20150715, 01:19  #12 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
13501_{8} Posts 
I fixed the problem, but I need to add the code that creates pl_trivial.txt. Right now my program is at least 4x faster than newbase.txt for that conjecture. It should be even faster after I add the trivial code.

20150715, 02:46  #13 
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
5953_{10} Posts 
Fixed. The outputs created by srbsieve now match the outputs from the newbase.txt script with one exception, pl_MOB.txt, pl_trivial.txt, and pl_prime.txt are not sorted in ascending k. After sorting the files and comparing, they do match.
In the test for R498, I only ran to n=10. srbsieve took about 5 minutes. prgw with newbase.txt took about 28 minutes. I strongly recommend that you use more phases if you take on that base for the simple reason that the size of the numbers grows quickly so PRP tests take much longer than for base 3. sieving is much more important than trial factoring as b and n increase. 
20150717, 13:06  #14 
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
3·313 Posts 
I've just begun following tests of srbsieve version 2:
kMin: 20,000,000,001 kMax: 20,100,000,000 nMin: 1 nMax: 300 Phase 1: n=25 to n=80 Phase 2: n=81 to n=300 I'm using PFGW version 3.7.9 Also I've just begun using the starting base script following test: kMin: 20,000,000,001 kMax: 20,100,000,000 nMin: 1 nMax: 300 I'm using PFGW version 3.7.9 with f0 Regards Kenneth For version 2 of srbsieve, the percentage counter is showing accurately by moving from 0.0 to 100.0 I expect no problems to go through Phase 1 and Phase 2. Sometime during next week, we will know, not only how much more efficient srbsieve is compared to using the starting bases script, but we will also know if version 2 of srbsieve goes through each phase without a problem and if srbsieve version 2 computes the same MOB, remain and primes as the starting bases script. I'll get back to all of you as the various tests has completed Take care. 
20150717, 22:26  #15 
Jul 2003
2^{2}×149 Posts 
hi,
i tested the range R498; k=196306; n= to 5000 with srbsieve second version and the new bases script. i compared the files pl_MOB.txt, pl_prime.txt and pl_remain.txt and they do match. the timings are: R498; k=150000; n= to 5000 49:23:13 with srbsieve on a sbe3930k running win10 preview build 10162 R498; k=5000096306; n= to 5000 48:17:15 with srbsieve on a sbe3930k running win10 preview build 10162 and R498; k=150000; n= to 5000 ~ 83 hours with new bases script on a xeon 2630 v3 running SL6.6 64bit with f10 R498; k=5000096306; n= to 5000 ~ 81 hours with new bases script on a xeon 2630 v3 running SL6.6 64bit with f10 i sorted the files with openoffice writer and compared them with winmerge 
20150717, 23:49  #16  
"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the
5,953 Posts 
Quote:


20150718, 00:06  #17 
Jul 2003
2^{2}×149 Posts 
intel sandy bridge extreme 3930k
http://ark.intel.com/de/products/63697 
20150718, 06:11  #18 
Jan 2006
Hungary
2^{2}×67 Posts 
Pronounciation
Hi all,
how is srbsieve pronounced? For me it is shrubsieve. Cheers, Willem. 
20150718, 09:11  #19 
Dec 2011
After milion nines:)
2^{2}×337 Posts 
I got this error when try to use one of yours ini files
Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: srbsieve.exe Application Version: 0.0.0.0 Application Timestamp: 55a5c818 Fault Module Name: ntdll.dll Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.18247 Fault Module Timestamp: 521eaf24 Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Offset: 0000000000052f86 OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1050 Additional Information 1: 3b16 Additional Information 2: 3b1608b2c56e9dd74d377b1a632d715e Additional Information 3: 70f7 Additional Information 4: 70f7b6b63abd6db44a1fc2ac8598596a I look over Net and it is something related to security permissions ... 
20150718, 16:56  #20  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
1653_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20150718, 17:13  #21  
Quasi Admin Thing
May 2005
3×313 Posts 
Quote:
Sieving took 00h 39m 04s Total testing time, using sieve and srbsieve (phase 1 and 2): 26h 58m 26s or about 6 to 7 times faster than using the starting bases script to n=300 with the f0. Even though I have no numbers to back up my following statement, then it appears that from completion of phase 2 through to completion of phase 6, the program srbsieve goes from being 6 to 7 times faster than starting bases script, to be only 2 to 3 times faster than starting bases script and sieve manually. I've no numbers to back up my statement, but maybe Axn if he sees this can come up with a universal formula to calculate the optimal sievedepth for the amount of k's and the size of the nMaxnMin in each phase. Any idea Axn? Anyone else? I should mention that I have no idea why it appears that we are loosing this much efficiency through phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 (or if I plain has forgotten how long an n=1 to n=25K range takes for base 3), but if my observation is correct, then I think it has to have something to do with our sievesettings Take care Last fiddled with by KEP on 20150718 at 17:22 

20150718, 18:04  #22  
Dec 2011
After milion nines:)
2^{2}×337 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Very Prime Riesel and Sierpinski k  robert44444uk  Open Projects  587  20161113 15:26 
Sierpinski/ Riesel bases 6 to 18  robert44444uk  Conjectures 'R Us  139  20071217 05:17 
Sierpinski/Riesel Base 10  rogue  Conjectures 'R Us  11  20071217 05:08 
Sierpinski / Riesel  Base 23  michaf  Conjectures 'R Us  2  20071217 05:04 
Sierpinski / Riesel  Base 22  michaf  Conjectures 'R Us  49  20071217 05:03 