3617343986912807923736443 | 67607*2^202131+1
p-1 = 2 * 3^2 * 71 * 263 * 9209 * 11383 * 90847 * 1130117
B1=1M B2=100M
3617343986912807923736443 | 67607*2^202131+1
p-1 = 2 * 3^2 * 71 * 263 * 9209 * 11383 * 90847 * 1130117
B1=1M B2=100M
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
you realize that by raising the B1 by 131K yo ucould have found it without performing stage 2
How much time (percentage) would it have saved?Originally Posted by Keroberts1
Which would have been better?
Raising B1 by 131K, or lowering B1/B2 by a factor of 10?
But how would I have known to do that?
You've got to set bounds without knowing what the factors will look like.
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi
If I'm not mistaken, Prime95 suggests a B2/B1 ratio of around 20 for B1 values at 1,000,000.
Yup that's always the point...
One could also say, you could have simply taken the number
67607*2^202131+1
and divided it by
3617343986912807923736443
Seriously though, what were your memory requirements like for the stage2 portion. Also time to complete for each stage, a 1:100 ratio for B1:B2 seems a little high but it works.
Are you doing stage two with prime95 have they married the two clients yet.
It was a windows box that wasn't networked and that I would only visit once a week or so. So I wanted to give it a big chunk of work without worrying about it, hence the large bounds.
Quad 2.5GHz G5 PowerMac. Mmmmm.
My Current Sieve Progress: http://www.greenbank.org/cgi-bin/proth.cgi