The defults are ok, I think. This varies over the ranges, so a quick test might be in place. Shouldn't be too far off though, so do as you want.Originally posted by Mystwalker
Already any measures of what are good alpha factors?
Ah, ok, thx!
Then I'll take 275-280
So we should have now:
0 - 25G Louie
25 - 50 ceselb
50 - 75 kmd
75 - 100 cjohnsto
100 - 125 Nuri
125 - 130 McBryce
130 - 150 RangerX
150 - 155 nuutti
155 - 175 MikeH
175 - 200 paul.jobling
200 - 210 dudlio
210 - 215 smh
215 - 225 dmbrubac
225 - 250 EggmanEEA
250 - 255 frmky
255 - 260 Alien88
265 - 275 ltd
275 - 280 Mystwalker
300-301 Paperboy
Already any measures of what are good alpha factors?
The defults are ok, I think. This varies over the ranges, so a quick test might be in place. Shouldn't be too far off though, so do as you want.Originally posted by Mystwalker
Already any measures of what are good alpha factors?
I was playing around with the programs, and it seems that Nbegon64 is more than twice as fast on my xp 2000+. I've done some testing on the range 301 - 302 range, so I'll take 301 - 310 for now.
That leaves a gap between 280 and 300.
With fatphil's client I'm currently using an alpha of 1.000. This setting was the fastest for me.
Out at a gig tonight ("The Crown" from Sweden - amazing!) so I won't be up till /late/ tomorrow...Originally posted by MikeH
Phil,
Just to check the .bat save file will work as a service, I just tried the following line in a .bat file
nbegon64 -p170886000000-175000000000 -ssob.dat
Launching the .bat file with FireDaemon is a breeze. I look forward to tomorrow's version.
I decided that a parameter file was a good idea, and I also decided that the best format for a parameter file was to look like a batch file command line! i.e. I won't need to change the code I've already written. I'm glad the batch file works as is though.
Bed...
Phil
Hey I answered my own question about the files. I don't know if the info will be useful to anyone else but in XP at least the file writing is saved as it writes them. So in other words if you're running the program and say... you're computer crashes/freezes, then all you have to do to start over is open up the current SoB.del file and start from the last p listed there.
That's why I was asking, because I'd prefer to run the program on the full range instead of breaking it up to make sure I don't lose anything in the case of a freeze. But now I don't have to worry about it.
PS. Of course the addition of the batch file generator makes all of this completely useless
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.
Nice speed up in the sobsieve client. It seems to be 2x or more as fast as the 1.07 client on my p3
On my Athlon XP 1800+, the new SOBSieve runs at 26450 p/s which is MUCH better than the previous 11890 p/s and a bit faster than NbeGon's 24485 p/s. Good work!
Greg
Paul does it again! I knew he could.
My Athlon 1.33GHz went from 9500p/sec -> 19k p/sec.
I updated the download on the sieve page:
http://www.seventeenorbust.com/sieve/
The new download has a slightly higher sieve file as well. There is also a new link to Phil's site.
DON'T FORGET: set alpha back to 1 for the new SoBSieve.
-Louie
Thanks Paul, with Alpha=1 SoBsieve works about 4% faster on my PIII450 compared to NbeGon64.
I had some problems starting the client though. Because i was running NbeGon64 i renamed the status file. After starting SoBSieve110 i got a popup to enter the range to test, but after clicking OK, the popup won't go away and the sieving won't start.
I created a new status file with an old version of SoBsieve and after that starting the newest version it gives a popup with the range i entered in the old client, i press ok and the client starts sieving.
So, to me it looks like the newest version needs a statusfile, but doesn't create one itself.
Take windows. Where are you going to take it.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?
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
Why don't you two exchange code to make one SUPER fast siever!
Btw do you guys profile your executables? I heard that can boost performance considerably too.
Cheers,
Ola
Phil,
There is an obvious need for a non-Windows sieving client and your software fills that role very well. But for Windows I have got many optimisations to come and it is crazy to be this competitive - I have got an easy 10% improvement with a couple of one line changes, but I want to spend some time getting it all sorted and solid and get further improvements rather than rushing out updates in an optimisation battle.
