mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Aliquot Sequences (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90)
-   -   Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11615)

schickel 2009-03-18 07:24

Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788
 
1 Attachment(s)
Back story: Weib Bosma had a note on his [URL="http://www.math.ru.nl/%7Ebosma/Projects/tabB.html"]site[/URL] about 314718 merging with 16100. Further research revealed that 314718 actually merges with 4788:[code]314718.elf:i6466 = 4788.elf:i6 = 60564[/code](Meaning that 314718 line 6466 is the same as 4788 line 6.)

[URL="http://christophe.clavier.free.fr/Aliquot/site/Aliquot.html"]Christophe Clavier[/URL] has been working on 4788 and had it at line 2335 stalled on a c131. Factoreyes ran an NFS job for me and cracked it as p46*p86. I managed to run ECM jobs on lines 2336-2349. Presently I am on line 2350 with a c114 that has had 120 curves at 43M. Since I am booked up on my NFS resources, I want to pass this job off to someone else that can tackle it easier than I can.

Let me know if you want to take over 4788 or just tackle the c114 and pass 4788 back to the forum....

The c114:[code]333969874513396811666453580618603759213027599438507119081627586159016823042831267378101968786698031498425405759447[/code]PS. The guide is pretty benign: 2^4 * 7

mod-edit:
[URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&eff=2&aq=4788&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"][U]Link[/U][/URL] to sequence 4788 in the database.

henryzz 2009-03-18 07:31

i could tackle a C114 in at most a week probably a lot less
i will start this evening unless a better offer comes along

axn 2009-03-18 08:30

[QUOTE=henryzz;165852]i could tackle a C114 in at most a week probably a lot less
i will start this evening unless a better offer comes along[/QUOTE]

I can do this in 24hr (+/-). I will start now. (Post here if you want to do it anyway).

10metreh 2009-03-18 08:51

I hope I live to see it reach 10000 lines!

axn 2009-03-18 22:36

[CODE]prp46 factor: 9689948256303989849690101574446059415187644819
prp68 factor: 34465599369545242212965875186451104260540178989891925806773466727213[/CODE]
Submitted to database. It's all yours.

schickel 2009-03-19 00:47

[QUOTE=axn;165928][CODE]prp46 factor: 9689948256303989849690101574446059415187644819
prp68 factor: 34465599369545242212965875186451104260540178989891925806773466727213[/CODE]
Submitted to database. It's all yours.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the jog! I'll crank this a couple of turns and see what pops out....

schickel 2009-03-20 09:22

Line 2351, c104
 
Well, the next line has coughed up a c104.[code]19445023820759413049735139448328858269561257022217272850132406976527254917250850973392258860412964099301[/code]Want to tackle it henryzz?

axn 2009-03-20 09:48

Ooh... I finally got bored and started on it a couple of hours back. :sad: Maybe the next one?

schickel 2009-03-20 11:36

[QUOTE=axn;166080]Ooh... I finally got bored and started on it a couple of hours back. :sad: Maybe the next one?[/QUOTE]Sorry about the late posting, I got busy with my other sequences. Want to take on the sequence or just the c104?

axn 2009-03-20 13:00

[QUOTE=schickel;166093]Sorry about the late posting, I got busy with my other sequences. Want to take on the sequence or just the c104?[/QUOTE]

Not really interested in committing to this. So I'll just split the c104 (and run it up until ECM on Syd's database fails to crack a number completely).

BTW, c104 is
[CODE]prp46 factor: 1189707387148188861504157624967064754966772497
prp59 factor: 16344375121827631980934001785563155648000810304857412547733
[/CODE]

axn 2009-03-23 07:46

[QUOTE=axn;166103]Not really interested in committing to this. So I'll just split the c104 (and run it up until ECM on Syd's database fails to crack a number completely).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=schickel;166342]If we're going to look at a group effort, I would lean more towards 4788, which would be a good candidate after axn gives up on it....[/QUOTE]

Currently, it is stuck on a c103 (which I'm not going to do), so it's up for grabs.

10metreh 2009-03-23 08:26

[quote=axn;166346]Currently, it is stuck on a c103 (which I'm not going to do), so it's up for grabs.[/quote]

I'll run the poly search.

Edit: very odd - msieve only found one poly! (And this is v1.40!)

[code]n: 6715778986509437351659355479537317503862077567628701560157424823155957703109875481494795372990506112001
c0: 28509115761858954126279375
c1: -5610188709933878015066
c2: -299245357257746597
c3: 8739030406140
c4: 111593376
c5: 1320
Y0: -87357695058887796682
Y1: 39569762047
skew: 36124.47[/code]

I don't particularly want to sieve this, but can you check whether this performs well against other C103 polys?

mdettweiler 2009-03-23 17:54

[quote=10metreh;166349]I'll run the poly search.

Edit: very odd - msieve only found one poly! (And this is v1.40!)

