Poly select and testsieving for RSA232
The path for mere mortals to contribute to a factorization of RSA896 or RSA1024 may include getting an empirical sense for how our current tools scale for projects of 230+ digits.
As a start on this path, I spent about two coreweeks on CADO poly select for RSA232: [code]n: 1009881397871923546909564894309468582818233821955573955141120516205831021338528545374366109757154363664913380084917065169921701524733294389270280234380960909804976440540711201965410747553824948672771374075011577182305398340606162079 skew: 2344396.759 type: gnfs c0: 4444911653278229819370022568140110402793683027936 c1: 1601077621210143696221661846379560448537934 c2: 10503357361068234616583254671616966819 c3: 106292952091953896748493562554 c4: 2012141349873927583036795 c5: 21775742789901120 c6: 43338240 Y0: 48749394190388072676687368853974603055 Y1: 1395619071010682498582953 # MurphyE (Bf=5.498e+11,Bg=6.872e+10,area=8.590e+16) = 2.92e08 # found by revision 78c3a74[/code] I ran this through msieve: size 5.322e17, alpha 10.267, combined = 5.391e17 rroots = 6 On our bestpolys table, an increase of 16 digits corresponds to an orderofmagnitude decrease in MurphyE. ~4.7e14 is the record for 184 digits, ~5.3e15 is the record for 200 digits, and ~4.6e16 (deg 6) is the record for 216 digits. So, this score at 5.4e17 is a decent baseline polynomial to do some parameterchoice work. I tried to feed the polynomial from the RSA768 factorization paper into msieve to compare scores, but it coredumped and I couldn't figure out my mistake. I'll report some testsieve results using 16f next. 
[CODE]searching for 15digit factors
commencing number field sieve (232digit input) R0: 1291187456580021223163547791574810881 R1: 34661003550492501851445829 A0: 277565266791543881995216199713801103343120 A1: 18185779352088594356726018862434803054 A2: 6525437261935989397109667371894785 A3: 46477854471727854271772677450 A4: 5006815697800138351796828 A5: 1276509360768321888 A6: 265482057982680 skew 44000.00, size 7.072e017, alpha 7.298, combined = 7.024e017 rroots = 6[/CODE] 
Thank you!
It should be noted that axn posted the poly for RSA768; its score is 30% better after 20 coreyears of search (~eleven years ago) than my RSA232 after 2 coreweeks. 
RSA768 was factored with the equivalent of I=16 on CADO (same sieve region as NFS@home's 16fV5 siever). I=17 may be faster, but has a memory footprint too large for most users (I failed to get a single instance to start on a 24GB system a few months ago). Alas, I haven't yet figured out how to testsieve within CADO; so instead I tried a little test with the 16f siever. "top" reported 3.5GB memory use for rlim=980M, alim=1640M. I also tested rlim=alim=1070M, but memory use only dropped to 2.9GB while yield was more than 10% worse and sec/rel was little changed.
