mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   No Prime Left Behind (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Sieving drive for k=1003-2000 n=500K-1M (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11487)

 PCZ 2009-02-20 09:03

I will pick up the following ranges
4250G-4500G
4750G-5000G
5250G-5500G
5750G-6000G

No ETA yet

 gd_barnes 2009-02-24 10:42

Ian, Brian, and Chris, can you post an ETA on your sieve ranges? I'm going to put them in the 1st post of this thread. It'll help me determine if I need to put more and or can put less cores on the effort.

My current range will complete on Feb. 26th.

Thanks,
Gary

 MyDogBuster 2009-02-24 11:30

19th of Mar for me.

 Flatlander 2009-02-24 14:14

ETA 3rd March.

(I'm still recovery from the disappointment of [I]not [/I]finding 35 primes in one day.)

 PCZ 2009-02-25 02:29

5th Mar

 gd_barnes 2009-02-25 05:10

Thanks guys. I noted the ETA's in the 1st post of this thread.

Sometime on Feb. 26th, I'll reserve another P=3T range. Likely on March 14th-15th, I'll get another P=3T range. I may reserve a little more on the 14th-15th reservation depending on what others have reserved.

I'm hoping that we can make P=15T by March 31st. Regardless, that is the day that we'll break off n=500K-600K. If the 8th drive is done at that point, I'm taking Chris's advice and starting the 10th drive with that smaller n-range, even if we aren't quite sieved far enough. P=15T would be 3 times further sieved than the same n-range for the 1st drive so that's sufficient as far as I'm concerned.

Gary

 mdettweiler 2009-02-25 05:14

[quote=gd_barnes;163926]I'm hoping that we can make P=15T by March 31st. Regardless, that is the day that we'll break off n=500K-600K. If the 8th drive is done at that point, I'm taking Chris's advice and starting the 10th drive with that smaller n-range, even if we aren't quite sieved far enough. P=15T would be 3 times further sieved than the same n-range for the 1st drive so that's sufficient as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]
Hmm...why bother starting a whole new 10th Drive for the 500K-1M range? As long as we'll still be doing the entire k=1400-2000 range all all at once, we may as well just extend the 8th Drive instead--it would be a lot easier. After all, the only reason why we reset the drive numbers for k=400-1001 was because we were splitting it up into smaller k-ranges for n>600K. :smile:

 gd_barnes 2009-02-25 05:48

[quote=mdettweiler;163928]Hmm...why bother starting a whole new 10th Drive for the 500K-1M range? As long as we'll still be doing the entire k=1400-2000 range all all at once, we may as well just extend the 8th Drive instead--it would be a lot easier. After all, the only reason why we reset the drive numbers for k=400-1001 was because we were splitting it up into smaller k-ranges for n>600K. :smile:[/quote]

Actually, no, I had planned on starting a new drive anyway for k=400-1001, regardless of splitting the k-ranges, because n=320K-1M would have been a huge range for 300 k's.

Like with the 1st drive, even if we don't split the k-ranges for k=1400-2000, extending it to n=350K-1M would make it too huge.

There are two things to consider here:
1. We know that Benson will take k=1003-1400 to n=600K. Will he take that range for n>600K? I think he is but I need to ask specifically.
2. Do we want to take k=1400-2000 to n=600K and then split it into 3 k-ranges or keep it as one k-range? My preference is one huge k-range. Otherwise, we would have so many drives going, it would become unmanageable.

Assuming that we keep k=1400-2000 as one huge k-range up to n=1M and if Benson will be searching k=1003-2000 for n>600K, we should create a 10th drive for n=500K-1M. Otherwise it's just too huge. If we decide to split it up into 3 k-ranges, we should extend the 8th drive to n=600K, and then create 10th/11th/12th drives for n=600K-1M.

One more caveat: If Benson is not going higher than n=600K, we should probably extend the 8th drive to n=600K, create a 10th drive for k=1003-1400/n=600K-1M and an 11th drive for k=1400-2000/n=600K-1M. I'd like to have them be different sizes like that so that they could progress at different rates, giving larger choices of n-ranges to search for people. Having one drive for 500 k's for n=600K-1M would just be too big. We like to feel like we are completing large chunks of work.

I think Karsten would scream if we did 3 more drives just for k=1400-2000, regardless of what Benson is doing with k=1003-1400 for n>600K. Also, I don't want to mess with so many different servers.

Gary

 mdettweiler 2009-02-25 07:06

[quote=gd_barnes;163933]Actually, no, I had planned on starting a new drive anyway for k=400-1001, regardless of splitting the k-ranges, because n=320K-1M would have been a huge range for 300 k's.

Like with the 1st drive, even if we don't split the k-ranges for k=1400-2000, extending it to n=350K-1M would make it too huge.

There are two things to consider here:
1. We know that Benson will take k=1003-1400 to n=600K. Will he take that range for n>600K? I think he is but I need to ask specifically.
2. Do we want to take k=1400-2000 to n=600K and then split it into 3 k-ranges or keep it as one k-range? My preference is one huge k-range. Otherwise, we would have so many drives going, it would become unmanageable.

Assuming that we keep k=1400-2000 as one huge k-range up to n=1M and if Benson will be searching k=1003-2000 for n>600K, we should create a 10th drive for n=500K-1M. Otherwise it's just too huge. If we decide to split it up into 3 k-ranges, we should extend the 8th drive to n=600K, and then create 10th/11th/12th drives for n=600K-1M.

One more caveat: If Benson is not going higher than n=600K, we should probably extend the 8th drive to n=600K, create a 10th drive for k=1003-1400/n=600K-1M and an 11th drive for k=1400-2000/n=600K-1M. I'd like to have them be different sizes like that so that they could progress at different rates, giving larger choices of n-ranges to search for people. Having one drive for 500 k's for n=600K-1M would just be too big. We like to feel like we are completing large chunks of work.

I think Karsten would scream if we did 3 more drives just for k=1400-2000, regardless of what Benson is doing with k=1003-1400 for n>600K. Also, I don't want to mess with so many different servers.

Gary[/quote]
Ah, okay, that makes sense now. Thanks for explaining. :smile:

 IronBits 2009-02-25 09:17

When are we recycling the drive numbers so they start over at drive 0 ? :wink:
Do we really have 10 drives going at once now?

 gd_barnes 2009-02-25 09:41

[quote=IronBits;163942]When are we recycling the drive numbers so they start over at drive 0 ? :wink:
Do we really have 10 drives going at once now?[/quote]

Ha ha. Of course the drives will keep accumulating. There wouldn't be a reason to start over. For historical reference, it would create confusion.

No, drives 1 thru 4 are complete. Drives 5 thru 9 are ongoing so 5 "formal" drives that are run on servers. There is also the double-check drive and the individual-k drive, neither of which are run on servers. The latter of those 2 drives also contains a subset called the "6k mini drive" that is an informal drive on just 6 k's running on my port 8000. There is also this sieving drive but that's not really a testing drive.

Since the mini drive is a subset of the individual-k drive, we have 7 full drives currently running (5 full drives on servers) plus this sieving drive.

Drive 8 will finish and roll right into drive 10. It will be the same as when drive 1 finished and it rolled right into drives 5/6/7.

This is the reason that I don't want any one drive to be too huge. I don't want to get 10 "formal" drives going at once. We'll feel like we're never completing anything. We also may get these temporary "fill in" thingies going at times like we've had on ports 2000 and 3000 but those should generally be small.

Gary

All times are UTC. The time now is 14:45.