![]() |
|
|
#628 | |
|
May 2008
Wilmington, DE
22·23·31 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#629 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
11000110101002 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#630 | |
|
May 2008
Wilmington, DE
1011001001002 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#631 |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
22·7·227 Posts |
I missed putting that into the post. No primes below n=25000. Thanks for the catch.
Last fiddled with by rogue on 2010-06-25 at 21:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
#632 |
|
I quite division it
"Chris"
Feb 2005
England
31×67 Posts |
R636 tested to 50k and released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#633 |
|
Jun 2008
Wollongong, .au
101101112 Posts |
Slightly strange situation, any advice would be helpful.
I'm taking R603 to n=25K, and checked in on the pfgw.out file and pfgw.log files. pfgw.out hasn't been updated in about a fortnight, and despite pfgw grinding through the file, no results are being recorded. The pfgw.out file is 4,060,606 bytes (I have no idea if there is a maximum filesize, after which is chokes.) I have stopped and restarted, moved the pfgw.out file away in an attempt to get it to start a new file afresh, to no effect. So, should I go back and start fresh from the last line recorded in the pfgw.out file, or trust that it will have recorded the prps to pfgw.log. (There are primes in that file that are past the cutoff from pfgw.out.) Thanks in advance. EDIT: I have stopped and restarted, and it appears to be happy again. However, I'm now missing residues and results for approx n=17K to n=21K. Should I re-run that segment? Last fiddled with by paleseptember on 2010-06-28 at 05:17 |
|
|
|
|
|
#634 | |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
242568 Posts |
Quote:
I would definitely rerun that range. There could have been some primes in there. If it wasn't writing to pfgw.out then it might not have written a prime to pfgw.log. Rerun it by making a copy of your sieve file, change it to a different name, and remove the lines at the beginning that are already processed. Keep in mind that it won't remember which k's had primes. To have it not process those, you can do 1 of these 2 things: 1. Use srfile to remove the primed k's from the copied sieve file. 2. Manually write all the primes at the beginning of your copied sieve file. It will find them prime again and so won't search the k's anymore. You'll just need to remove the duplicated primes from pfgw.log when you are done. I find it easier to do #2, especially if the sieve file is big or there are a lot of primes. Gary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#635 |
|
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
133778 Posts |
Is your filesystem FAT32? I believe that there is a 4Gb file size limit there. Change to NTFS and the problem would be solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#636 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
2·41·127 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#637 |
|
May 2007
Kansas; USA
1041410 Posts |
Reserving S579 and S875 to n=25K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#638 | |
|
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
22·7·227 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Bases 33-100 reservations/statuses/primes | Siemelink | Conjectures 'R Us | 1694 | 2021-08-06 20:41 |
| Bases 6-32 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 1398 | 2021-08-06 12:49 |
| Riesel base 3 reservations/statuses/primes | KEP | Conjectures 'R Us | 1108 | 2021-08-04 18:49 |
| Bases 251-500 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 2305 | 2021-08-04 15:09 |
| Bases 101-250 reservations/statuses/primes | gd_barnes | Conjectures 'R Us | 908 | 2021-08-01 07:48 |