![]() |
|
|
#12 |
|
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts |
I don't know how others see this, but IMHO editing someone's posting like this has a disadvantage: as long as no new post (e.g. by some third person) appears in the thread, one doesn't recognize the edit by just looking into the subforum.
I once spent almost two days waiting for an answer after I posted some issue (I don't remember what exactly it was) - I repeatedly clicked into the subforum, saw "no new post in the respective thread", and therefore thought "no use clicking into the thread" - until I found out that an answer has been edited into my posting into my posting just shortly after I posted the question. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2011-07-21 at 16:59 Reason: typo |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
After about a month running 48 threads at low priority on the 48-core machine, I've done the 80.0 - 89.6M region.
About 24000000 relations Reserving 89.6M - 100M |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
210 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
210 Posts |
Quote:
of 340M-350M is queued. I'll take the rest of the last, 350M-400M, which gets me somewhat past half of the sieving range. -Bruce (Just 100M-200M left open.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
144308 Posts |
You've probably already started 350-400, and that's not a problem, but I suspect we're not going to get another contributor and for pure tidiness it might be worth starting to work backwards from 200.
Would you mind trying an upload to ftp ssh.fivemack.org directory 7+374.sieve ? There's only 23GB free on that partition at the moment so it might not be enough space for everything you've done so far, but don't worry if you fill it. I'm only up to 95.589 at the moment - running on the idle time of 48 cores which aren't all that idle. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | ||
|
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
210 Posts |
Quote:
expecting additional contributors I might prefer to follow 350M-400M with 100M-150M, or perhaps 100M-170M, depending upon how much of 100M-200M I'd be running. Ah, looks like 100M-180M or maybe 100M-190M. That is to say, I'd be happier working up (rather than backwards!), and I'd prefer to avoid 190M-200M. -Bruce Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
With 80-95 + 200-300:
Thu Sep 15 20:04:54 2011 found 39492312 hash collisions in 284216780 relations Thu Sep 15 20:46:33 2011 found 29763638 duplicates and 254574782 unique relations Thu Sep 15 22:57:19 2011 begin with 254574782 relations and 355034161 unique ideals With 80-95 + 200-350: Fri Sep 16 03:17:37 2011 found 68933027 hash collisions in 398349772 relations Fri Sep 16 04:22:00 2011 found 53607920 duplicates and 344741852 unique relations Fri Sep 16 07:21:04 2011 begin with 344741852 relations and 401907781 unique ideals So 114 million lines got 90.1 million unique relations and 46.8 million extra ideals; the gap is closing well, the next 50MQ should get to an incredibly ugly and huge matrix, and the 50MQ after that ought to make the matrix tractable. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2011-09-16 at 09:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
100000000002 Posts |
Quote:
finishes. -Bruce (Leaving 170M-200M open if there's anyone that still wants a sample of the sieving, now that we can see the prospect of g197 sieving finishing on the horizon.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
11001000110002 Posts |
80-100 now complete; reserving 190-200, this ought to take less than the six weeks for 89.6-100 because I won't be running fifty aliquot sequences at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
191816 Posts |
With 220MQ (80-100 + 200-400), I got
Code:
Thu Sep 29 12:43:36 2011 found 105904252 hash collisions in 520302381 relations Thu Sep 29 18:06:12 2011 begin with 434853690 relations and 434086720 unique ideals Thu Sep 29 18:47:02 2011 reduce to 194156130 relations and 160378269 ideals in 28 passes Thu Sep 29 21:06:31 2011 memory use: 5512.0 MB Thu Sep 29 21:06:32 2011 reading all ideals from disk Thu Sep 29 21:07:20 2011 memory use: 8650.7 MB Thu Sep 29 21:09:18 2011 keeping 201969981 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 1017883 Thu Sep 29 21:11:32 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal Thu Sep 29 21:12:50 2011 begin with 194156134 relations and 201969981 unique ideals Thu Sep 29 21:47:37 2011 reduce to 193215727 relations and 201029094 ideals in 23 passes Thu Sep 29 21:47:37 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 200 Thu Sep 29 21:49:06 2011 filtering wants 1000000 more relations |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
80-150 + 200-400
Code:
Fri Oct 7 08:51:01 2011 found 156746781 hash collisions in 651410238 relations Fri Oct 7 08:53:23 2011 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2 Fri Oct 7 11:54:52 2011 found 138488186 duplicates and 512922052 unique relations Fri Oct 7 17:25:58 2011 begin with 512922052 relations and 458399228 unique ideals Fri Oct 7 18:04:53 2011 reduce to 317129864 relations and 242177207 ideals in 16 passes Sat Oct 8 05:36:02 2011 commencing 2-way merge Sat Oct 8 05:41:39 2011 reduce to 94741713 relation sets and 92788558 unique ideals Sat Oct 8 05:41:39 2011 commencing full merge Sat Oct 8 06:40:43 2011 memory use: 10489.0 MB Sat Oct 8 06:41:09 2011 found 51833810 cycles, need 51564758 Sat Oct 8 06:41:59 2011 weight of 51564758 cycles is about 3609615537 (70.00/cycle) |
|
|
|