20080626, 13:45  #1 
Jun 2005
373 Posts 
Sievulator
Dear friends, please have a look at the little spreadsheed I attached, together with a manual.
Quickstarting guide: In the sheed: Grey fields are for you to fill out (they are prefilled, but you can change these) All the rest, don't touch it. Yellow is giving you the results. If you want to put in your timings, proceed as follows: Run an LLR test, note its n and the time it took. Put those two in. Start a range with sr2sieve (no need to finish it), and note the expected remaining time in hours and how many factors are expected. In the percentage field, you can paste your estimate of what percentage of the factors is going to be actually used. If you would like to share your results, please post the stuff in the grey and yellow boxes only. (Template) PSP/SoB [Your computer type] N:xxxxxxxx Time for that N:xxx h Sieve range start: xxxxxxxx G Time for that range: xxx h Expected factors: xx,x Result: strongly sieving!!! (Won't change, I promise) Have fun, H. Last fiddled with by hhh on 20080629 at 09:30 
20080626, 23:42  #2 
Dec 2004
13·23 Posts 
hhh,
Why don't you use the following n's firstpass 5M secondpass 1.8M 80% n's found before 50M use a core quad for the analysis I'm sure someone has some times. Use that for the starting template... I'm sure I did something wrong b/c when I worked the numbers it looked like we should do more llr 
20080627, 08:16  #3 
Jun 2005
373 Posts 
Did you use the Riesel Template or the PSP template? Riesel is the upper one.
Which n is used for timing shouldn't change much. Yet, honestly, I dont quite get your question, I have to admit. H. 
20080628, 13:04  #4 
Dec 2004
13×23 Posts 
Humm,
Yup I did use the RS template, didn't think it would make much difference. I guess my only problem with the template is the basis of the hours for LLR testing. I guess its a garbage in garbage out sort of thing but your template shows that a factor is worth 100 times it's weight in LLR testing depending on what you put in. I'd have to give it a little more thought. 
20080628, 21:04  #5  
Jun 2005
101110101_{2} Posts 
Quote:
OK, I have to admit that with riesel sieve, they approach the optimal sieve depth. If they sieve twice as deep or so, they are done; and sieving further will only save 1/50 of the tests or so; but yet, more effectively. Timings? Anyone? I will upload a spreadsheet with the results for different machines as soon as I get the numbers. H. 

20080629, 03:41  #6 
Mar 2006
2·47 Posts 
Have numbers off a couple machines
PSP/SoB P4 2.4GHz  socket 478 but not sure bus speed N:5402590 Time for that N:45.42 h Sieve range start: 10000000 G Time for that range: 54 h Expected factors: .53 PSP/SoB C2D E4500 @ 2.2GHz N:5053493 Time for that N:22.0 h Sieve range start: 10000000 G Time for that range: 29 h Expected factors: .53 
20080629, 09:33  #7 
Jun 2005
565_{8} Posts 
Thanks. I just made a new one, with even more conservative hypotheses: 80% of the factors go out of the window, and so on. Sieving is still an order of magnitude better than LLR.
Cheers, H. 
20080629, 16:52  #8 
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT5)
6249_{10} Posts 
What exactly do you mean by "80% of the factors go out of the window"? Do you mean those are found for lower n's that have already been passed in terms of LLR? (If that's what you mean, then, why not simply remove everything from the dat file that's been already LLR testedI'm sure you'd get a big speed boost! I know that removing individual numbers from the dat doesn't do much, but shrinking the rangenow that's a different story. )
Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 20080629 at 16:53 
20080629, 18:51  #9  
Jun 2005
175_{16} Posts 
Quote:
H. 
