mersenneforum.org Reservations
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2017-07-13, 13:45 #45 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 173710 Posts Ok. I'll let it run for a while and see how things progress. I'll go ahead and reserve n=6201-6299 for k=8e8-9e8 (the first entry in Rogue's list).
 2017-07-13, 15:17 #46 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 32·193 Posts Gonna take Code: 181744-189999 13000 30000 since I can run both of them at the same time with a relatively minimal (<25%) dropoff in prime throughput. Time per factor for this range will need to be ~25 seconds. Time per factor for the previous range needs to be just ~0.1 sec. Last fiddled with by wombatman on 2017-07-13 at 16:03
 2017-07-13, 15:48 #47 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 22·1,481 Posts Thanks wombatman. I'm really curious to see how many candidates remain after sieving. BTW, what is the format for the output from ppsieve_cuda? I assume it is the pfgw ABCD format. I will likely need to update PRPNet to support that format.
 2017-07-13, 15:58 #48 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 32·193 Posts I don't know if it will output a file at the end of a run, but it outputs the factors as Code: 1000000016401549 | 833778745*2^6246+1 So worst case scenario, you could generate a list, eliminate small factors with srsieve, and then remove the larger factors with srfile. When the shorter run finishes, I'll let you know whether a file with the remaining candidates is generated.
2017-07-13, 16:10   #49
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2×2,383 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman I don't know if it will output a file at the end of a run, but it outputs the factors as Code: 1000000016401549 | 833778745*2^6246+1 So worst case scenario, you could generate a list, eliminate small factors with srsieve, and then remove the larger factors with srfile. When the shorter run finishes, I'll let you know whether a file with the remaining candidates is generated.
waitaminnit... you are actually testing for primes at 1015.
I think you were supposed to start from p=3 (but then, iirc ppsieve needs to start from a p > k), so a whole lot of very small factors are not tested.

When I had a GPU, I started sieving with FermFact, and when p reached the minimum required by ppsieve_CUDA, I saved the results from FermFact and moved them on ppsieve.

How did you start ppsieve without a pre-existing candidates' file?

2017-07-13, 16:37   #50
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

32·193 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ waitaminnit... you are actually testing for primes at 1015. I think you were supposed to start from p=3 (but then, iirc ppsieve needs to start from a p > k), so a whole lot of very small factors are not tested. When I had a GPU, I started sieving with FermFact, and when p reached the minimum required by ppsieve_CUDA, I saved the results from FermFact and moved them on ppsieve. How did you start ppsieve without a pre-existing candidates' file?
You're right--I started with minp=1e15 since ppsieve_cuda wouldn't allow anything smaller than that. I will try running FermFact first and just remove the factors found so far by ppsieve_cuda. Then I will continue onward if appropriate.

2017-07-13, 16:48   #51
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

112368 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman You're right--I started with minp=1e15 since ppsieve_cuda wouldn't allow anything smaller than that. I will try running FermFact first and just remove the factors found so far by ppsieve_cuda. Then I will continue onward if appropriate.
If so, also consider using FermFact 2.0: it has SSE2 acceleration and a number of different types of file (newpgen, ABC, ABCD...) for the archive.

 2017-07-13, 16:53 #52 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 22×1,481 Posts Are you saying that you need to use FermFact, then ppsieve_cuda, then pfgw?
2017-07-13, 17:01   #53
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

10010100111102 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue Are you saying that you need to use FermFact, then ppsieve_cuda, then pfgw?
Not quite.
I am saying that I use FermFact (for 6/9 hours), then ppsieve_cuda, then pfgw.

TBTH, FermFact could be used just to create the starting file, as it reaches the minp value quite soon, but then the file created by FermFact becomes huge (i.e. the file contains millions of candidates) and I prefer letting it run a bit to sieve out the smaller ones.

Last fiddled with by ET_ on 2017-07-13 at 17:03

2017-07-13, 17:13   #54
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

33118 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ If so, also consider using FermFact 2.0: it has SSE2 acceleration and a number of different types of file (newpgen, ABC, ABCD...) for the archive.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ Not quite. I am saying that I use FermFact (for 6/9 hours), then ppsieve_cuda, then pfgw. TBTH, FermFact could be used just to create the starting file, as it reaches the minp value quite soon, but then the file created by FermFact becomes huge (i.e. the file contains millions of candidates) and I prefer letting it run a bit to sieve out the smaller ones.
I did grab Version 2.0. I'll use it to get up to something at least close to the minp ppsieve_cuda wants. Thanks for pointing this out to me!

2017-07-13, 17:16   #55
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

2×2,383 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman I did grab Version 2.0. I'll use it to get up to something at least close to the minp ppsieve_cuda wants. Thanks for pointing this out to me!
You are always welcome, Ben

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ET_ Operazione Doppi Mersennes 489 2020-09-19 14:24 kar_bon Riesel Prime Data Collecting (k*2^n-1) 129 2016-09-05 09:23 R.D. Silverman NFS@Home 15 2015-11-29 23:18 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 15 2011-03-04 21:01 paulunderwood 3*2^n-1 Search 15 2008-06-08 03:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:14.

Thu Oct 1 02:14:21 UTC 2020 up 20 days, 23:25, 1 user, load averages: 1.75, 1.57, 1.48