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

2017-07-07, 17:16   #34
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

26×3×52 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue I'll look into that. In your table you have a number of rows where "to n" < "from n". What does that mean? I would expect "to n" to always be larger than "from n".
They are the small N who had ECM.
There are only a few Ns (from 12 to 30) where ECM is better suited than other factorization methods: for those Ns instead of the columns
"From N, To N, From k, To k"
"N, # of curves, B1 bound, B2 bound"

For such small Ns I strongly require ECM, so you can safely avoid them.

2017-07-07, 17:48   #35
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

22×7×223 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ They are the small N who had ECM. There are only a few Ns (from 12 to 30) where ECM is better suited than other factorization methods: for those Ns instead of the columns "From N, To N, From k, To k" I redefine the heading "N, # of curves, B1 bound, B2 bound" For such small Ns I strongly require ECM, so you can safely avoid them.
I forgot about that. My code ignores ranges done with ECM. Maybe ECM testing should be in a separate table so you can name the columns properly.

2017-07-07, 20:00   #36
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

26·3·52 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by rogue I forgot about that. My code ignores ranges done with ECM. Maybe ECM testing should be in a separate table so you can name the columns properly.
Sure, but I was lazy at that time, and George gathers Fermat ECM results far better than me.

 2017-07-12, 20:29 #37 rogue     "Mark" Apr 2003 Between here and the 186416 Posts I cannot run ppsieve_cuda. If anyone would like to sieve (to the appropriate depth) any of these ranges, I can do the PRP testing. My cores will start freeing up by the end of August, so that should give anyone who wants to sieve plenty of time. Code: 6201-6299 800000000 900000000 10003-10999 50000000 269000000 14501-14999 30000000 70000000 80001-80999 90000 100000 114000-119999 40000 99999 120001-129999 30000 40000 130001-139999 20000 30000 160001-169999 15000 20000 181744-189999 13000 30000
 2017-07-12, 20:57 #38 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 1,741 Posts What are the appropriate depths? I don't want to reserve any of these yet since I don't know what kind of speed I can manage, but I'll take a whack at it. Edit: Also, is this list k range followed by needed N-range, or the opposite? Last fiddled with by wombatman on 2017-07-12 at 21:06
2017-07-12, 21:08   #39
rogue

"Mark"
Apr 2003
Between here and the

22·7·223 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman What are the appropriate depths? I don't want to reserve any of these yet since I don't know what kind of speed I can manage, but I'll take a whack at it.
I do not know. I target a removal rate, i.e. 1 per xx seconds. For a range do a PRP test with pfgw for a number with an n about 2/3s into the range. In other words, if min n = 10000 and max n = 40000, PRP test for any k for n = 30000. The removal rate that you target should be similar to the time to do a single PRP test.

The first two values are min n and max n. The last two are min k and max k.

Last fiddled with by rogue on 2017-07-12 at 21:09

 2017-07-12, 21:20 #40 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 1,741 Posts Sounds good. I'll trial-run a few and see how it goes before reserving any ranges.
 2017-07-13, 13:15 #41 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 1,741 Posts So I've got it running on a GTX 750 Ti, but it's only producing a GPU load of ~3-5%, and the predicted end date for 6201-6299 8e8 9e8 is around November. What options can I change to increase this load so as to speed things up?
2017-07-13, 13:17   #42
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

26×3×52 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman So I've got it running on a GTX 750 Ti, but it's only producing a GPU load of ~3-5%, and the predicted end date for 6201-6299 8e8 9e8 is around November. What options can I change to increase this load so as to speed things up?
If the program spits out a lot of results, try to redirect the output to /dev/null for the first iterations.

2017-07-13, 13:28   #43
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

110110011012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ET_ If the program spits out a lot of results, try to redirect the output to /dev/null for the first iterations.
That bumped it a little, but I'm still primarily around 3-5% load.

2017-07-13, 13:40   #44
ET_
Banned

"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia

26×3×52 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman That bumped it a little, but I'm still primarily around 3-5% load.
I suppose it's partly because the program is more busy writing factors on a file than sieving. It happens on most sievers. The efficiency should progress as long as p grows and less factors are found.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ET_ Operazione Doppi Mersennes 495 2020-12-19 19:41 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 05:59.

Sun Feb 28 05:59:42 UTC 2021 up 87 days, 2:11, 0 users, load averages: 1.23, 1.23, 1.35