Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast
Results 561 to 600 of 709

Thread: Sieve Client Thread

  1. #561
    Ok the problem as on my end but i have a new one. The sobinstrator says when i try to open it this application failed to start because MFC71.DLL was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem. Obviously that didn't help. Anyone know what i need to do?
    Run Windows update so your machine can download the .net update and upgrade from MFC70.dll to MFC71.DLL

    Cheers,

    Lee

  2. #562
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    Mystwalker,

    >Just thought about it... When it's possible to set the output file names via parameters (or maybe a parameter so that the files get an infix according to the range), then one should be able to run one copy multiple times in parallel, right?

    Yeah, I don't see why not. You want that?

    Soo, what's this SobSieveServer of yours?

    Mikael

  3. #563
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by mklasson
    Yeah, I don't see why not. You want that?
    Mikael
    Sure.

    Originally posted by mklasson

    Soo, what's this SobSieveServer of yours?

    Mikael
    Well, basically it's a server storing and assigning ranges to clients and accepting found factors and notifications of completed ranges.
    It was part of a seminar project and works with SobSieve (getting it to work with proth_sieve should be fairly easy, though).
    There's still some issue, but I'm not sure whether it's program or computer related...

    Hm, I think we could figure it out if someone could run the server on his/her computer. It's written in Java...


    edit:
    As it's been a while since we discussed excluded factors...
    Are they of any worth submitting/storing?
    Last edited by Mystwalker; 09-05-2003 at 10:05 AM.

  4. #564
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Well, one question concerning proth_sieve:

    Assuming one runs that program, and meanwhile copies the factors out of the fact.txt and deletes that file afterwards. Will that result in proth_sieve not saving factors anymore?
    I now have a ~11G hole, which seems to happen sometimes with this ranges this high, but I just want to make sure...

  5. #565
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    > Assuming one runs that program, and meanwhile copies the factors out of the fact.txt and deletes that file afterwards. Will that result in proth_sieve not saving factors anymore?

    No, no problem at all, it just creates a new file. I only wish 11G holes weren't so common...

    I can't personally see any worth in excluded factors, btw.

    Mikael

  6. #566
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by mklasson

    I only wish 11G holes weren't so common...

    Mikael
    According to chvo, they will be the average once we hit 200T - and thanks to your work, we will a lot sooner than it seemed only weeks ago.

  7. #567
    thanks for everyones work on the new clients...damn we have come a long way.

    With the new proth sieve..i saw an increase of roughly 20%.

    Great Job to all involved.

    Slatz

  8. #568
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Ok, that client found a factor again - it was just a 23G hole.
    It took only 1.6G to find the next one, though. Damn variance!

    I can't personally see any worth in excluded factors, btw.
    What a pity. I have thousands of them - literally!

  9. #569
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    From the other thread:
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    100 T by new year we can do it!!!
    According to my calculations (approx. 37.25G left), we need 3.45 Mp/sec.
    I think that's achievable.

  10. #570
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158

    proth_sieve v0.37 *IMPORTANT*

    I just put up a new proth_sieve v0.37. There was a bug in v0.36 that could cause it to miss factors (something like 1 in 400 factors). I'm very, very, very sorry about that. I used to sieve 257 ranges with known factors before every release and verify that all were found, but apparently this bug slipped through anyway. I'm now verifying 834 ranges prior to release to make such errors less likely. Note that the bug only exists in v0.36 and not in earlier versions, so hopefully _very_ few factors have been missed because of this.

    *** Please upgrade your version immediately. *** As a small bonus, v0.37 is about 1% faster on my athlons.

    There's also a new feature that Mystwalker requested in this one. Use the "-n <id>" argument to append <id> to the basename of all filenames. If <id> is 001 then SoBStatus.dat becomes SoBStatus001.dat, and so on. "-s <filename>" can still be used to override the sob.dat filename, and takes precedence over -n.

    http://n137.ryd.student.liu.se/sob.php

    Regards,
    Mikael

  11. #571
    p = 86584680240941 @ 437kp/s
    p = 86584690240963 @ 4294967087kp/s
    p = 86584700241031 @ 437kp/s

    Wow that is a speed increase Any idea what causs this bug?

  12. #572
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    There's also a new feature that Mystwalker requested in this one. Use the "-n <id>" argument to append <id> to the basename of all filenames. If <id> is 001 then SoBStatus.dat becomes SoBStatus001.dat, and so on. "-s <filename>" can still be used to override the sob.dat filename, and takes precedence over -n.
    Seems to work without a glitch. thx-a-lot!

    btw.:
    ~3% speed increase with P3/win32
    <1% speed increase with P3/Linux
    Last edited by Mystwalker; 09-09-2003 at 05:41 AM.