My testsieve used mfbr=71, lpbr=37, mfba=110, lpba=40. These settings are a bit tighter than those used by the group that factored RSA768: They used smaller lim's to save memory but 40LP on both sides, mfbr=110, mfba=140 (4 large primes!). I initially tried 107/39 for aside, but 110/40 had approximately twice the yield. [code]#3740/71110, lambda 2.7/3.7: dQ=500 #Q=100M 7736 rels, 0.296 sec/rel #Q=600M 5041 rels, 0.441 sec/rel #Q=1100M 5154 rels, 0.483 sec/rel #Q=1600M 3088 rels, 0.571 sec/rel #Q=2100M 1741 rels, 0.634 sec/rel #Q=2600M 2818 rels, 0.648 sec/rel #Q=3100M 2683 rels, 0.674 sec/rel #Q=3600M 3516 rels, 0.696 sec/rel #Q=4100M 1574 rels, 0.775 sec/rel[/code] The team that cracked RSA768 used 40LP on both sides, 3 rational large primes and 4 algebraic large primes. They sieved 64G raw relations, and observed that this was substantial oversieving (the estimated by a factor of 2). So, moving down to 37LP and 2 large primes on r side, with 3 large primes on a side, suggests less than half as many relations would be required; say, somewhere between 25G and 30G relations. Yield is over 10 from 100M to 1200M, good for ~12G relations. Yield is over 5 for the rest of the Qrange, say 1200M to 3800M for ~15G relations. So, as a proofofconcept, the 16f siever appears sufficient to crack RSA232. If I had hundreds of cores at my disposal, I'd aim the largememory cores to CADO with I = 17 to run Q=50M to 200M, and for mediummemory cores I'd use 16f with 3.5GB/core. Once I solve CADO testsieving, I'll report I=16 memory use and yield. Sec/rel is measured on a Haswell i75820, a 6core 3.3ghz CPU with 6 other tasks running. At half a second per relation, we're looking at 14 gigacoreseconds, or 450 coreyears. This is massively less than the 2000 CPUyears that RSA768 took, but those were measured on c. 2008 2.2ghz AMD processors. However, my CPU is not 4 times faster than theirs were, which suggests my testsieving is flawed in some way. I don't see any problem with yields with just 2RLP/3ALP, while the RSA768 team sieved Q=450M11G using 3RLP/4ALP; again, this suggests my testsieving is flawed. Then again, they used rlim=200M & alim =1100M to fit into 2GB/core, which may have impacted yield and efficiency more than I realize. Their matrix was ~190M by 190M, and better param choice + fewer large primes should lead to a yetsmaller matrix for RSA232. If anyone is interested in taking another baby step toward such a factorization, they are invited to find a better polynomial. Poly select has improved quite a lot in 10 years, so we should be able to beat the RSA768 score by at least 5%. If we do improve on my poly by 20% or more, a more detailed testsieve could demonstrate that we need fewer than 400 coreyears for sieving, a level possible within this forum. 
In case anyone is silly enough to try some polyselect, here is what I ran in CADO for my small search:
[code]tasks.polyselect.degree = 6 tasks.polyselect.P = 40000000 tasks.polyselect.admax = 1e5 tasks.polyselect.adrange = 120 tasks.polyselect.incr = 60 tasks.polyselect.nq = 7776 # this is 6^5 tasks.polyselect.nrkeep = 36 tasks.wutimeout = 36000 # required for rootsieve in degree 6[/code] I'll have a GPU free this weekend, so I'll do a little msieveGPU search too; say, 200400k in degree 6. 
I’ll help sieving and I can use up to 4GB/thread.

RSA768
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;512490]...
I tried to feed the polynomial from the RSA768 factorization paper into msieve to compare scores, but it coredumped and I couldn't figure out my mistake.[/QUOTE] Usually because msieve doesn't properly process minuses copied from TEX/PDF documents ( − ). They should be manually changed into regular ones (  ). 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;512689]... a level possible within this forum.[/QUOTE]
Thinking ahead, perhaps Greg can host a "hidden queue" for us Mersennians to work at our leisure. But who on earth could handle the postprocessing?... 
[QUOTE=RichD;512905]Thinking ahead, perhaps Greg can host a "hidden queue" for us Mersennians to work at our leisure. But who on earth could handle the postprocessing?...[/QUOTE]
People who develop and host CADONFS could do that for sure. They are always at least a step ahead. 
[QUOTE=RichD;512905]Thinking ahead, perhaps Greg can host a "hidden queue" for us Mersennians to work at our leisure.[/QUOTE]
Greg has in the past expressed disinterest in projects using LP>33 because of runaway storage needs. Indeed, even if we give up 10+% efficiency to drop LP to something like 35/37 we'll still need on the order of 8G raw relations, which roughly matches the relations count in the entire 14e and 15e queues! I don't mind buying an extra disk for my workstation and running an internetfacing CADO server on that disk, which would allow us to collect relations at our leisure. Do 15G relations fit into 1GB? Do I need double the disk space (e.g. 2TB dedicated disk) of the expected relation set to handle things like uniqueing, compression, filtering? Also, thanks to Max for pointing out the minussign problem with copypaste! I did exactly as he suspected. 
