20090109, 10:21  #122 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
23777_{8} Posts 

20090109, 13:47  #123  
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
100000011101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
http://stats4.freedc.org/stats.php?...name=gd_barnes 

20090109, 13:58  #124 
I ♥ BOINC!
Oct 2002
Glendale, AZ. (USA)
3·7·53 Posts 
copy /b part1 + part2 + part3 file.ext
Brrrrrrrrrrr Carlos! Last fiddled with by IronBits on 20090109 at 13:58 
20090109, 14:00  #125 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
1011001101110_{2} Posts 
this drive is convicing me that we need a kind of score system for llrnet results
with this drive i have jumped from 2 primes to over 10 with very little effort also my number of pairs tested has rocketed 
20090109, 21:10  #126  
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
1100001100001_{2} Posts 
Quote:
One quick question: would you prefer the results for each 100k range sorted by k or by n within that krange? My scripts are designed to sort by n, but I should be able to modify them to sort by k if need be. Of course, even if I do end up sorting them by n, I'd still have to resort the sieve file...so, I'm going to end up having to change *something* either way. Though, of course, either modification should be pretty easy, so I'm fine with either way. 

20090109, 23:19  #127  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
23777_{8} Posts 
Quote:
Gary 

20090109, 23:27  #128 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×3,413 Posts 
Guys, don't get too excited about this score thing for all the results and primes for this effort.
The scoring should be far lower for each pair and prime. Actually, it needs to be the same as calculated on the top5000 site. That is: A result at n=600K should score 36 times as much as a result at n=100K. A prime at n=600K should score 216 times as much as a prime at n=100K. That is correct, it takes 216 times as much CPU time to find a prime at n=600K vs. 100K and 36 times as much CPU time to process a result at n=600K vs. 100K. That said, don't pull any machines off. I just wanted to point out that while this is a fun effort, it shouldn't score any higher than other efforts for the amount of CPU time expended. Gary 
20090110, 02:31  #129 
May 2007
Minnesota USA
61_{8} Posts 
I added one core for a couple of days for a little of this fast fun.

20090110, 05:36  #130 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
79^{2} Posts 
Okay, thanksI'll get the results processed tomorrow (probably late afternoon or evening). Feel free to bug me if they're still not done by Sunday morning.

20090110, 06:23  #131  
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3·3,413 Posts 
Quote:
By midday Sunday, we'll be done up to k=1200. If you wait until then, you may as well do k=10001200. lol 

20090110, 06:32  #132 
May 2007
Kansas; USA
3×3,413 Posts 
Moved discussion about the weather to a separate thread.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team drive #10 k=14002000 n=500K1M  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  61  20130130 16:08 
Team drive #12 k=20003000 n=50K425K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  96  20120219 03:53 
Team drive #11 k=20003000 n=425K600K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  42  20101119 10:42 
Team drive #8 k=14002000 n=350K500K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  101  20090408 02:11 
Sieving drive for k=10052000 n=200K500K  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  118  20090117 16:05 