  13. #573
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    37
    from 84 kp/s to 107kp/s on a P3 450 with NT

    using 037cmov instead of 036cmov

  14. #574
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    from 84 kp/s to 107kp/s on a P3 450 with NT
    using 037cmov instead of 036cmov
    Ooookay. That sounds a bit odd to me, but, aaah, congratulations! Are you sure you haven't changed anything else?

    Keroberts1,
    just enjoy your new blazing speed.

    Mikael

  15. #575
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    France
    Posts
    24
    >>from 84 kp/s to 107kp/s on a P3 450 with NT
    >>using 037cmov instead of 036cmov

    >Are you sure you haven't changed anything else?

    Hello!

    I am at 99kp/s with my celeron 410 with w98 (cmov037) so 107kp/s at 450 Mhz seems ok....
    I was at 68kp/s with version 033 > more than 40% speed gain...Thanks Mikael!!!

    Philippe

    PS: maybe will my cpu break the 100kp/s speed with proth_sieve 0.38????

  16. #576
    Speed 'tip': proth_sieve went from 400kp/s to 320kp/s on my AMD 1.33GHz when I enabled Windows update. It went back to 400 when I disabled it again.

    btw, I'm sieving low range only.

  17. #577
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    8
    FYI,
    My Athlon 700 went from ~120 kp/s with SoBSieve 1.34 to 195 kp/s with proth_sieve_cmov_036 to 201 kp/s with proth_sieve_037_win_cmov.

    Seems like only a few months ago that 60 kp/s was blazing -- oh, wait; that was a few months ago... Fantastic work by all. I hope someone writes a paper on the overall development efforts, as I'd be intested in reading it.

  18. #578
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Mikael,

    could you state what's the complexity of the used algorithm concerning the range n?
    You said it's not as relevant as SoBsieve. This piece of info could be useful if we discuss about changing ranges to increase sieving rate...

  19. #579
    Moderator Joe O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West Milford, NJ
    Posts
    643
    Originally posted by larsivi
    Speed 'tip': proth_sieve went from 400kp/s to 320kp/s on my AMD 1.33GHz when I enabled Windows update. It went back to 400 when I disabled it again.

    btw, I'm sieving low range only.
    Could you please explain "Windows update"?
    Joe O

  20. #580
    Could you please explain "Windows update"?
    Yes, of course. Sorry. Windows Update is a service that is available in (at least) WinXP. It seems to continiously search MS' pages for updates to relevant software, mostly security updates and such.

    I suppose that giving proth_sieve a higher priority might decrease the slowdown, but I haven't tried that.

  21. #581
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Just got a possible bug report:

    The nextrange feature seems not to work on one of my machines running proth_sieve 0.37 on Win2k.

  22. #582
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    Mystwalker,

    the complexity of the Silver-Pohlig-Hellman discrete log algorithm is O(sqrt(q)), where q is the biggest prime factor of p-1. That gives you the full DL though, which we're not really interested in. The beauty of the SPH is that we calculate the DL mod q_i for each prime divisor (not necessarily unique -- you get it mod q_i^2 the second time, and so on), so we can stop when we know enough. The individual residues mod q_i are recombined using the chinese remainder theorem to get the DL mod m = product(q_i). We never need to go further than m = n_high (20M) for example. Occasionally we do so anyway because that's the most efficient procedure given the factor layout of that particular p-1. This is the source of the really far out outside-range factors. After we have calculated a suitably large m we turn to the regular Shanks baby-steps/giant-steps on the interval (n_high - n_low)/m, which is O(sqrt((n_high - n_low)/m)).

    Anyhow, the net result of all this is that the complexity is a bit harder to estimate... Yes, it still depends on the n range, but how? Several different n ranges will have the same optimal work for many p, and the amount of work for a fixed range varies wildly with different p.

    Oh, and about the nextrange feature, you haven't just misspelled the filename and made it next_range.txt or written pmin twice or something like that?

    Mikael

  23. #583
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    I'm quite sure it didn't misspelled the file name. Anyway, a recent recheck showed the feature indeed does work. I don't know what went wrong this morning, but maybe there was a mistake on my side.
    If the problem occured again, I'll tell you...

  24. #584

    Sieve

    Hi all,

    I haven't been receiving notification of updates for some reason, so I haven't been here for a while, but I have just subscribed to the thread again. However let me say here my thanks to Mikael for his great work in finding the Silver-Pohlig-Hellman disrete log algorithm and for coding it up. The program is remarkably fast... good job Mikael upped the limit to 2^50 from 2^48

    Regards,

    Paul.

  25. #585
    what do yo umean by upped the limit. Was the limit of the previous sieve client 2^48. That will be an issue s oI'm glad that it was upped. We'll probably be breaking the 2^48 limit before the end of next summer at this rate.