[QUOTE=RichD;512905]But who on earth could handle the postprocessing?...[/QUOTE]
I think this particular candidate falls into a noman'sland, where the lack of possible record factorization acts against a possible XSEDE proposal yet it's too big for any single machine we have access to. I'm willing to spend the $200 to upgrade my 20core xeon to 128GB, which is likely enough to solve a matrix from a GNFS215 or GNFS220 project, but insufficient for RSA232. Perhaps a pair of infiniband cards would allow me to solve RSA232 personally in under a year, but that sounds more like a hope than a plan! However, if we went after RSA240, we might be able to get XSEDE to grant cluster time for the matrix. That should take on the order of 1000 coreyears of sieving, way too much for forumites alone! In the interests of gaining experience with big jobs, I've volunteered to postprocess a C206 for swellman that Greg is sieving on 16f; fivemack/Greg are doing the same for the C205 from Aliq 276. If we're serious as a group about doing some quixotic teamsieve, I suggest we find a GNFS in 210 to 218 range to teamfactor, so that we can collectively iron out details of data management etc. If my time estimates are correct, we can knock one out with 50 to 100 coreyears of sieve, and less than a machineyear of postprocessing; if they're not, I'd rather learn I'm wrong by 50 years than 500! There are cloudservice machines with big memory that could be rented for this matrix, which would well and truly fit a publication of this factorization using "publicly available tools!" If that goes well, we can decide whether to attack RSA232 or RSA240? In the meantime, there's no harm in polyselecting for either one. I have msieve aimed at RSA232 right now, and I'll start another thread for RSA240 poly select sometime this month. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;512918]...
If that goes well, we can decide whether to attack RSA232 or RSA240? In the meantime, there's no harm in polyselecting for either one. I have msieve aimed at RSA232 right now, and I'll start another thread for RSA240 poly select sometime this month.[/QUOTE] Please publish all your parameters and poly select ranges here. That sounds to me as an awesome project to pitch in. 
Msieve poly select: (CADO params posted earlier this thread)
Note msieve autoselects degree 6 for this size. starting coeff 200k, presently running to 400k at about 20k/day. stage1_norm chosen 5e28, roughly the tightest that still splits the search region into two parts. stage2_norm set initially at 1e29, which produced about 25 hits the first day. 200 hits a week sounds a little tight, but we need soooo many GPUweeks of search that 200/week would still mean rootopting tens of thousands of hits in the long run so it's actually kind of loose. First day's rootopt produced a 5.12e17 and 5.10e17. One of the CADO poly select papers mentioned improving on RSA768 poly by 57%, which would be a score over 7.5e17; if we're going to get stupid and try to sieve this, I think that's our target score. The CADO folks put something on the order of 20 CPUyears into poly select; I personally use a GPU = 3 CPU cores conversion for my own work, as that's about the poweruse equivalent for my 750ti. I don't think there is a magic amount of time to spend, rather a magic poly score to hit; time discussions are more to remind folks that we won't be posting 7's on a daily basis! 
@VBCurtis
Thanks a lot for your parameters for CADO and msieve. 
From previous experience the GPU code is 50100x faster than CPU code; though the CADO CPU code has undergone much more optimization than the code in Msieve.

If we are considering a large forum factorisation using CADO can I throw 732541^471 via SNFS into the ring for consideration. This number runs into bugs in lasieve which make it nearly unfactorable by those tools). I believe CADO should work fine(I have done test sieving in the past). It is one of the most wanted for the OPN project.