[code]n: 6715778986509437351659355479537317503862077567628701560157424823155957703109875481494795372990506112001
c0: 28509115761858954126279375
c1: -5610188709933878015066
c2: -299245357257746597
c3: 8739030406140
c4: 111593376
c5: 1320
Y0: -87357695058887796682
Y1: 39569762047
skew: 36124.47[/code]I don't particularly want to sieve this, but can you check whether this performs well against other C103 polys?[/quote]
If you'd rather not do the sieving, I'll take it (though of course I won't start until someone's verified that the polynomial is OK). :smile:

10metreh 2009-03-23 18:05

[quote=mdettweiler;166390]If you'd rather not do the sieving, I'll take it (though of course I won't start until someone's verified that the polynomial is OK). :smile:[/quote]

BTW: I'd be happy to do the easy (i.e. computing iterations, doing small ECM etc.) work on this one.

mdettweiler 2009-03-23 18:16

[quote=10metreh;166391]BTW: I'd be happy to do the easy (i.e. computing iterations, doing small ECM etc.) work on this one.[/quote]
Oh, I didn't mean I would take the whole sequence--just the C103. Sorry for any confusion there. :smile:

Though, of course, since it sounds like 4788 is going to be done as a group effort, that would be great if you'd like to do the ECM/computing iterations/etc. portion of the work for it. :smile:

10metreh 2009-03-23 18:23

[quote=mdettweiler;166394]Oh, I didn't mean I would take the whole sequence--just the C103. Sorry for any confusion there. :smile:

Though, of course, since it sounds like 4788 is going to be done as a group effort, that would be great if you'd like to do the ECM/computing iterations/etc. portion of the work for it. :smile:[/quote]

The poly works fine, it's only its speed I was wondering about. You have done GNFSs in the C103 range (I think), so you should be able to check whether the poly is good and start now. Otherwise I'll get pol51 to find a poly.

mdettweiler 2009-03-23 18:26

[quote=10metreh;166396]The poly works fine, it's only its speed I was wondering about. You have done GNFSs in the C103 range (I think), so you should be able to check whether the poly is good and start now. Otherwise I'll get pol51 to find a poly.[/quote]
Yes, I've done a number of C103 GNFSs; however, I never did remember to save the sec./rel numbers for any of them so I'm afraid that won't do much good. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, OK, I'll go ahead and give it a try. I should be able to get started on it sometime within the next few hours. I'll post the sec./rel amount here as soon as I get started, so others can do an approximate comparison with their figures.

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 05:00

[quote=mdettweiler;166397]Yes, I've done a number of C103 GNFSs; however, I never did remember to save the sec./rel numbers for any of them so I'm afraid that won't do much good. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, OK, I'll go ahead and give it a try. I should be able to get started on it sometime within the next few hours. I'll post the sec./rel amount here as soon as I get started, so others can do an approximate comparison with their figures.[/quote]
Okay--the C103 has finished GNFS, and splits as follows:
[code]prp37 factor: 6847689178574549212561159545722372429
prp66 factor: 980736539199553596521652049069316443450476568626535381565747233669[/code]
Here's a sec./rel readout taken from the end of the last q-range that was done:
total yield: 278800, q=1900009 (0.00686 sec/rel)
I presume that's within a reasonably normal range for an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2Ghz)? (Note: it may be [i]slightly[/i] slower than normal for this CPU, since there were some other programs stealing a small amount of CPU cycles. Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too far out of normal range.)

I'll submit the factors to Syd's database shortly, and crank as many further lines as possible using the workers. I'll report back here as soon as I run into one that survives full ECM. :smile:

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 06:02

The next line (2358) has a C92 that survived full ECM. My resources are completely tied up for tonight, so if anyone else wants to do QS on this, go ahead. If nobody's grabbed it by the time I get on tomorrow (probably late morning) I'll do it myself since things should be freed up a bit by then.

The number is:
[code]23815769543009537132187278752799013868767385674615392411879275450950012601757447373080004859[/code]

henryzz 2009-03-24 07:21

[quote=mdettweiler;166437]Okay--the C103 has finished GNFS, and splits as follows:
[code]prp37 factor: 6847689178574549212561159545722372429
prp66 factor: 980736539199553596521652049069316443450476568626535381565747233669[/code]Here's a sec./rel readout taken from the end of the last q-range that was done:
total yield: 278800, q=1900009 (0.00686 sec/rel)
I presume that's within a reasonably normal range for an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2Ghz)? (Note: it may be [I]slightly[/I] slower than normal for this CPU, since there were some other programs stealing a small amount of CPU cycles. Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too far out of normal range.)

I'll submit the factors to Syd's database shortly, and crank as many further lines as possible using the workers. I'll report back here as soon as I run into one that survives full ECM. :smile:[/quote]
i did a comparison with a pol51m0b poly that i generated in about 30 secs and i got about 0.0038 sec/rel for both although the pol51m0b seemed to be slightly slower if anything
how did you get such a bad time? i ran on a Q6600 overclocked to 3Ghz
i suspect you underestimated the amount the other program slowed it down

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 07:28

[quote=henryzz;166448]i did a comparison with a pol51m0b poly that i generated in about 30 secs and i got about 0.0038 sec/rel for both although the pol51m0b seemed to be slightly slower if anything
how did you get such a bad time? i ran on a Q6600 overclocked to 3Ghz
i suspect you underestimated the amount the other program slowed it down[/quote]
Well, the other program (mprime, which I have doing TF on both cores at lowest priority to soak up any otherwise-wasted CPU cycles between factorization jobs) that was running normally doesn't take any more than 7-10% of the CPU at a time, so it couldn't have been nearly that much. Something seems a little fishy there...

Here, I've got an idea. I'll try again with the same polynomial as before, in approximately a similar q-range, but this time set to a nice value of -20. That should ensure that nothing else gets in its way. :smile: I'll report back here with my results in a few minutes.