Cheers,
Paul.
I offered to do exactly that, but Phil didn't want to play ball . Which just spurred me on...Why don't you two exchange code to make one SUPER fast siever!
Cheers,
Paul.
Great, back to Phil's N-be-Gone
with -d=1,3 (works faster then -d=3 for me) it's about 40% faster compared to SoBsieve110
It's over 3 times faster compared to the original SoBsieve
My main reson for switching to NbeGon was the long time to complete my range. With these new versions it's now down to managable times (32 vs. 15 days). Now I've switched back to SoBSive again.
Advantages of the two programs:
SoBSieve
- GUI.
- No need to tinker with command lines or shortcuts / scripts.
- Rate is viewable.
NbeGon
- Run as service / at startup.
- No need to remove lines from output file.
- Runs on non-windows boxes.
Hi,
only to correct the last list of reserved ranges.
I have reserved 260 to 275.
Lars
I've got a version in progress that already has a 40% improvement over the last version- and that is at very high values of p where the software was (relatively) weak before. I have also fixed the problem with having to click four times when it in in the system tray. I'll keep on improving this before sending out a 1.11 release.
I seem to remember you inquiring if we could merge my hashing with your maths, and I said that I can't split my code easily, it's too tightly coupled (do one job, and do it well). I did say I could offer you a doOneP(long long p) interface, and if that wouldn't do I asked exactly where you would like me to try and cleave it, for me to mull over while I'm in the code, but you didn't reply.Originally posted by paul.jobling
I offered to do exactly that, but Phil didn't want to play ball . Which just spurred me on...
The _only_ cleaving I can currently do is to separate the filling of the hash table from the rest of the code. My 52+bit maths is very clumsy (as it's C), and I'm sure that you could speed that up noticably.
My current test version is much faster than 008, and even then I've not run out of ideas, and the code's getting more chaotic as I try these new things out - i.e. my algorithm is still changing. However, what I'm also doing while going through the code is stripping out the dead wood, the things that failed. So hopefully I will soon end up with a version that contains just what is needed and nothing more, and that's possibly something that you can work with. However, as I say I see nowhere to merge algorithms, as mine's pretty much one monolithic block.
Mail me, we can talk algorithms. If I can do it in C you can do it faster in assembler, but I genuinely believe it makes sense to get the algorithm correct before forking too much of it onto an assmebly language route.
Phil
The reason i installed the fastest version available at this moment is that i'm going on a vacation this weekend and i want to keep the program running on my office computer.
If any faster version will be available by tomorrow, i'll install that one, since i won't be able to upgrade for the next 4 weeks (although i doubt my pc will keep on running for that long).
I'll have my fastest algorithm (i.e. no plans for any new major changes) ready by this evening. After that it I'll have nothing but micro-optimisations to do (loop unrolling etc. that might be platform specific) but it makes sense to draw a line under it before I contort the C out of current relatively simple state.Originally posted by smh
The reason i installed the fastest version available at this moment is that i'm going on a vacation this weekend and i want to keep the program running on my office computer.
If any faster version will be available by tomorrow, i'll install that one, since i won't be able to upgrade for the next 4 weeks (although i doubt my pc will keep on running for that long).
Phil
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
@ltd:
Oops, bad typo. I'm sorry!
So here's the corrected table:
0 - 25G Louie
25 - 50 ceselb
50 - 75 kmd
75 - 100 cjohnsto
100 - 125 Nuri
125 - 130 McBryce
130 - 150 RangerX
150 - 155 nuutti
155 - 175 MikeH
175 - 200 paul.jobling
200 - 210 dudlio
210 - 215 smh
215 - 225 dmbrubac
225 - 250 EggmanEEA
250 - 255 frmky
255 - 260 Alien88
260 - 275 ltd
275 - 280 Mystwalker
300-301 Paperboy
btw. I'm using NbeGon_008 with an d=0.8 as it's the fastest setting for me so far.