[QUOTE=henryzz;513069]If we are considering a large forum factorisation using CADO can I throw 732541^471 via SNFS into the ring for consideration. This number runs into bugs in lasieve which make it nearly unfactorable by those tools). I believe CADO should work fine(I have done test sieving in the past). It is one of the most wanted for the OPN project.[/QUOTE]
What SNFS difficulty is it? What poly score (this most directly translates to GNFS difficulty)? CADO is not really intended for SNFS jobs, and I don't have any experience with SNFS parameter selection in CADO. I'm not fully opposed to this job, but it doesn't fulfill my goals of making sure I understand and can handle a degree6sized GNFS job using the CADO tools. I am mildly interested in parameter selection for SNFS, but that's separate from this RSA idea. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;513115]What SNFS difficulty is it? What poly score (this most directly translates to GNFS difficulty)?
CADO is not really intended for SNFS jobs, and I don't have any experience with SNFS parameter selection in CADO. I'm not fully opposed to this job, but it doesn't fulfill my goals of making sure I understand and can handle a degree6sized GNFS job using the CADO tools. I am mildly interested in parameter selection for SNFS, but that's separate from this RSA idea.[/QUOTE] [CODE]Msieve v. 1.53 (SVN 998) Mon Apr 8 21:31:13 2019 random seeds: 92d72f0c b9b65483 factoring 605716904027877980774625455520189647387776352555063757365644672493136637525085152114527251672682055452329862008130550673203343550128250999766605061023948523297828457779191592093682881010498969046911261346842026672855745883554109771998292748069377018429964450347583969787 (270 digits) searching for 15digit factors commencing number field sieve (270digit input) R0: 82919274927962023982932249248351337261442889121 R1: 1 A0: 732541 A1: 0 A2: 0 A3: 0 A4: 0 A5: 0 A6: 1 skew 9.49, size 1.556e14, alpha 2.799, combined = 5.387e15 rroots = 2[/CODE] I suspect we would likely do the polynomial selection with msieve regardless for any GNFS so there wouldn't be much difference there. We have done that before. This should be a bit easier than you suggested I think(not sure about my snfs to gnfs difficulty conversion) 281*0.7=197. It should be a good test of the server/client system for CADO which I don't think we have used publicly on the forum yet. The postprocessing should also be a nice warmup rather than a months long job, Any estimates on memory required? A nice side effect of choosing this composite is that I already have 8M relations from specialq upto 100k that I found while experimenting with small specialq and cado. 
[QUOTE=henryzz;513150][CODE]skew 9.49, size 1.556e14, alpha 2.799, combined = 5.387e15 rroots = 2[/CODE]
I suspect we would likely do the polynomial selection with msieve regardless for any GNFS so there wouldn't be much difference there. We have done that before. This should be a bit easier than you suggested I think(not sure about my snfs to gnfs difficulty conversion) 281*0.7=197. It should be a good test of the server/client system for CADO which I don't think we have used publicly on the forum yet. The postprocessing should also be a nice warmup rather than a months long job, Any estimates on memory required? A nice side effect of choosing this composite is that I already have 8M relations from specialq upto 100k that I found while experimenting with small specialq and cado.[/QUOTE] The poly score matches the record polys for GNFS199 or GNFS200. I agree this is a nice warmup for a teamCADOsieve. Param selection depends on whether we go for I=16 and something like 812GB per job (split over, say, 4 threads so one job per typical client machine), or choose I=15 to reduce memory to 2.53GB per 4threaded job at the expense of not really gaining insight into bigger jobs. If this job were our sole interest, I would think I=15 and 34bit large primes, not least because I want experience with LP>33 in any case. As for poly select, I think CADO's degree 6 optimizations make msieve secondbest. I'm running gpumsieve for a couple weeks on RSA232 just in case, but I expect CADO to produce better polys. As for server memory requirements, the developers indicate quite a lot of memory is needed. I'll finish sieving a C186 at the end of april, and plan to closely track memory use in each CADO postprocessing stage on my 64GB machine. My hope is that an upgrade to 128GB RAM with a ~200GB swap partition on SSD is enough to filter any job smaller than C225. 
