mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search > Software

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-04-22, 21:34   #56
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2×3×7×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
Quite possibly.
I am going to attempt running it with gprof. Win64 with gpof support isn't supported by fpc so trying linux.
Unfortunately my ubuntu virtual machine is 9.04 and can't upgrade easily. Downloading the 12.04 Beta 2 iso now.
Almost all of the time was spent in PROGRAM_DO_SIEVE_ITER

I will try the c code now.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-25, 17:28   #57
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

575410 Posts
Default

The c program is incredibly fast compared with the pacsal. It does use more memory but that should be livable with.

I just sieved 0-100T for 7-tuples upto 2G in about 4 hours. This used about 4Gb of memory but the testing was done in <5 minutes so I don't need to sieve so far. I am not sure the numbers in post #38 are correct. I searched ~1/7 of the range and the best I found was a 4-tuple. I will do 100T-200T this evening. Not decided what sieve bound I will use but much smaller.

edit: How much speed am I losing by doing two 100T chunks rather than one 200T?

Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2012-04-25 at 18:00
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-25, 18:32   #58
R. Gerbicz
 
R. Gerbicz's Avatar
 
"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary

141910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
The c program is incredibly fast compared with the pacsal. It does use more memory but that should be livable with.

I just sieved 0-100T for 7-tuples upto 2G in about 4 hours. This used about 4Gb of memory but the testing was done in <5 minutes so I don't need to sieve so far. I am not sure the numbers in post #38 are correct. I searched ~1/7 of the range and the best I found was a 4-tuple. I will do 100T-200T this evening. Not decided what sieve bound I will use but much smaller.

edit: How much speed am I losing by doing two 100T chunks rather than one 200T?
That depends on all 4 parameters that you can give after #define. It is easier to wait for the first progress message, and from it get an estimation for the time. Note that running 0-100T takes the same time that running 100T-200T, so it doesn't depend on the starting value.

For 7 tuple biwema said that "Range per one tuple: 730000 T" at 301 digits (though not checked that these times are correct or not). So you searched 1/7000 of that range.
R. Gerbicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-25, 19:25   #59
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2×3×7×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz View Post
For 7 tuple biwema said that "Range per one tuple: 730000 T" at 301 digits (though not checked that these times are correct or not). So you searched 1/7000 of that range.
That explains things. I will try a 200T search range tomorrow.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-25, 21:59   #60
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2×3×7×137 Posts
Default

Running 100T-200T upto 0.5G took 5/6 the time of upto 2G for 0T-100T and used only half the memory(2GB). The sieve file is 1.6x the size but testing is super quick at this size.
I found one more quad in 100T-200T
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 08:40   #61
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

248310 Posts
Default

so... testing k 5-20 T for n=10011 have given me 2 3-tuple so far
5364983132499*2^10011+1
5364983132499*2^10011-1
- Twin -
5364983132499*2^10011+5
- 3-Tuple -

and

14575260764109*2^10011+1
14575260764109*2^10011-1
- Twin -
14575260764109*2^10011+5
- 3-Tuple -

I hope I will get at least 2 more
firejuggler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 11:43   #62
biwema
 
biwema's Avatar
 
Mar 2004

3×127 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firejuggler View Post
so... testing k 5-20 T for n=10011 have given me 2 3-tuple so far

I hope I will get at least 2 more
How far did you sieve? How many primes / twins did you get?
On average you might expect 3 3-tuple per 10 T range.

Im am sorry that i did not yet answer about my calculations. I just was busy. I try to do my best and give a detailed answer this weekend.
biwema is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 12:29   #63
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

13·191 Posts
Default

32 M value sieved to 1G (with the quad sieve in this thread) to start, split in two, one half sieved to 125B o( 7220422 tested value) and 800B for the second half( 3M700k value left)
In the first half , 284 twin 1 truple. i havent finished testing the second half

Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2012-04-27 at 12:55
firejuggler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 16:21   #64
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

575410 Posts
Default

I am currently running 4 different versions of gsieve on a quad in parallel to test what sieve depth is best for 7-tuples. I am running 250M, 125M, 50M, and 10M.
At half way through 10M has about twice as many candidates as 50M but as testing is so fast(0.0014 per test) at n=1000 so there is still a saving. 125M isn't too far behind but 250M hasn't even reached half way yet(the other 3 have reached 3/4 as I type).
10M should complete in about 80 minutes. This is down from 4 hours it took to got to 2G.
Next I will fiddle with bound_small_primes.

Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2012-04-27 at 16:23
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 18:02   #65
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2·3·7·137 Posts
Default

I spoke too soon saying 80 minutes was good. Increasing bound_small_primes to 13 took 35 minutes to complete and 17 took 22. 19 looks like it will take about 30.
I don't think there are any huge improvments left but I will fiddle with sieve_len and hash_bits.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-04-27, 18:28   #66
Puzzle-Peter
 
Puzzle-Peter's Avatar
 
Jun 2009

12448 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
I spoke too soon saying 80 minutes was good. Increasing bound_small_primes to 13 took 35 minutes to complete and 17 took 22. 19 looks like it will take about 30.
I don't think there are any huge improvments left but I will fiddle with sieve_len and hash_bits.
This is very interesting.

If I understood Robert correctly, you need a very large search range for bound_small_primes=19 to be efficient.

I'm really curious what sieve_len will do to performance and memory usage.
Puzzle-Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How/Where to get Jens Kruse Andersen's prime constellation sieve? Stargate38 And now for something completely different 2 2017-04-28 00:08
Efficiently finding a linear progression in data fivemack Math 27 2015-12-12 18:42
GPU Prime Sieve tapion64 GPU Computing 7 2014-04-10 06:15
Sieve depth vs. prime probability Unregistered Information & Answers 2 2010-05-25 20:51
Prime in Riesel Sieve Project Sloth Prime Sierpinski Project 1 2006-05-10 02:02

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:47.

Sat Dec 5 01:47:04 UTC 2020 up 1 day, 21:58, 0 users, load averages: 1.34, 1.47, 1.43

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.