Sieving discussion thread - Page 6

biwema · 2006-12-31, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasong

Question: If you set it to log factors, will it log factors as soon as it gets them, or go by the update interval? The reason I ask is that I set the update interval to 10,000 minutes, thinking that only applied to the main file. I'm hoping the factors will update more frequently, and if there's a power outage I can simply update the starting point with vi.

Is this the correct way to do things?

Yes. The factors are written immediately.
If you set the update interval to a high level, you risk to lose the whole sieving time after the last factor was found. In this sieving project the factor density is so high that it will be no problem, at all.
Besides that you save the intermediate file saving time (around 90 sec every time)

Skligmund · 2007-01-16, 06:55

I'm averaging about 3.5-4.0 k/sec (times 2) sieving 333,333 on my X2 3800+, how is everybody else doing? I just want to benchmark myself is all.

gribozavr · 2007-01-16, 12:52

Celeron 1200Mhz: 14.5-15.5 k/sec
Athlon 2500+ 1800Mhz: 4-6 k/sec
Athlon64 3000+ 1800Mhz: 4-5.5 k/sec

jmblazek · 2007-01-16, 14:26

I must be doing something wrong. My AMD Athlon(tm) 64 3400+ is only doing 1 k per 2.5-3.0 seconds. Any ideas???

I'm currently working on 500T-550T.

Skligmund · 2007-01-16, 15:38

I mis-typed..

3.5-4 sec/k

R. Gerbicz · 2007-01-16, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmblazek

I must be doing something wrong. My AMD Athlon(tm) 64 3400+ is only doing 1 k per 2.5-3.0 seconds. Any ideas???

I'm currently working on 500T-550T.

Sieving k/sec rate depends on the sieving depth, you can sieve about 2 times slower at 500T than if you would sieve at 250T.

jmblazek · 2007-01-16, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skligmund

I mis-typed..

3.5-4 sec/k

Whew...that makes sense now...since you're working about 300T deeper.

Cybertronic · 2007-01-18, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

The problems with both ideas is the huge size of the new output file and the factor list.

Is not the problem, I think. We can write a program that give us all reduce numbers ( The number is not in the new file after sieving ) The MASTER ADMIN taks the small file and reduce from file 32ye9b also with a special program. I work with 2 PCs and this is for my project very helpfull when I sieve serveral ranges.

best

MooMoo2 · 2007-01-19, 05:44

For n=195000, we actually sieved far more than the previous record holders did. They sieved only to 281T, while we got over 1000T (see http://www.hpc-europa.org/index.php?...i_high/csajbok)

The number of Intel Itanium 2 processors they used "varied between 1 and 96" while they were working on getting their previous record twin.

They had a total of 5 million candidates after sieving (out of an original 8.5 billion). This means they were probably choosing a range that had an ~80% certainty of containing a twin. It would be equivalent to sieving n=195000 from 1-22G.

Skligmund · 2007-01-19, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

- somewhere to upload the new output file, so that NewPGen's feature for " merging files across several machines" can be used.

I can't figure out how to use that on my own computers. The instructions are confusing at best. I know this is the wrong thread for this, but it only made sense here. If anybody knows how this works, let me know. Maybe make a simple tutorial for it?

gribozavr · 2007-01-20, 00:22

If you want to report results, you don't need to upload the datafile; only newpgen.del file is needed. Of cource, unless you forgot to set newpgen to log factors.

2007-01-19, 05:44	#64
MooMoo2 "Michael Kwok" Mar 2006 1,181 Posts	If anyone's curious... For n=195000, we actually sieved far more than the previous record holders did. They sieved only to 281T, while we got over 1000T (see http://www.hpc-europa.org/index.php?...i_high/csajbok) The number of Intel Itanium 2 processors they used "varied between 1 and 96" while they were working on getting their previous record twin. They had a total of 5 million candidates after sieving (out of an original 8.5 billion). This means they were probably choosing a range that had an ~80% certainty of containing a twin. It would be equivalent to sieving n=195000 from 1-22G. Last fiddled with by MooMoo2 on 2007-01-19 at 05:52 Reason: adding more info

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
S9 and general sieving discussion	Lennart	Conjectures 'R Us	31	2014-09-14 15:14
Sieving discussion thread	philmoore	Five or Bust - The Dual Sierpinski Problem	66	2010-02-10 14:34
Combined sieving discussion	ltd	Prime Sierpinski Project	76	2008-07-25 11:44
Sieving Discussion	ltd	Prime Sierpinski Project	26	2005-11-01 07:45
Sieving Discussion	R.D. Silverman	Factoring	7	2005-09-30 12:57

2007-01-16, 06:55	#57
Skligmund Dec 2006 Anchorage, Alaska 2·3·13 Posts	I'm averaging about 3.5-4.0 k/sec (times 2) sieving 333,333 on my X2 3800+, how is everybody else doing? I just want to benchmark myself is all.

2007-01-16, 12:52	#58
gribozavr Mar 2005 Internet; Ukraine, Kiev 110010111₂ Posts	Celeron 1200Mhz: 14.5-15.5 k/sec Athlon 2500+ 1800Mhz: 4-6 k/sec Athlon64 3000+ 1800Mhz: 4-5.5 k/sec

2007-01-16, 14:26	#59
jmblazek Nov 2006 Earth 64₁₀ Posts	I must be doing something wrong. My AMD Athlon(tm) 64 3400+ is only doing 1 k per 2.5-3.0 seconds. Any ideas??? I'm currently working on 500T-550T.

2007-01-16, 15:38	#60
Skligmund Dec 2006 Anchorage, Alaska 1001110₂ Posts	I mis-typed.. 3.5-4 sec/k

2007-01-20, 00:22	#66
gribozavr Mar 2005 Internet; Ukraine, Kiev 11·37 Posts	If you want to report results, you don't need to upload the datafile; only newpgen.del file is needed. Of cource, unless you forgot to set newpgen to log factors.