Based upon my experience in successfully factoring RSA200 in November of last year, such a job would take about 135GB of memory during the filtering/merge stage. I currently have only 128 RAM & was compelled to use a 256 flash drive as a swap partition. Moreover, according to Paul Zimmermann, memory requirements can be reduced by changing the parameter "tasks.filter.target_density from 170.0 to 150." Additional reductions in memory requirements can also be facilitated by reducing the " tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160" parameter. Paul made other suggestions & tips, but I can't remember those details presently, other than the fact that when RSA220 had been factored, that job took just under 200GB of RAM.:smile:

[QUOTE=Robert_JD;514692]Based upon my experience in successfully factoring RSA200 in November of last year, such a job would take about 135GB of memory during the filtering/merge stage. I currently have only 128 RAM & was compelled to use a 256 flash drive as a swap partition. Moreover, according to Paul Zimmermann, memory requirements can be reduced by changing the parameter "tasks.filter.target_density from 170.0 to 150." Additional reductions in memory requirements can also be facilitated by reducing the " tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160" parameter. Paul made other suggestions & tips, but I can't remember those details presently, other than the fact that when RSA220 had been factored, that job took just under 200GB of RAM.:smile:[/QUOTE]
Huh? Assuming that the number under discussion is 732541^471, I must ask: What is all this talk about polynomial selection?? This is a C276 SNFS job and the obvious sextic polynomial should do nicely. This is not a large job by current standards. lasievee can handle it readily. 
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;533171]Huh? Assuming that the number under discussion is 732541^471, I must ask:
What is all this talk about polynomial selection?? This is a C276 SNFS job and the obvious sextic polynomial should do nicely. This is not a large job by current standards. lasievee can handle it readily.[/QUOTE] I think that comment might have been going back to the original topic of RSA232. 732541^471 runs into bugs in lasieve that make it nearly unfactorable. CADO seems to be the best alternative. 
Hello, first.
This text was written with the help of google translator. I am entering this world of factoring, 6 months ago. I have problems factoring a number of 1024 bits, I know it is too large. So about polyselect, it ran for 99 days. tasks.polyselect.P = 10000000 tasks.polyselect.admax = 1e8 tasks.polyselect.adrange = 250 tasks.polyselect.degree = 6 tasks.polyselect.incr = 60 tasks.polyselect.nq = 1296 tasks.polyselect.nrkeep = 100 tasks.polyselect.threads = 2 n: 1024 bits skew: 3280536.395 # MurphyE (Bf = 1.43e + 09, Bg = 7.00e + 08, area = 3.07e + 18) = 4.29e16 Is this result good? What about sieve, tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 70 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 105 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 30 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 30 tasks.sieve.qrange = 1000 tasks.sieve.las.threads = 4 tasks.I = 16 Hundreds of found 0. Info: Lattice Sieving: Found 0 relations in '', total is now 102/3794906671 
The MurphyE score depends on other parameters that you didn't list. You also didn't list the polynomial, so I can't evaluate its quality myself.
You didn't list the largeprime bound parameters, nor lim0 and lim1, so I can't tell you how good or bad your param choices are. I'd change I=16 to I=17, for a start. If you know it is too large, why are you trying to factor it? Your machine isn't capable of finishing the job. EDIT: Sorry, I had in mind a 768bit number, not 1024bit. When the CADO group solved RSA768, they spent about 20 coreyears on poly select. You spent 1 coreyear (100 days * 4 cores, as a guess). So, you're about 5% of the way to "enough" for a number 1/1000th the difficulty of the one you're trying to factor. So, a mere 500000 more coredays of poly select should be about right. Then, the sieving might take 2030x that long, depending on how good your parameter choice is. Your parameters are in the ballpark of decent for a 768bit number, though. 