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 07:35

[quote=mdettweiler;166450]Here, I've got an idea. I'll try again with the same polynomial as before, in approximately a similar q-range, but this time set to a nice value of -20. That should ensure that nothing else gets in its way. :smile: I'll report back here with my results in a few minutes.[/quote]
Okay, I've tried that, with no other applications running, and got the exact same thing:

total yield: 2149, q=1900511 (0.00638 sec/rel)

BTW--I've got a taskbar gadget that reads out my CPU temperatures continuously and they're well below the throttle limit, so thermal throttling can be ruled out as the cause of any problems.

[B]Edit[/B]: Oh, wait! I just realized what's going on. henryzz, are you by chance using the 64-bit version of gnfs-lasieve4I12e? I'm using the 32-bit version, which of course is about half as fast--so that would explain the discrepancy perfectly. :smile:

10metreh 2009-03-24 07:37

[quote=mdettweiler;166441]The next line (2358) has a C92 that survived full ECM. My resources are completely tied up for tonight, so if anyone else wants to do QS on this, go ahead. If nobody's grabbed it by the time I get on tomorrow (probably late morning) I'll do it myself since things should be freed up a bit by then.

The number is:
[code]23815769543009537132187278752799013868767385674615392411879275450950012601757447373080004859[/code][/quote]

I'd like to see this done by this afternoon/early evening (GMT), because this gives me most time to compute more.

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 07:38

[quote=10metreh;166452]I'd like to see this done by this afternoon/early evening (GMT), because this gives me most time to compute more.[/quote]
Okay, no problem. I presume, thus, that you'll do it? (considering that it's 7AM GMT right now)

10metreh 2009-03-24 07:47

[quote=mdettweiler;166453]Okay, no problem. I presume, thus, that you'll do it? (considering that it's 7AM GMT right now)[/quote]

Nope - no computer access for a while. I won't have much time until the weekend to do jobs much larger than C85.

axn 2009-03-24 08:21

Msieve is cranking away on the C92 even as we speak! ETA: 2 hours.

mklasson 2009-03-24 11:22

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;166451]Oh, wait! I just realized what's going on. henryzz, are you by chance using the 64-bit version of gnfs-lasieve4I12e? I'm using the 32-bit version, which of course is about half as fast--so that would explain the discrepancy perfectly. :smile:[/QUOTE]

I'm not so sure about that. The 64-bit version is significantly [b]slower[/b] than the 32-bit version on my system... I don't know why, but I've seen other people report the same problem (which was why I checked and noticed it in the first place).

Maybe comparing yield over a certain range is a more portable way of measuring the poly quality?

axn 2009-03-24 12:30

[QUOTE=mklasson;166476]Maybe comparing yield over a certain range is a more portable way of measuring the poly quality?[/QUOTE]

Without knowing the actual factor base sizes, large prime bounds, etc.., it is an apples to oranges comparison, innit?

mklasson 2009-03-24 12:39

[QUOTE=axn;166481]Without knowing the actual factor base sizes, large prime bounds, etc.., it is an apples to oranges comparison, innit?[/QUOTE]

I'm not suggesting it should be used for anything serious... It just seemed a possibly better idea for them than comparing the sec/rel with different processors.

10metreh 2009-03-24 12:47

[quote=axn;166458]Msieve is cranking away on the C92 even as we speak! ETA: 2 hours.[/quote]

And... (I'm not at home, so I won't be able to do much work on the next iteraton(s))

axn 2009-03-24 12:50

[QUOTE=mklasson;166485]I'm not suggesting it should be used for anything serious... It just seemed a possibly better idea for them than comparing the sec/rel with different processors.[/QUOTE]

Even though I quoted your post specifically, it was intended at the general discussion. The two different speeds posted here for the two different polys didn't have enough supporting information to tell if it is an anomaly or par for the course (quite possible that both are using the default values for factMsieve, but we don't know). I was just trying to highlight that fact :smile:

Anyway, the difference between the two CPUs (3GHz Q6600 (4MB L2) vs 2.2GHz E4500 (1MB L2)) is enough to explain the bulk of the discrepancy.

For proper comparison of two polys, the SOP is to trial sieve at different q-values with the same set of parameters, and look at the sieve speed (which is IMO, better than yield count) for the _same_ processor.

EDIT:- The discussion is getting pretty offtopic. So...

bsquared 2009-03-24 13:08

[quote=mklasson;166476]I'm not so sure about that. The 64-bit version is significantly [B]slower[/B] than the 32-bit version on my system... I don't know why, but I've seen other people report the same problem (which was why I checked and noticed it in the first place).

Maybe comparing yield over a certain range is a more portable way of measuring the poly quality?[/quote]

There are two 64 bit gnfs-lasieve*Ie versions, one with and one without assembly optimizations. The one with is approximatly twice as fast as the one without (and twice as fast as the 32bit version), but AFAIK, is only available on linux.

mklasson 2009-03-24 13:16

[QUOTE=bsquared;166491]There are two 64 bit gnfs-lasieve*Ie versions, one with and one without assembly optimizations. The one with is approximatly twice as fast as the one without (and twice as fast as the 32bit version), but AFAIK, is only available on linux.[/QUOTE]

