View Single Post
Old 2008-04-12, 19:40   #23
gd_barnes's Avatar
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·3·72·37 Posts

Originally Posted by KEP View Post
Thanks Paul, your post actually just solved the issue mentioned in my previous post. Plus it creates a much smaller log file when doing only PRP tests. So now my command line Gary sounds like this:

"input.txt -l5M.txt" and when done sieving I will use this command line:

"pfgw.log -tp" this will be sufficient and very time consuming, since a lot of tests can very fast be verified up to max n or 25,000 which is my limit :)

So thanks Paul, and of course also to you Gary for helping out that much you did. Maybe if we implemented these lines at all tests, we would really start to see some improvement in speed. Anyway I'll now continue the Base3 attack and launch the major attack from Wednesday, maybe earlier, if I see the Sierpinski range complete in early time :)

Thanks and take care everyone.


Ps. Gary you doesn't have to reply to my PMs regarding my problem which is now solved, but if you do that prior to reading this post its also OK, since one enjoys reading science stuff and other peoples solutions to issues occorring :)


Sorry. I had not actually tried a primality proof when doing base 3. I always just did the PRP test and later proved them. I was thinking by your prior statements that he did not want 2 output files, one for proven primes and one for PRP's and didn't think it would take so much longer.

But I guess I'm confused. I don't see how Paul's recommendation is any different than what I recommended that you do originally. You're still going to get two output primes files, one for proven primes and one for PRP's and you'll still need to look in the pfgw.out file to determine what k's are remaining at the end. To me, that is still the most efficient way.

I will say can be extremely tricky starting a new base and I generally don't recommend it for new searchers. You've probably found out why. (lol)


Thanks for stepping in. We don't really need a sieve for base 3 below n=~25000. Although it might be a little more CPU-efficient to start a sieve for all k's remaining at n=~15000, it involves more manual work.

But are you saying that PFGW can sieve on the fly for you? Isn't that what -f100 is effectively doing...actually, prefactoring to 100% of what it 'should be' for each individual test...less efficient than sieving but is a good tradeoff to avoid a lot of manual intervention.

Can you clarify the exact most efficient command line to use when searching upwards by k-value? I thought I had it with the originally script and command line before suggesting the -tp method, which obviously was a mistake.


Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2008-04-12 at 19:42
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote