Poly select and CADO sieving for 2,1165+ C217
The relevant record scores are from a C216 (3,766+):
Deg 6 4.66e16 Deg 5 3.61e16 Using the usual "1 digit is 15%" rule of thumb, a deg 6 score of 4e16 is possibly good enough to use for the factorization, likewise something over 3.1e16 for deg 5. I expect CADO's poly select in deg 6 to have an easier time setting such a record than msieve's deg 5, and I believe CADO >> msieve for deg 6 searches currently. As always, post your reservations here! Reserving CADO deg 6 4200 to 400k with nq = 46656 and incr = 210. 
Is it possible to setup a polyselect server? Might get more people to contribute.

I don't have a publicfacing machine for CADO presently; I'm on winter break from school, though I suppose I could head to campus to adjust connections and configurations.
I need a couple trials on poly select params before I'd bother with a group effort anyway; maybe in a week or so I could have something set up. In the meantime, my first 3M threadsec on CADO produced: [code]skew: 3631171.462 c0: 103220456173951037642079956867090542810700338000 c1: 18535032273910066670092638781455152940780 c2: 94238827588202654144043099738383124 c3: 13243543462937303918281188995 c4: 8572476993744421137857 c5: 236432891435768 c6: 2088240 Y0: 140092283048428812607002686772711843 Y1: 1087402352458110598938121111 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.073e08[/code] Cownoise says skew 5629510.87920 score 5.26451995e16, so we're already over 10% above the previous record for a C216. :briane: The current CADO git now saves the best 15 polys to individual files! The top scoring one was 7% better than #2 according to CADO's score. Here is #2: [code]skew: 1084707.215 c0: 87195291152770812378337092082653153342545664 c1: 2640270365420005034047822153246712699296 c2: 13599612443255728863299577941084002 c3: 1782144334403094596253622441 c4: 13437582792511043374318 c5: 2600097158176650 c6: 79896600 Y0: 147363113018984583605698621219842357 Y1: 7248193407388299119464733[/code] cownoise says this one is skew 1530245.07844 score 4.55336880e16. These results are a bit surprising. EDIT: Round 2 on CADO, taking 400k to 2M with incr = 420, P =12M, nq still 46656. I used P = 10M on the first run. 
Can someone walk me through how to best contribute to this using GPU msieve? I don't want to duplicate work and want to make the best use of my card and don't really know how to do either of those things. I seem to remember there being some fiddleiness in parameters for numbers this large for the various stages...

I'm running GPU msieve deg5 for lc >100M and multiple of 120120.
I think that you need to use the CADO sopt for the size optimesation otherwise you're wasting a lot of stage 1 hits. I use stage 1 norm 6.4e31, but this depends on the lc. I'm not sure about the best stage 2 norm for the rootsieve, currently I use 3e29. I've an early hit:[CODE]# norm 1.920175e21 alpha 7.994201 e 2.901123e16 rroots 3 skew: 272935816.97 c0: 1321311258050449254377307946997271755577294308703300 c1: 157024216494039455486973705902559780606936 c2: 283396893153422376141361447582125475 c3: 1015270589114307318053354579 c4: 5150088772251546860 c5: 200119920 Y0: 502748738495685686303209158930950892406421 Y1: 448393380165327916747[/CODE] 
[QUOTE=bsquared;533099]Can someone walk me through how to best contribute to this using GPU msieve? I don't want to duplicate work and want to make the best use of my card and don't really know how to do either of those things. I seem to remember there being some fiddleiness in parameters for numbers this large for the various stages...[/QUOTE]
My rules of thumb for using msieveGPU: Pick your c5 range, enter it on the command line with no flags for norms. Cancel the job after a few seconds, see what default stage1 and stage2 norms are. For my slow 750ti, I divide stage1 norm by 9 or 10 and divide stage 2 norm by 30 or 35; faster cards might choose to restrict output a bit more tightly. I aim to restrict output enough such that stage 1 (the part that makes all the screen output, flagged as np1) yields 310 hits per second, and stage 2 (the part that writes a sizeoptimized hit to disk, also known as nps) yields 50 to 100 hits a day. Once every day or two, I kill msieve to run npr (rootopt) on the file of 100300 hits. This takes a couple hours. For really large inputs like this one on degree 5, small c5 values will produce skews larger than we want. I'd start at 40 or 50 million for c5, but others will likely choose 10 or 20 million (I am not generally the one who searches the smallest c5 values). If you choose to run deg 6 msieve, I'm afraid I don't have reliable advice for restricting output to ~510 hits/sec and 50100 nps hits/day. C217 is likely to be in the range where deg 6 is better, but that is not guaranteed so deg 5 searches are helpful. 
A few thoughts on this enormous poly search:
 CADO seems to give much better results for larger jobs, e.g. > c200  This problem screams out for a sextic, though perhaps a quintic could work  I do not have a way of consistently generating sextics using msieveGPU  I have developed a consistent methodology for generating quintics with msieveGPU for up to say c185, but these methods don’t seem to scale well to jobs like this one  Don’t bother reporting any result with skews over 3e8 (max). Might have a decent escore but likely terrible sieving performance.  I usually search 1 < c5 < n, where n is 5M to ~20M depending on GNFS difficulty but this search strategy doesn’t work for these size composites. As VBCurtis mentioned, low c5 values will likely generate high skews (see above). Gimarel just got a notable hit with c5~200M! All IMHO of course. I’m playing with CADO now, and I’m going to wrestle with generating sextics using msieveGPU again next week. 
I will see if I can get anything done with quintics. At the moment having trouble getting the card to run at all (I was using this project as motivation to finally get it to work), with the same issue as [URL="https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=532116&postcount=67"]here[/URL]. After editing the gpu_sm.props sheet and hacking the code to attempt loading of the resulting stage1_core_sm75.ptx file, I can get past the error and the card appears to start. But after a few seconds it hangs and I have to kill the powershell window. I have no more ideas past that.