Ah, what horrible bad luck for me to be running windows then... As usual, inline asm seems to be the culprit. :cry:

smh 2009-03-24 13:25

The next few lines are[CODE]2358. 1057740653513528086801031524122505337042976655048785727171419977827018427090800637622080490462747635590675389330380734966563569049887673822886448 = 2^4 * 37^2 * 61 * 139 * 811 * 3297913 * 89410075670231178255617408564064869 * 35002919043440598709446585389332582891704139 * 680393812683245718764884523503733114306839326481
2359. 1101106789466867190158699344258853149007026059881050048976079670039948004072162440268787484377092542354688034551613035367120271627951318370521552 = 2^4 * 59 * 89 * 139 * 809 * 8676141475920391931 * 5242696007384015650021 * 2562257755084747092444106045661085679031576535348519685064809828214204315874454304278737557347
2360. 1111338937559280653105967704696475530852725166022881880277270464264691375579242248013146222561793654859704139868691964652947247957345101468198448 = 2^4 * 47 * 181 * 211219840628893703 * 6752370963621275689 * 320157034060976985774276364002263071 * 17881175392493028213881459983631827728605211737115392212082434979897
2361. 1099842778336850112888388054783870080440778137370608244403348556935983252469359193252640108450630518144766769986533571350697202804014917630466512 = 2^4 * 3713807 * 95536018143098333729 * 12677902689255386517271648618421078537327 * 15281878558600307159671331751066153273008886018100828613108896319230955638397
2362. 1031103178480814347844647335693130540009680919276879210321284738494273557544345821526867225678615495548751496685206097793886598655487523752051248 = 2^4 * 163 * 4285339 * 21066232726885097[/CODE]

henryzz 2009-03-24 17:30

[quote=mdettweiler;166451]Okay, I've tried that, with no other applications running, and got the exact same thing:

total yield: 2149, q=1900511 (0.00638 sec/rel)

BTW--I've got a taskbar gadget that reads out my CPU temperatures continuously and they're well below the throttle limit, so thermal throttling can be ruled out as the cause of any problems.

[B]Edit[/B]: Oh, wait! I just realized what's going on. henryzz, are you by chance using the 64-bit version of gnfs-lasieve4I12e? I'm using the 32-bit version, which of course is about half as fast--so that would explain the discrepancy perfectly. :smile:[/quote]
no i was using 32-bit

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 17:47

[quote=henryzz;166520]no i was using 32-bit[/quote]
Hmm...that's very strange then. Maybe somehow I'm not using a GGNFS binary that has the assembly code enabled? I built my GGNFS binaries myself, with just a plain old "make" command, no special stuff enabled. Is that the problem?

If so, how would I go about compiling/obtaining GGNFS binaries for 32-bit Linux that have the assembly code enabled?

10metreh 2009-03-24 17:48

[quote=smh;166494]The next few lines are[code]2358. 1057740653513528086801031524122505337042976655048785727171419977827018427090800637622080490462747635590675389330380734966563569049887673822886448 = 2^4 * 37^2 * 61 * 139 * 811 * 3297913 * 89410075670231178255617408564064869 * 35002919043440598709446585389332582891704139 * 680393812683245718764884523503733114306839326481
2359. 1101106789466867190158699344258853149007026059881050048976079670039948004072162440268787484377092542354688034551613035367120271627951318370521552 = 2^4 * 59 * 89 * 139 * 809 * 8676141475920391931 * 5242696007384015650021 * 2562257755084747092444106045661085679031576535348519685064809828214204315874454304278737557347
2360. 1111338937559280653105967704696475530852725166022881880277270464264691375579242248013146222561793654859704139868691964652947247957345101468198448 = 2^4 * 47 * 181 * 211219840628893703 * 6752370963621275689 * 320157034060976985774276364002263071 * 17881175392493028213881459983631827728605211737115392212082434979897
2361. 1099842778336850112888388054783870080440778137370608244403348556935983252469359193252640108450630518144766769986533571350697202804014917630466512 = 2^4 * 3713807 * 95536018143098333729 * 12677902689255386517271648618421078537327 * 15281878558600307159671331751066153273008886018100828613108896319230955638397
2362. 1031103178480814347844647335693130540009680919276879210321284738494273557544345821526867225678615495548751496685206097793886598655487523752051248 = 2^4 * 163 * 4285339 * 21066232726885097[/code][/quote]

..leaving a t35-ed C118. I reckon we should do about 1/4 of the 40-digit level, i.e. roughly 600 curves, then give it a GNFS. Any opinions?

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 18:42

[quote=10metreh;166524]..leaving a t35-ed C118. I reckon we should do about 1/4 of the 40-digit level, i.e. roughly 600 curves, then give it a GNFS. Any opinions?[/quote]
Sounds good to me. Would anyone here be interested in pre-reserving the C118 GNFS (assuming that we don't find a factor in the remaining ECM work left to be done)? It would probably be a bit too small to make a group GNFS effort worthwhile.

I'll be glad to do the poly selection (with msieve v1.40) portion of the job, though probably not the whole thing (which would tie up my resources for a solid couple of days).

10metreh 2009-03-24 19:05

We have about 230 curves left on the C118 thanks to someone (Max?) giving it a good go on Syd's workers. Much easier! :smile:

I'm going to donate some curves myself, but even at normal priority, one curve takes about 1 minute 45 seconds.