[LEFT] Thanks for the answer.[/LEFT]
The complementary data:[LEFT] POLY: [code] skew: 3280536.395 c0: 2963521726450804168545574989181604944974055470262264097100 c1: 8152690578728840862728149245184473131571416030581953 c2: 4530419292332128770249146516543999988943765890 c3: 87634441208849856388603554546291847879 c4: 844120661985043880048339652132070 c5: 13409199100611061897507722 c6: 59711977080 Y0: 108073099124290591101496444923166525774281367655542 Y1: 2355770915946536318263 # MurphyE (Bf=1.43e+09,Bg=7.00e+08,area=3.07e+18) = 4.29e16 # f(x) = 59711977080*x^6+13409199100611061897507722*x^5844120661985043880048339652132070*x^4+87634441208849856388603554546291847879*x^3+4530419292332128770249146516543999988943765890*x^28152690578728840862728149245184473131571416030581953*x2963521726450804168545574989181604944974055470262264097100 # g(x) = 2355770915946536318263*x108073099124290591101496444923166525774281367655542 [/code] Param: lim0 = 700000000 lim1 = 1430000000 lpb0 = 35 lpb1 = 36 maxfailed = 5000 name = c310 tasks.I = 16 tasks.maxtimedout = 3000 tasks.qmin = 1073741823 tasks.threads = 2 tasks.wutimeout = 24000 tasks.filter.maxlevel = 40 tasks.filter.target_density = 170.0 tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160 tasks.linalg.m = 64 tasks.linalg.n = 64 tasks.linalg.bwc.interleaving = 0 tasks.linalg.bwc.interval = 1000 tasks.linalg.characters.nchar = 50 tasks.polyselect.P = 10000000 tasks.polyselect.admax = 1e6 tasks.polyselect.adrange = 1000 tasks.polyselect.degree = 6 tasks.polyselect.incr = 60 tasks.polyselect.nq = 1296 tasks.polyselect.nrkeep = 100 tasks.polyselect.threads = 2 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 70 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 105 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 30 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 30 tasks.sieve.qrange = 1000 tasks.sieve.las.threads = 4[/LEFT] I read on params.c240 in git: tasks.polyselect.P = 20000000 tasks.polyselect.admax = 2e12 tasks.polyselect.adrange = 10000000 tasks.polyselect.incr = 110880 tasks.polyselect.nq = 1296 # this is 6^4 tasks.polyselect.nrkeep = 100 tasks.wutimeout = 7200 tasks.polyselect.sopteffort = 20 tasks.polyselect.ropteffort = 10 Read and your post, [url]https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=531881&postcount=6[/url] "I bet they'd have betteryet performance with nq of 7776 and admax around 3e11" [LEFT] [/LEFT] Would these be better for a 1024 bits? [LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT] [/LEFT] 
You're missing the point entirely you have copied / used parameters from either RSA768 (a 232digit number) or RSA240. These are, you know, SIXTY or more digits smaller than the number you wish to factor.
If you tried to use good parameters from a 180digit job to factor a 240digit job, they would fail miserably. So will yours, for the same reasons. 1. You're not getting any relations because the siever is too small. You need I=18 for a kilobit number. One instance of this siever requires 120GB or more of memory. 2. You don't know what you are doing, so you don't know how to scale any of these settings for this job. Since this job is impossible for you to complete, this doesn't matter a whole lot; but if you happen to be pals with Ben Delo and share his level of hardware resources, you would factor a 140 digit number, then 160, then 180, then 200, then 220 and see how the settings change and memory needs change and time requirements change. Then you and Ben would realize 1024bit GNFS is not a good idea, but maybe 250digit GNFS is possible (it is). 3. There are discussions scattered around about trying to factor RSA1024. You should find these papers or forum posts for ideas about how big a job this is, and what settings might be reasonable. Things like 4 large primes on one side & 3 on the other, 42bit large primes (or 43, or 44 how much disk space do you have?). Once you have 20 or 50 TB of disk prepared for this task, then you can decide how to write a grant proposal to get access to a cluster with, say, 512GB of memory per node to attempt the postprocessing. That matrix might have a billion rows and a billion columns. In closing, your settings *might* factor a 230digit number in some reasonable number of decades, but they won't factor a kilobit number before you die. EDIT: I pasted your poly into cownoise to see what its score was. Results: optimal skew 8832525.55458 score 7.74032539e22 
All times are UTC. The time now is 08:43. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.