=6001001 n=1M2M  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  9  20140902 01:21 
GPU sieving drive for k<=1001 n=1M2M  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  11  20101004 22:45 
Doublecheck drive #2: k=300400 n=260K600K  mdettweiler  No Prime Left Behind  0  20100521 00:22 
Team drive #3: k=300400 n=260K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  255  20081112 10:43 
Team drive #2: k=4001001 n=260K333.2K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  154  20080331 02:59 