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 19:13

[quote=10metreh;166543]We have about 230 curves left on the C118 thanks to someone (Max?) giving it a good go on Syd's workers. Much easier! :smile:

I'm going to donate some curves myself, but even at normal priority, one curve takes about 1 minute 45 seconds.[/quote]
Yes, that was me running the C118 on the workers. In fact, they just popped out a nice P37:
[code] [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=16882"][COLOR=#000000]2^4[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=357"][COLOR=#000000]163[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27049596"][COLOR=#000000]4285339[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27191867"][COLOR=#000000]21066232726885097[/COLOR][/URL]<17> · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27200896"][COLOR=#000000]2864669672966317508498722163333620943[/COLOR][/URL]<37> · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27200897"][COLOR=#000000]1528790330...[/COLOR][/URL]<82>[/code]I'll continue to run this sequence on the workers until a number survives full ECM. If anyone wants to donate a few curves along the way, be sure to submit them to Syd's database so we can keep track of them easily. :smile:

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 19:18

[quote=mdettweiler;166544]Yes, that was me running the C118 on the workers. In fact, they just popped out a nice P37:
[code] [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=16882"][COLOR=#000000]2^4[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=357"][COLOR=#000000]163[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27049596"][COLOR=#000000]4285339[/COLOR][/URL] · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27191867"][COLOR=#000000]21066232726885097[/COLOR][/URL]<17> · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27200896"][COLOR=#000000]2864669672966317508498722163333620943[/COLOR][/URL]<37> · [URL="http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27200897"][COLOR=#000000]1528790330...[/COLOR][/URL]<82>[/code]I'll continue to run this sequence on the workers until a number survives full ECM. If anyone wants to donate a few curves along the way, be sure to submit them to Syd's database so we can keep track of them easily. :smile:[/quote]
10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits. :smile:

mklasson 2009-03-24 19:35

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;166545]10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Looking at [url]http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27203989[/url] P-1 has been run 5 times at B1=3e7 now. Is someone pushing [b]too[/b] many buttons? :smile: Or are the workers doing it automatically?

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 19:36

[quote=mklasson;166548]Looking at [URL]http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27203989[/URL] P-1 has been run 5 times at B1=3e7 now. Is someone pushing [B]too[/B] many buttons? :smile: Or are the workers doing it automatically?[/quote]
The workers automatically run P-1 once every time ECM very high limits is started. Thus, if a very high limits run is interrupted and has to be restarted a couple of times, then the P-1 and P+1 will start to pile up. :smile:

10metreh 2009-03-24 19:37

[quote=mdettweiler;166545]10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits. :smile:[/quote]

Not me anymore really - someone is clearly using them for most of their aliquot sequence work.

I reckon t35 (or maybe slightly less) for the current C112.

mklasson 2009-03-24 19:43

Hm, I tried to report 128 manual curves at 1e6, but I don't think it showed up on the summary. Do you have to give a valid name for it to count? I didn't write anything and got neither a success nor failure confirmation.

mdettweiler 2009-03-24 19:46

[quote=10metreh;166550]Not me anymore really - someone is clearly using them for most of their aliquot sequence work.

I reckon t35 (or maybe slightly less) for the current C112.[/quote]
Actually, what I meant is that I was wondering if you were pushing buttons on the SAME number as I was, at the same time...because, for example, I'd hit "TF to 1e7" and, boom, it comes back with a cheerful "Assigned to worker x: preparing for ECM very high limits", which would indicate that someone else hit the very high limits button just before I hit TF to 1e7. :smile:

Regarding ECM on the current C112: okay, that sounds good. I'll stop the workers as soon as they finish t35.

Meanwhile, anyone interested in pre-reserving the C112 for GNFS?
[quote=mklasson;166551]Hm, I tried to report 128 manual curves at 1e6, but I don't think it showed up on the summary. Do you have to give a valid name for it to count? I didn't write anything and got neither a success nor failure confirmation.[/quote]
Yes, you have to input a valid text string in the name field. And it can't be "Workers", either--yes, I really tried that and it didn't work. :wink:

10metreh 2009-03-24 19:51

t35 is complete, I've stopped the workers. Anyone want to do the C112 GNFS? (I would only ever take it "in an emergency".)

frmky 2009-03-24 20:15

[QUOTE=10metreh;166554]t35 is complete, I've stopped the workers. Anyone want to do the C112 GNFS? (I would only ever take it "in an emergency".)[/QUOTE]

I'll do it quickly. I'm waiting for a matrix job to finish anyway.

frmky 2009-03-24 22:06

[QUOTE=frmky;166561]I'll do it quickly. I'm waiting for a matrix job to finish anyway.[/QUOTE]

prp52 factor: 1736559430375412380516276762881457055749836156751163
prp61 factor: 2391762152361664962953732769620057115772147342121433640915273

Syd 2009-03-24 22:17

[quote=frmky;166568]prp52 factor: 1736559430375412380516276762881457055749836156751163
prp61 factor: 2391762152361664962953732769620057115772147342121433640915273[/quote]

That was really quick!

The next few steps were easy, now its stuck on a C132 (ecm'd to 30 digits, still running)

10metreh 2009-03-25 07:37

[quote=Syd;166570]That was really quick!

The next few steps were easy, now its stuck on a C132 (ecm'd to 30 digits, still running)[/quote]

I think t40 will be just right for this one, then should it be a group effort?

mdettweiler 2009-03-25 16:12

[quote=10metreh;166615]I think t40 will be just right for this one, then should it be a group effort?[/quote]
It's now completed t40. I agree that this one would be good for a group effort. If no one else wants to, I'd be glad to take a whack at organizing the group effort for this one--it might help me increase my experience with all this stuff a wee bit. :smile:

This one's small enough that I'd guess polynomial selection can be easily handled by one person--would anyone else be interested in that? (If not, I'll take it.)