    One side question unrelated: Is the Siever's performance related at all to the size of the numbers being sieved? Could the performance change as we get to higher numbers or could it be optimized for larger numbers as we get dow nthe line. I'm not sure what type of algorithim is used in the program so I would not have any idea how ot even guess whether or not this is possible.
    Last edited by Keroberts1; 09-12-2003 at 02:15 AM.

  26. #586
    However let me say here my thanks to Mikael for his great work in finding the Silver-Pohlig-Hellman disrete log algorithm and for coding it up. The program is remarkably fast
    Just wondering, is this useful for the regular NewPgen too?

  27. #587
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    Is the Siever's performance related at all to the size of the numbers being sieved?
    Yes, you have to calculate bigger powers as p (and the order of 2 in Z_p) increases. The overall rate doesn't seem terribly affected though -- the effect is offset somewhat by the diminishing density of the primes. But yes, the real performance is affected to some degree. It might be possible to tailor the program a bit to suit bigger numbers better, but probably no major change. Lots of vague words here. I'm assuming p stays below 2^64 here... "We'll never sieve that far anyway".

  28. #588
    I'm thining about this for the distant future. As I see it we will be bringing some of these numbers probably far past the 20-million mark andchances are some may go much farther than that needing PRP tests that may take months or even up ot a year. once we get to that point a single factor found every few weeks would still be extremely useful. With this outlook the sieving effort may find it useful ot go much deeper than previously thought

  29. #589
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    France
    Posts
    24
    Hello, concerning the version 036 bug,because I didn't want to miss a factor , I have sieving twice a 10 G range with cmov 036 and cmov 037. The results, 80 factors found including duplicates and excluded, are the same with both versions. So, in "real" sieving conditions, the error rate of the version 036 seems small too...
    Other trials confirming it ?

  30. #590
    Will the Siever sieve any faster once one of the K values have been removed? Once again this is a kinda pointless question escept i was just wondering is factor finding will dropp off suddenly if we find a few primes.

  31. #591
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    Will the Siever sieve any faster once one of the K values have been removed? Once again this is a kinda pointless question escept i was just wondering is factor finding will dropp off suddenly if we find a few primes.
    Yes. How much depends on which k is killed.

  32. #592
    perhaps Sieving for only certain Ks may be benefitial once we get to the higher ranges. If that would still yeild a beneficial ratio then there is reason to think about that

  33. #593
    It's more efficient to sieve all K's at the same time. Thats why program's were created to do that.

    Sieving only one K will allow sieving much deeper for only that K in the same time, but it will cost more time to sieve all K's seperately compared to sieving them all at once.

    Anyone any idea how much more efficient sieving all k's at the same time is?

  34. #594
    I've gotten an incredible boost in factor density just in the last few G I've been sieving. Not enough to be alarmed at but it is interesting and perhaps more evidence that there is some sort of pattern causeing them to group together.

    Here are the factors

    86806006665839 | 10223*2^13321541+1
    86808425787089 | 33661*2^5661816+1
    86812209123841 | 10223*2^14637101+1
    starts getting interesting **************
    86822005490767 | 21181*2^13538660+1
    86822396416597 | 10223*2^15637277+1
    86823040551029 | 55459*2^14422258+1
    86823909625963 | 28433*2^15145945+1
    86824201083779 | 21181*2^12366764+1
    86825582367299 | 33661*2^16773792+1
    86825821343039 | 21181*2^16424444+1

  35. #595
    sobistrator bug?

    I had a few new factors which I tried to submit. Since seventeenorbust.com was down, the submit failed and I got a message about submitting the factors manually. Fair enough, but the factors disappeared from the "New factors" panel, while stilll saying that there were 8 new factors. I guess I can find the factors in the log, but I got a feeling that this behavior isn't intended.

  36. #596
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    158
    larsivi,

    you'll probably see your new factors again if you press refresh.

    I'm not sure, but I think I fixed that some time ago... At least I don't have the same problem in the version I'm running. Just hadn't released it yet.
    Try http://n137.ryd.student.liu.se/sobistrator_114.zip

    Mikael

  37. #597
    mklasson:

    They came back with the refresh, but with the new version they didn't disappear at all.

    Tjänare!

  38. #598
    something i noticed : if i start proth_sieve_cmov.exe by adding it to the windows/current version/run in registry it does not seem to look for the SoBstatus file as it just prompts me what values i want to sieve.
    when i load it it startup by adding it in the Start Menu Startup submenu it works without that problem. tried both methods with same directory , same sobstatus , together and apart.

    :shocked:
    Win XP SP 1
    AMD XP +2000 (getting 400 kps)
    512 MB RAM

  39. #599
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Maybe there's no working directory set when you use the registry.
    Just try using the -s parameter...

  40. #600
    that didn't solve the issue

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51112131415161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •