You can count me in for whatever number is picked (I don't care). I have small personal resources. I need to find my CADO install folder or maybe just start over with a new GitHub download. What is the latest release or stable developer version?

I follow the instructions from the CADO-NFS download page for the current development release via git here: [url]http://cado-nfs.gforge.inria.fr/download.html[/url]

There are small issues, for example the starting Q-value is now tasks.qmin rather than tasks.sieve.qmin, but many of the params files still use the latter causing an error. Go in and change the line by deleting ".sieve", and the params files run fine.

I'm surprised there is no "official" 3.0 release, but the current git is at minimum 15% faster than 2.3.0 for an entire factorization; I don't have a good way to measure how the las siever application compares now versus 2.3.0.

What next?
 

2,1165+ and 2,2210M are being worked to t65 thanks to Yoyo@Home. They should be fully ECMd in a few weeks. Any preferences on our next ECM target?

3,748+ c204 has been [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24548]suggested[/url]. Seems like a worthy candidate to me, but the effort so far has been focused on factoring all remaining 2+ (n<1200) and 2LM (n<2400). Do we limit our efforts to only that list? Scope creep has been the downfall of many projects...

I have asked Greg Childers where he is heading with the 16f queue so that we don’t step on each other. He may want our help in some sector. Perhaps he will chime in here.

[QUOTE=swellman;520361]2,1165+ and 2,2210M are being worked to t65 thanks to Yoyo@Home. They should be fully ECMd in a few weeks. Any preferences on our next ECM target?

3,748+ c204 has been [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24548]suggested[/url]. Seems like a worthy candidate to me, but the effort so far has been focused on factoring all remaining 2+ (n<1200) and 2LM (n<2400). Do we limit our efforts to only that list? Scope creep has been the downfall of many projects...

I have asked Greg Childers where he is heading with the 16f queue so that we don’t step on each other. He may want our help in some sector. Perhaps he will chime in here.[/QUOTE]FWIW, my view is to finish off the traditional Cunninghams first, and then move to the extensions. That is, the 2+ and 2LM candidates and resist mission creep.

[QUOTE=swellman;520361]2,1165+ and 2,2210M are being worked to t65 thanks to Yoyo@Home. They should be fully ECMd in a few weeks. Any preferences on our next ECM target?
[/QUOTE]

Yes. 2,1135+ and 2, 1109+. The next two base 2 numbers ordered by size of the
cofactors. I skip 2,2126M because it is the same size as 2,1063+ and hence doable
by SNFS.

[QUOTE]

3,748+ c204 has been suggested..... <snip> Scope creep has been the downfall of many projects...
[/QUOTE]

Allow me to repeat (with updates) a post I made about 2 months ago:

There are currently 65 unfinished numbers from the 1987 hardcover
edition of the Cunningham book.

It would be nice to finish them. They are all from base 2, with index
< 1200 for 2,n+ and index < 2400 for 2LM.

Three of them have been sieved and are waiting for LA. (2,2102L, 2,2098L, 2,1052+)
Two of them are sieving: (2,2330L, 2,1063+)
One is about to start sieving (2,1072+)
One of them is relatively easy: 2,1144+ (exponent divisible by 11)
Several more are "within reach" of NFS@Home: (2,2126M, 2,1076+, 2,2150M, 2,2158L)
Several are within reach of GNFS (2,2330M, 2,2210L, 2,1165+)

They get quite a bit harder after that via SNFS. Of course the 2- table
was finished to index 1200, so the rest are all doable, but it would take
a massive effort.

I have run an additional 1000 ECM curves on 2,4k+ up to 1144 with B1 = 3G
I will finish the rest of 2,4k+ in about 4 months. (Two more to do: 2,1168+ in progress)

How about a very large ECM effort to pick off as many of the rest as we can?

Perhaps yoyo might tackle these with B1 = 850M?

[QUOTE=swellman;520361]3,748+ c204 has been [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24548]suggested[/url]. Seems like a worthy candidate to me, but the effort so far has been focused on factoring all remaining 2+ (n<1200) and 2LM (n<2400). Do we limit our efforts to only that list? Scope creep has been the downfall of many projects...[/QUOTE]

I view GNFS targets as exceptions to the fear of mission creep, when they're easier than the next target in the main mission. If 3,748+ was under 200 digits, I would favor doing it immediately.

There has been quite a large interest in the forum-team 2330L factorization, with sieving likely to finish in about 110 days start-to-finish. If there isn't enough interest to do a C210+ next, we should do 3,748+ next and thus should have yoyo do the ECM. Using the C207 as a baseline, that's a 5-month sieving project for 2330M versus 10 weeks or so for C204.

Mr. Silverman, thank you for the update. My records now reflect the new information. A few clarifications:

- Why skip ECM 2,2246M? It’s a C221 that seems beyond SNFS.

- Isn’t 2,1157+, with a SNFS difficulty of 322, also within reach of NFS@Home?

- 2,2162L and M both seem similar in difficulty to 2,2158L, i.e. SNFS 325. Which is scary difficult but are either a feasible candidate for NFS@Home?

- Lastly, 2,1139+ pops up as an octic(!) with difficulty 323. Another reachable candidate perhaps, or a complete nonstarter?

Apologies if the above issues have been kicked around for years/decades by the experts, just trying to plan efficiently.

BTW, I had suggested 2,2398M to Ryan Propper for ECM back in April. He was working it but I’ve not been able to contact him since. I would suggest we not put this one through Yoyo@Home, at least not at the t65 level. It appears to be the highest difficulty composite from the 1987 list.

As to 3,748+, a C204 and good GNFS candidate, there is sometimes more to a project than pure analytics. Keeping volunteers engaged is an example of such. It will take years to chew through the remaining list of 40-odd 2+ and 2LM composites. A 2% increase in that time to actively do work other than watch Yoyo slowly run curves is a huge multiplier in my estimation, especially when that work advances the overall Cunningham project. Just my two cents.

Sean, once again, the problem is not the sieving, is on the linear algebra side.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;520396]Sean, once again, the problem is not the sieving, is on the linear algebra side.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But I was only discussing ECM priorities.

[QUOTE=swellman;520398]Agreed. But I was only discussing ECM priorities.[/QUOTE]

Ok.

Here is what we have for the visible future. (ECM can be run for all 147 base-2 targets, regardless)
[CODE]224 2,2586L 259.4 0.861 /quartic/resvd
228 2,2150M 258.8 0.88 /5q
211 2,2210M 266.1 0.792 /5q
225 2,2230M 268.5 0.837 /5q
253 2,1115+ 268.5 0.942 /5q
223 2,1135+ 273.3 0.815 /5q
299 2,2098L 315.7 0.946 /resvd
282 2,2102L 316.3 0.891 /resvd
300 2,1052+ 316.6 0.947 /resvd
274 2,1144+ 317.9 0.875 /13
219 2,2126M 319.9 0.684
281 2,1063+ 319.9 0.878
270 2,1157+ 321.5 0.839 /13
271 2,1072+ 322.7 0.839
268 2,1253- 323.3 0.827 /7
309 2,2506M 323.3 0.954 /7
238 2,1076+ 323.9 0.734
296 2,2158L 324.8 0.911
236 2,2162M 325.4 0.725
258 2,2162L 325.4 0.792
318 2,1084+ 326.3 0.974
265 2,2534M 326.9 0.809 /7
314 2,2534L 326.9 0.958 /7
273 2,2174L 327.2 0.834
309 2,2174M 327.2 0.944 [/CODE]