Edit: Oh, I almost forgot. The composite is:
[code]237474238144581942013743962592681110466868743637301019199392364875573239625256029804412406254660594889970612890759306708620321670791[/code]

henryzz 2009-03-25 17:24

who is doing the postprocessing for a group effort?
i could if everyone can upload their files to somewhere i can download them
i am away Monday-Friday next week though but we might be able to finish before then

mdettweiler 2009-03-25 18:09

[quote=henryzz;166655]who is doing the postprocessing for a group effort?
i could if everyone can upload their files to somewhere i can download them
i am away Monday-Friday next week though but we might be able to finish before then[/quote]
I'd be fine with doing the postprocessing for this job, though I don't have any upload space of suitable size, either. :rolleyes: Of course if you'd rather do it, I'm fine with that, too. :smile:

henryzz 2009-03-25 18:13

[quote=mdettweiler;166657]I'd be fine with doing the postprocessing for this job, though I don't have any upload space of suitable size, either. :rolleyes: Of course if you'd rather do it, I'm fine with that, too. :smile:[/quote]
feel free
the only requirement is that you will probably need 2Gb of memory

anyone got suggestions for uploading?

10metreh 2009-03-25 18:14

What would be best is if someone would use FTP, a la Tom Womack's projects. BTW, the only thing I will take part in for the C132 is the sieving.

@henryzz: I think a C132 might just fit in 512MB. [COLOR=white]Have you noticed your post count is a power of 2?[/COLOR]

Andi47 2009-03-25 19:52

[QUOTE=henryzz;166658]feel free
the only requirement is that you will probably need 2Gb of memory
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure about this: I have done two factorizations which were about this size (c135 and c136) and they needed ~500 to 600 MB of memory.

Edit:
@10metreh: 512 MB might be *very* close. As the OS also needs some RAM, I would suggest a PC which has more than 512 MB.

henryzz 2009-03-25 20:06

[quote=Andi47;166667]I am not sure about this: I have done two factorizations which were about this size (c135 and c136) and they needed ~500 to 600 MB of memory.

Edit:
@10metreh: 512 MB might be *very* close. As the OS also needs some RAM, I would suggest a PC which has more than 512 MB.[/quote]
i remember thinking that about C135 was the max that i would ever be able to do with my pc
i thought that that was because of memory limitations
it is nice to know i can do bigger

mdettweiler 2009-03-25 22:14

[QUOTE=henryzz;166658]feel free
the only requirement is that you will probably need 2Gb of memory

anyone got suggestions for uploading?[/QUOTE]
Okay, cool. I've got 2GB of memory, so that shouldn't be a problem.

As for uploading: I like 10metreh's suggestion of using an FTP server like in fivemack's projects. Does anyone know of a good place where we could get FTP space?

Come to think of it, I might be able to run an FTP server myself for this. I'm thinking that we could possibly run one on the computer that we currently use for hosting LLRnet servers for the NPLB project. I can't promise anything yet as the machines belong to Gary (the head admin at NPLB) but I'll send him a PM about it and see what he says. :smile:

10metreh 2009-03-26 06:47

Seems we can get some work started soon!

Th only problem with our current system is if we get a big composite like a C145 that would need half of the 45-digit level run. That is beyond "very high limits", so we'd have to do it ourselves.

Just noticed our original discuccion, with all its information, has been deleted.

mdettweiler 2009-03-26 07:05

[QUOTE=10metreh;166708]Seems we can get some work started soon![/quote]
Since nobody else has expressed interest in running the polynomial selection, I'll get it started within the next few minutes and let it run overnight. I should be able to get a group-sieve information post posted tomorrow morning. :smile:

Edit: Okay, I see msieve just said "time limit set to 20.00 hours". I know this is only an approximate upper limit, but it does mean that I grossly underestimated the amount of time this polynomial selection will take. Thus, letting it "run overnight" will probably not suffice; it will probably go well into tomorrow. That works out okay, though, since I'll be out of the house until late afternoon/evening tomorrow anyway and it should be at least pretty close to done by then.
[quote]Th only problem with our current system is if we get a big composite like a C145 that would need half of the 45-digit level run. That is beyond "very high limits", so we'd have to do it ourselves.[/quote]Hmm...maybe for such a number Syd could put it in specially on the backend so it can go further than very high limits normally would? (presuming, of course, that it wouldn't interfere with any plans Syd has for his personal work on those machines...)

henryzz 2009-03-26 07:21

Syd's database has made us lazy with ecm. Could you set up an ecmnet server if we need it medettwieler?
i am sure together we could do half t45.

mdettweiler 2009-03-26 07:24

[QUOTE=henryzz;166713]Syd's database has made us lazy with ecm. Could you set up an ecmnet server if we need it medettwieler?
i am sure together we could do half t45.[/QUOTE]
Well, I've never run an ECMnet server before, but I'm somewhat familiar with PRPnet (which is based on ECMnet) so I'm sure I could learn. Within the next few days I'll see about doing some pre-research on setting one up so I'll be ready when we need it.

henryzz 2009-03-26 07:29

[quote=mdettweiler;166715]Well, I've never run an ECMnet server before, but I'm somewhat familiar with PRPnet (which is based on ECMnet) so I'm sure I could learn. Within the next few days I'll see about doing some pre-research on setting one up so I'll be ready when we need it.[/quote]
i have previously set up a personal ecm server so feel free to pm me
i think the latest version of ecmnet is 2.7.2

schickel 2009-03-26 08:14

[QUOTE=10metreh;166708]Just noticed our original discuccion, with all its information, has been deleted.[/QUOTE]Yes it was. I just browsed back through the entire thread and there wasn't really any substantive info in there that we haven't called out in spearate threads already.....besides there were lots of posting of sequence snippets in [code] tags.

