1 Attachment(s)
OK, point taken, SoBSieve improved
Well done Phil on the NBeGone stuff, it really pushed me into looking at SoBSieve and the bottlenecks in there. I found one, and now I think that - while I don't have access to every platform - this new version of SoBSieve should do the business.
NOTE that alpha should be set to 1 now!
This also automatically starts sieving when you set it off. I will be looking to get more performance out of this as well, as NBeGone pushes it close for *very* large values of p... Phil, how about I take Windows and you have the rest of the World?
Regards,
Paul.
Re: OK, point taken, SoBSieve improved
Quote:
Originally posted by paul.jobling
Well done Phil on the NBeGone stuff, it really pushed me into looking at SoBSieve and the bottlenecks in there. I found one, and now I think that - while I don't have access to every platform - this new version of SoBSieve should do the business.
NOTE that alpha should be set to 1 now!
This also automatically starts sieving when you set it off. I will be looking to get more performance out of this as well, as NBeGone pushes it close for *very* large values of p... Phil, how about I take Windows and you have the rest of the World?
Take windows. Where are you going to take it.
However, purely for completeness I compiled a windows version of my latest version, just in case anyone wants a copy.
Available from
http://fatphil.org/maths/sierpinski/bin/
are the following
007 - with the resume data (put into a file 'SoB.bat')
008 - like 007, but faster too! (linux/win/sun/alpha so far)
It would be silly for me to give a figure comparing speed ratios, given how weird my machine behaves on SoBSieve, but shall we just say that I wouldn't be running 007 if I were you!
I have only tested using my old favourite ranges (I can verify them by inspection now as I've seen them so many times), but it would be nice if someone who did one of the lower ranges (more factors) could either verify, or issue a bug report...
Note - the optimal dimensions have changed: -d=2.9 works well for me, but 2.7-3.1 were pretty flat. It'll depend on architecture
Phil
wonderful work phil and paul
My completion estimate has dropped from 33 days to 12 due to program optimizations! I tried Phil's for a while but I'm back to Paul's (1.10) because sobseive shares it toys better with sb.
Thanks again guys
Re: wonderful work phil and paul
Quote:
Originally posted by dmbrubac
My completion estimate has dropped from 33 days to 12 due to program optimizations! I tried Phil's for a while but I'm back to Paul's (1.10) because sobseive shares it toys better with sb.
Thanks again guys
Have you tried setting the priority to "idle"?
Phil