mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   CADO-NFS (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=170)
-   -   CADO-NFS Data Harvesting (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=27689)

charybdis 2022-08-23 19:33

[QUOTE=EdH;611938]How does this compare?

I had less duplication with 12M, but I can't say how time turned out. It seems to be a bit longer than a c163, as expected. You think I should increase qmin some more and/or take mfb1 down a bit?[/QUOTE]

This is actually a bit slower than your previous c165 from post 57, which had the same params except qmin=7M and strategy 2. My comment (in a PM, I think) about raising qmin was intended for the small c17x numbers, not c160-165. Granted, strategy 2 is probably responsible for some of the difference.

For 2LP at c165, I'd drop mfb1 to 61 and bump lim1 up to something like 80M to compensate. Also ncurves1 back up to 25. Let's wait to see what VBCurtis thinks.

VBCurtis 2022-08-23 21:08

[QUOTE=charybdis;611943]This is actually a bit slower than your previous c165 from post 57, which had the same params except qmin=7M and strategy 2. My comment (in a PM, I think) about raising qmin was intended for the small c17x numbers, not c160-165. Granted, strategy 2 is probably responsible for some of the difference.

For 2LP at c165, I'd drop mfb1 to 61 and bump lim1 up to something like 80M to compensate. Also ncurves1 back up to 25. Let's wait to see what VBCurtis thinks.[/QUOTE]

I think all of this is accurate: 58/61 for mfb's sounds right, with 59/61 also worth a test. Ditto for doubling lim1 for 2LP compared to 3LP.
I'm finding best speed/duplicate compromise when Q-max is 6 to 7 times Q-min. If Q-max exceeds 8 * Q-min, I raise Q-min accordingly on the params file for that size.

For 31-bit LP and no 3LP, I'd use ncurves of 21 and 25, but up or down a couple seems to not matter.

Edit: Try lambda0 = 1.86 for mfb0 = 58, and 1.89 for mfb0 = 59. That should improve yield.

EdH 2022-09-11 15:25

Here's the latest, a c171:[code]N = 902... <171 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 65000000
tasks.lim1 = 40000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.qmin = 15000000
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 89
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 19
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 979823
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 9797.37
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 1.25403e+07s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 225750239
Found 136126593 unique, 61871366 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 2.98902086e-13[/code]

VBCurtis 2022-09-11 16:57

Let me know what size you plan to run next; I'll do my first batch of las test-sieving on that size so we can make progress on these settings. I plan to test a bunch of settings, and then have you run a full job on the ones I think are fastest.
There remain good reasons to test full jobs- for instance, test-sieving doesn't indicate just how many relations will be needed when I change LP bounds. Our experience provides reasonable estimates, but when I'm trying to eke out 5% more speed an estimation error of 5% can swamp whatever speed I think I'm finding.


All times are UTC. The time now is 14:07.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.