The only thing we need to do, I think is post a copy of the latest aliquot.ub in the links thread.....

schickel 2009-03-26 08:16

[QUOTE=henryzz;166717]i have previously set up a personal ecm server so feel free to pm me
i think the latest version of ecmnet is 2.7.2[/QUOTE]Does anyone have binaries that will run on Win98? I use this machine for running an ECM server and until I update my network, it's the only one I can put facing the 'net. (I'm still running 2.0....)

mdettweiler 2009-03-26 15:40

[QUOTE=henryzz;166717]i have previously set up a personal ecm server so feel free to pm me
i think the latest version of ecmnet is 2.7.2[/QUOTE]
Okay, thanks! I'll drop you a line if I run into any problems. :smile:

henryzz 2009-03-26 16:49

[quote=schickel;166724]Does anyone have binaries that will run on Win98? I use this machine for running an ECM server and until I update my network, it's the only one I can put facing the 'net. (I'm still running 2.0....)[/quote]
will binaries compiled with cygwin work?

mdettweiler 2009-03-27 05:48

Okay...polynomial selection for the C132 has completed! It's getting late now in my time zone so I may not have time to get a reservation/info post done tonight, but at any rate I should have it up sometime tomorrow morning at the latest. :smile:

mklasson 2009-03-28 16:08

[QUOTE=bsquared;166491]There are two 64 bit gnfs-lasieve*Ie versions, one with and one without assembly optimizations. The one with is approximatly twice as fast as the one without (and twice as fast as the 32bit version), but AFAIK, is only available on linux.[/QUOTE]

Do you (or anyone) know where I can find the asm version? The code at [url]http://ggnfs.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ggnfs/[/url] doesn't seem to have any 64-bit asm in it apart from a tiny snippet of inline asm.

mdettweiler 2009-04-03 22:11

As detailed in the [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=167954]group GNFS thread[/url], line 2369 factors as:

2^4 * 340752666907 * 116238860920079121381876555229229980591511378427190831 * 2042984904229740263571126912422221015960751979074301306917503575020558507237161

I'll crank as many further lines as I can with Syd's workers.

mdettweiler 2009-04-04 00:13

Okay, we now have a C102 on line 2375 that survived ECM up to t35. Any volunteers? :smile:

Here's the composite:
[code]14473673204982170860996959069709333086413941137368798756060711249911562670746166138164078557783217740392515556542001655747180161070205240297195760[/code]

jrk 2009-04-04 01:17

[quote=mdettweiler;167976]Okay, we now have a C102 on line 2375 that survived ECM up to t35. Any volunteers? :smile:

Here's the composite:
[code]14473673204982170860996959069709333086413941137368798756060711249911562670746166138164078557783217740392515556542001655747180161070205240297195760[/code][/quote]

I'll take it. It will be done in the morning.

jrk 2009-04-04 08:26

C102 is
363152974353008927111899493824248443 * 408767353916114352456022278785686773245826347399827060334234422049

Next few lines of the sequence
[code]2375. 14473673204982170860996959069709333086413941137368798756060711249911562670746166138164078557783217740392515556542001655747180161070205240297195760 = 2^4 * 3 * 5 * 71293 * 259903164201911 * 21925184400573876869609 * 363152974353008927111899493824248443 * 408767353916114352456022278785686773245826347399827060334234422049
2376. 30395343082389785219812191604278225013455846543428316321585984669667796831125608646961529345638017960961300749480605060265202846031818271935508240 = 2^4 * 3 * 5 * 50387 * 9867150758262664733423900671 * 254733194957684467256959402124001407575080326984593417620540936144055945909457444800445110073588155695416527963
2377. 63832090510201858313902453109753705535171277038011799593477859407304609873577417116212812995972720394802669633319340740179540599861746552938090736 = 2^4 * 3 * 9319 * 7007808725737 * 19184071116258348512206639103101 * 1061464572136575971687420670843856112641322031449899244490099376161823011060083575482502998679319
[/code]Now it is on a C145. I've done ECM up to 242 curves @ 3e6. It's up for grabs.

[code]2105941075549672111921508909851636050404090481297524623607346966774901437650414021245145115297591259538433674834834659202592001169384479637347643[/code]

10metreh 2009-04-04 08:32

[quote=jrk;168007]C102 is
363152974353008927111899493824248443 * 408767353916114352456022278785686773245826347399827060334234422049

Next few lines of the sequence
[code]2375. 14473673204982170860996959069709333086413941137368798756060711249911562670746166138164078557783217740392515556542001655747180161070205240297195760 = 2^4 * 3 * 5 * 71293 * 259903164201911 * 21925184400573876869609 * 363152974353008927111899493824248443 * 408767353916114352456022278785686773245826347399827060334234422049
2376. 30395343082389785219812191604278225013455846543428316321585984669667796831125608646961529345638017960961300749480605060265202846031818271935508240 = 2^4 * 3 * 5 * 50387 * 9867150758262664733423900671 * 254733194957684467256959402124001407575080326984593417620540936144055945909457444800445110073588155695416527963
2377. 63832090510201858313902453109753705535171277038011799593477859407304609873577417116212812995972720394802669633319340740179540599861746552938090736 = 2^4 * 3 * 9319 * 7007808725737 * 19184071116258348512206639103101 * 1061464572136575971687420670843856112641322031449899244490099376161823011060083575482502998679319
[/code]Now it is on a C145. I've done ECM up to 242 curves @ 3e6. It's up for grabs.[/quote]

I reckon half-t45 on this one. Then we would have the question of whether to do the poly search with msieve or pol51 as this is the level where msieve starts becoming worse.