There are ~15x as many overflows as with d=2.8, but only in the first column.
Have you tried setting the priority to "idle"?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
Phil
I'm currently working on 301 - 302, as I posted yesterday. In that post I decided to take 301 - 310. Is is better to stop after the program has finished the 301.x range and then take 280 - 290, or should I go on with 302 - 310?
I've got one, possibly two, machines without internet connections that could be used for sieveing. So i know where to get SoBseive or Nbegone... and where to post results... so where/who do i get SoB.dat
Yes I did. I suspect that since there are actually 31 levels of relative thread priority under windows that there is a minor difference somewhere.Have you tried setting the priority to "idle"?
For instance, if both are running at "idle" Process Priority Class (which is, I believe, basically what you are changing when you modify the priority in Task Manager and exactly what you are changing when you modify the priority in SOBSeive), the threads could still be at different Thread Priorities (Time Critical, Highest, Above Normal, Normal, Below Normal, Lowest, Idle).
I may not be exactly correct here, but I think I'm close. Look at Analyzing Processor Activity for more info.
HTH
Dave
Download SOBSeive. Even if you don't use it, it will come with the SoB.dat fileso where/who do i get SoB.dat
i'll take 285-290
This is getting a bit confusing, so I repost the whole thing again:
0 - 25 Louie
25 - 50 ceselb
50 - 75 kmd
75 - 100 cjohnsto
100 - 125 Nuri
125 - 130 McBryce
130 - 150 RangerX
150 - 155 nuutti
155 - 175 MikeH
175 - 200 paul.jobling
200 - 210 dudlio
210 - 215 smh
215 - 225 dmbrubac
225 - 250 EggmanEEA
250 - 255 frmky
255 - 260 Alien88
260 - 275 ltd
275 - 280 Mystwalker
285 - 290 alexr
300 - 301 Paperboy
301 - 310 Zonar
--> Two people needed for the remaining gaps!! (I cannot do it,
my processor is way too slow)
I'm done with 300-301
All this competition does seem to be good! Good work Paul, good work Phil.
SoBSieve 1.1 running on an AMD XP 2100+ = ~40Kp/sec
Paul, what should I now be using for the alpha? Currently I'm using 1.0. Or should I just experiment?
One more request - we are half way there will being able to put SoBSieve in Windows start-up group, but we still get the dialogue box that asks "The sieving is from p = ... to p = ... - OK to go?", and you have to click yes. Please can you remove this dialogue box, and maybe display the range in the title bar "SoBSieve 1.1 (170.2G - 175.0G)", or maybe just display this somewhere else on window once it's running. But key point is - it should start without user interaction.
And can you clarify what happens on power failure? Does it pick up the last pmin= in the SobStatus file, or does it take the last factor in the file and pick up from there? Or something else?
Has anyone else tried to get Phil's NbeGon_008 (or the batch file it produces to be more precise) running as a service with FireDaemon?
It works fine with Win2K, but under WinNT using the same setting it doesn't work. Symptom is FireDaemon says the service has started, but when I look in task manager it isn't! Any clues anyone?
I'm grabbing 280-285 now..
0 - 25 Louie
25 - 50 ceselb
50 - 75 kmd
75 - 100 cjohnsto
100 - 125 Nuri
125 - 130 McBryce
130 - 150 RangerX
150 - 155 nuutti
155 - 175 MikeH
175 - 200 paul.jobling
200 - 210 dudlio
210 - 215 smh
215 - 225 dmbrubac
225 - 250 EggmanEEA
250 - 255 frmky
255 - 260 Alien88 [complete]
260 - 275 ltd
275 - 280 Mystwalker
280 - 285 Alien88
285 - 290 alexr
300 - 301 Paperboy [complete]
301 - 310 Zonar
I would like to divide this discussion into two new threads, so I am going to lock this one and start a new one.
The new ones will be:
Sieve Coordination Thread - please use this exclusively for coordinating your blocks
Sieve Client Thread - please use this to discuss the clients.
Thanks,
Alien88