Sieving drive for k=301-400 n=1M-2M - Page 4

vaughan · 2010-02-25, 02:49

Mini-Geek your reply worked, thanks.

I forgot the step to change the run.txt to run.bat

Doh! Newbie siever error.

@Gary: I decided to run the 1T sieve range on an X2-6000 running 64-bit Windows XP so it will be quicker than the X2-4600 with Win XP 32-bit that we discussed.

gd_barnes · 2010-02-26, 13:14

Vaughan reported completion of his P=104T-108T range on Feb. 19th and 108T-112T On Feb. 24th.

vaughan · 2010-02-27, 00:28

Update: 0.5T ETA March 3 and the other 0.5T ETA March 5. The second half T got delayed a little as the computer was also running some BOINC RNA @ Home work.

VBCurtis · 2010-03-02, 07:26

Gary-
Geoff stopped developing sr2sieve, and no speed gains have been made in nearly half a year. Expecting speed gains commensurate with the previous low-hanging fruit is a little optimistic.
I'm surprised LLR 3.8 is 6-10% slower than 3.7!!! Though maybe M.D. meant increase in speed, rather than increase in testing time; either way, I thought it only helped non-base-2 exponents. I look forward to trying it myself, now that I have a reason.
Good luck with the new work, gentlemen.
-Curtis

mdettweiler · 2010-03-02, 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

I'm surprised LLR 3.8 is 6-10% slower than 3.7!!! Though maybe M.D. meant increase in speed, rather than increase in testing time; either way, I thought it only helped non-base-2 exponents. I look forward to trying it myself, now that I have a reason.

Yes, that's what I meant. Other bases have about a 300% improvement over 3.7.1c, though base 2 is not entirely left in the dust.

gd_barnes · 2010-03-02, 08:14

And I quote:

"Even if LLR has only added 10% or whatever to its speed"

Isn't added speed the same as increased speed? lol

And further, I wasn't referring to LLR 3.8 vs. 3.7.1. I don't see 3.8 or 3.7.1 anywhere in that post.

I was referring to the increased speed of LLR in general over the last 3 years, regardless of what versions have come out in that time. In stating that, I was intentionally understating its increased speed over such a time interval; hence the use of the phrase "Even if LLR has only".

VBCurtis · 2010-03-03, 08:32

Gary-
Read the post directly before the one you quoted yourself on. That contains the details I was replying to, and thus the cause of your confusion.
-Curtis

gd_barnes · 2010-03-03, 23:04

P=113T-117T is complete. P=117T-125T will be done early on the 5th.

Reserving P=125T-140T for 2 quads and an I7. Man, that I7 is good for this stuff! :-) ETA is likely to be about the 17th but I'll check that more exactly when P=117T-125T is done.

We'll stop sieving there and start the drive.

gd_barnes · 2010-03-05, 21:43

P=117T-125T is complete.

Vaughn also reported completion of P=112T-113T a couple of days ago.

The exact ETA on P=125T-140T is March 15th.

After that, we'll be ready to roll with the drive!

gd_barnes · 2010-03-21, 01:14

p=125T-140T was complete on March 14th. I'm just now getting to culling all the factors off of my cores and removing factors from the file.

I will start the new drive late tonight U.S.

2010-02-25, 02:49	#34
vaughan Jan 2005 Sydney, Australia 14F₁₆ Posts	Mini-Geek your reply worked, thanks. I forgot the step to change the run.txt to run.bat Doh! Newbie siever error. @Gary: I decided to run the 1T sieve range on an X2-6000 running 64-bit Windows XP so it will be quicker than the X2-4600 with Win XP 32-bit that we discussed. Last fiddled with by vaughan on 2010-02-25 at 02:52

2010-03-03, 23:04	#41
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³×5×7×11 Posts	P=113T-117T is complete. P=117T-125T will be done early on the 5th. Reserving P=125T-140T for 2 quads and an I7. Man, that I7 is good for this stuff! :-) ETA is likely to be about the 17th but I'll check that more exactly when P=117T-125T is done. We'll stop sieving there and start the drive. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2010-03-03 at 23:18

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GPU sieving drive part III: k<10000 n=3M-6M	mdettweiler	No Prime Left Behind	19	2011-02-17 21:13
GPU sieving drive part II: k<10000 n=2M-3M	mdettweiler	No Prime Left Behind	44	2010-11-28 10:59
Bigger and better GPU sieving drive: Discussion	henryzz	No Prime Left Behind	75	2010-10-31 16:51
GPU sieving drive for k<=1001 n=1M-2M	mdettweiler	No Prime Left Behind	11	2010-10-04 22:45
Sieving drive for k=2000-3400 n=50K-1M	gd_barnes	No Prime Left Behind	145	2009-06-23 18:28

2010-02-26, 13:14	#35
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 289B₁₆ Posts	Vaughan reported completion of his P=104T-108T range on Feb. 19th and 108T-112T On Feb. 24th.

2010-02-27, 00:28	#36
vaughan Jan 2005 Sydney, Australia 5·67 Posts	Update: 0.5T ETA March 3 and the other 0.5T ETA March 5. The second half T got delayed a little as the computer was also running some BOINC RNA @ Home work.

2010-03-02, 07:26	#37
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	Gary- Geoff stopped developing sr2sieve, and no speed gains have been made in nearly half a year. Expecting speed gains commensurate with the previous low-hanging fruit is a little optimistic. I'm surprised LLR 3.8 is 6-10% slower than 3.7!!! Though maybe M.D. meant increase in speed, rather than increase in testing time; either way, I thought it only helped non-base-2 exponents. I look forward to trying it myself, now that I have a reason. Good luck with the new work, gentlemen. -Curtis

2010-03-02, 08:14	#39
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³×5×7×11 Posts	And I quote: "Even if LLR has only added 10% or whatever to its speed" Isn't added speed the same as increased speed? lol And further, I wasn't referring to LLR 3.8 vs. 3.7.1. I don't see 3.8 or 3.7.1 anywhere in that post. I was referring to the increased speed of LLR in general over the last 3 years, regardless of what versions have come out in that time. In stating that, I was intentionally understating its increased speed over such a time interval; hence the use of the phrase "Even if LLR has only".

2010-03-03, 08:32	#40
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	Gary- Read the post directly before the one you quoted yourself on. That contains the details I was replying to, and thus the cause of your confusion. -Curtis

2010-03-05, 21:43	#42
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³·5·7·11 Posts	P=117T-125T is complete. Vaughn also reported completion of P=112T-113T a couple of days ago. The exact ETA on P=125T-140T is March 15th. After that, we'll be ready to roll with the drive!

2010-03-21, 01:14	#43
gd_barnes May 2007 Kansas; USA 3³·5·7·11 Posts	p=125T-140T was complete on March 14th. I'm just now getting to culling all the factors off of my cores and removing factors from the file. I will start the new drive late tonight U.S.