Andi47 2009-04-04 09:02

[QUOTE=10metreh;168008]I reckon half-t45 on this one. Then we would have the question of whether to do the poly search with msieve or pol51 as this is the level where msieve starts becoming worse.[/QUOTE]

[-]Try both and compare the polynomials, and send the results to JasonP.[/-]

Edit:

no. Grab the factors found by Syd's workers. [url]http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=28141070[/url]


Edit: How can I post striked text?

10metreh 2009-04-04 09:52

[quote=Andi47;168010]Edit: How can I post striked text?[/quote]

[strike]Use the [strike ] and [/strike ] tags, but without the spaces.[/strike]

10metreh 2009-04-04 15:27

A P44 popped out of the C120, with a C136 the next line, t40 in progress. Maybe a little bit of the 45-digit level before another group effort.

jrk 2009-04-04 16:29

I'll throw some 11e6 curves at it.

10metreh 2009-04-04 18:27

t40 will be complete in 20-25 minutes (I hope). Add some curves at 11e6 and we'll soon have another group effort!

jrk 2009-04-04 18:51

I finished 228 curves @ 11e6.

10metreh 2009-04-04 20:01

[quote=jrk;168055]I finished 228 curves @ 11e6.[/quote]

Just right! Anyone want to do the poly search?

Joshua2 2009-04-04 21:00

Should we wait for msieve 1.41? I'll run it once I get my binary for it, probably tonight.

Joshua2 2009-04-05 05:54

Search is running 36 hours...So prob Monday night I'll get back.

schickel 2009-04-07 09:18

Bummer!
 
I was just reviewing the state of 4788 and got a little bummed.....it's now led by [tex]2^4*3[/tex]. Let's hope we can shed the 3 before it gets too unwieldy......

jrk 2009-04-27 09:30

Update from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11690]second team sieve thread[/url],

[code]2381. 494971482475526330124317622685597917541823728848190330550517426954120092476547103666010616743406121936258712976665311787165277173451651329491371568 = 2^4 * 3 * 17 * 239 * 516127 * 1563440761900858657520258100740092791054824661414521843717 * 3145242307596444076700740622189201742377017336699201870940540745667136058929773[/code]

ECM is running on a c131 from the next line.

jrk 2009-04-27 09:51

Completed 363 curves @ 11e6 on the c131.

schickel 2009-04-27 10:21

[QUOTE=jrk;171120]Completed 363 curves @ 11e6 on the c131.[/QUOTE]I'll put it in to run some curves @ 43e6, but I don't know how long before my heavy duty worker contacts my server (2 hour contact interval); my light duty worker connects at a 15 minute interval....

mdettweiler 2009-04-27 15:25

[quote=schickel;171122]I'll put it in to run some curves @ 43e6, but I don't know how long before my heavy duty worker contacts my server (2 hour contact interval); my light duty worker connects at a 15 minute interval....[/quote]
Are you sure it needs anything at 43e6? I was thinking that the worker's default of a full t40 would be plenty (considering that it was enough for a c132).

jrk 2009-04-27 21:07

I will start a poly search for this c131.

jrk 2009-04-28 04:12

Shall we make this another team factoring run?

Best poly found so far for c131 (still searching):
[code]# norm 1.184609e-12 alpha -7.685437 e 6.481e-11
skew: 908992.68
c0: 3348252158728305644321314746700224
c1: 30656771114397449709790473636
c2: -16505017784500307019592
c3: -122674727487245953
c4: 30153048686
c5: 32640
Y0: -16592015549072479450790701
Y1: 299465985530831
[/code]

mdettweiler 2009-04-28 05:04

[quote=jrk;171246]Shall we make this another team factoring run?[/quote]
Well, considering that our earlier C132 only would have taken about 4-5 days, tops, on a reasonably-modern quad-core, a team sieve on a C131 may well end up oversieving it so humongously that we have a hard time doing the postprocessing. :smile: Thus, it would be ideal if an individual is interested in doing all of the sieving on this. However, if nobody's interested in going it alone, then of course a team sieve is still workable (though this time we'd have to be especially careful not to oversieve too much). I can volunteer for the postprocessing again if nobody else is particularly keen on doing it. :smile:

10metreh 2009-04-28 06:24

The t40 is still nowhere near completion because someone clicked "Stop" on it to make progress on another number.

henryzz 2009-04-28 06:28

[quote=10metreh;171254]The t40 is still nowhere near completion because someone clicked "Stop" on it to make progress on another number.[/quote]
various people were fighting all day with someone

smh 2009-04-28 06:39

Thats the reason i don't run my workers anymore

hhh 2009-04-28 07:18

[QUOTE=smh;171257]Thats the reason i don't run my workers anymore[/QUOTE]
I understand you so well. A queue is a queue is a queue. Unless some rowdy comes and says "Me first". ( I plead guilty, but only once or twice, after waiting two days for my number). While the thing that new jobs get priority is a good thing at low levels, one should not be able to influence the queue for the B1=250000 and 1000000 level. Definitely deserves fixing. H.

Andi47 2009-04-28 09:56

I did P-1 with B1=1e9, B2=1e14, no factor. I started P+1 with the same B1 and B2 bounds (3 runs)


All times are UTC. The time now is 11:14.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.