Behold:
[code]skew: 2382635.076 c0: 3987095627700723668556412616355906815127705992 c1: 10621479627429548899812810235604051573030 c2: 4682349569391313556729607478081235 c3: 18433207794474459950952563135 c4: 1015293418294354295928 c5: 1005061270114440 c6: 39916800 Y0: 110058966911042321282835020413351605 Y1: 14771789483157557668102843 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.201e08[/code] Cownoise: skew 2581491.68923 score 6.25337175e16 Second poly from this run: [code]skew: 795472.597 c0: 7619329897958484267003311101205639257382400 c1: 972789506471289955182741591383079851052 c2: 7982747782724676457598194955195188 c3: 11632872254364925227187277187 c4: 16770915348493964743837 c5: 4545814836283056 c6: 430133760 Y0: 139963034380019911364058910747595047 Y1: 24194513859610490327764807 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.023e08[/code] cownoise: skew 1025440.31942 score 4.71712789e16 Approx. 8.2M threadseconds for this second run, 11M total. The score from the first poly in this post is about the expected record score for a C215, if we use previous records and extrapolate from C210211212 records. However, the more recent CADOteam records for RSA210 (1.49e15) and RSA220 (3.88e16) suggest something like 7.6e16 for C215 is possible. So, maybe more like a record C216 poly except this is a C217. Anyway, this is a good poly, and Max should see if any improvement is possible. I am pausing poly search for a bit, so that others might join in the fun. Anyone interested in a CADO run might choose: deg 6, nq = 46656, admin 2e6, incr 420, P = 12000000 to 14000000; admax is a matter of how many CPUhours you wish to spend. Each 1M interval is roughly 5M hyperthreadseconds (on 2.6ghz ivy bridge). 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;533352]I am pausing poly search for a bit, so that others might join in the fun. Anyone interested in a CADO run might choose: deg 6, nq = 46656, admin 2e6, incr 420, P = 12000000 to 14000000; admax is a matter of how many CPUhours you wish to spend. Each 1M interval is roughly 5M hyperthreadseconds (on 2.6ghz ivy bridge).[/QUOTE]
I will dip my toe in the deeper CADO waters, taking admin = 2e6 and admax = 2.5e6, all else as above (deg = 6). Will start the job later today. 
I neglected to list adrange: this should be 2x or 4x incr, since poly select runs 2threaded. That is, for incr = 420, using adrange = 840 gives one c6 value to each thread, while using adrange = 1680 gives two values to each thread per workunit. I've usually used 4x incr (=1680 here), figuring it reduces idle thread time a bit.
Also, ropteffort must be set. The rootopt phase is tiny compared to the main sizeopt search; a value like 35 or 40 "should" be effectively "try as hard as you can". Number of polys to rootopt (nrkeep, I think, in paramspeak) can be quite small for your 0.5M range, like 30 to 60. I think CADO defaults to like 200 for an entire search of this size, while I used 36 for each of my two runs. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;533385]I neglected to list adrange: this should be 2x or 4x incr, since poly select runs 2threaded. That is, for incr = 420, using adrange = 840 gives one c6 value to each thread, while using adrange = 1680 gives two values to each thread per workunit. I've usually used 4x incr (=1680 here), figuring it reduces idle thread time a bit.
Also, ropteffort must be set. The rootopt phase is tiny compared to the main sizeopt search; a value like 35 or 40 "should" be effectively "try as hard as you can". Number of polys to rootopt (nrkeep, I think, in paramspeak) can be quite small for your 0.5M range, like 30 to 60. I think CADO defaults to like 200 for an entire search of this size, while I used 36 for each of my two runs.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the helpful advice. I added ropteffort = 35 though the default was 0.2(?), and all the rest you mentioned in your previous two posts. For my fist try, I cut the admax to 2.1e6, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Did you use default qmin? I think it’s 4e7 (or 4e8) by default, but I left it alone for this run. 
qmin doesn't affect poly select, since it merely tells the siever what Qvalue to begin at. I think I changed it to 10M anyway. I did set sieve params to values I might choose for a testsieve, so your CADO score will be different from mine (but cownoise fixes that for us).
If you add tasks.sieve.run=false to the command line, CADO will exit after poly select without building factor base/starting to sieve. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;533399]qmin doesn't affect poly select, since it merely tells the siever what Qvalue to begin at. I think I changed it to 10M anyway. I did set sieve params to values I might choose for a testsieve, so your CADO score will be different from mine (but cownoise fixes that for us).
If you add tasks.sieve.run=false to the command line, CADO will exit after poly select without building factor base/starting to sieve.[/QUOTE] Thanks about qmin. And yes, I used tasks.sieve.run=false in my command invocation. Also used P = 12M in the parameters. break Do you have any feel for CADO’s deg = 5 performance? IIRC, one gets better deg = 5 results with msieveGPU correct? I’m estimating a minimum search range of 35M < c5 < 55M for msieveGPU but that’s based on extrapolating my results to date so take that estimate with a grain of salt. I have yet to run any msieveGPU poly search for this c217 though I hope to start early in 2020 after finishing my current HCN efforts. 
I think they're competitive in degree 5; I won't talk folks out of using msievegpu, but when my CUDA install broke last spring I didn't bother fixing it and just shifted to using CADO for all my personal polyselect needs. If I had a GPU faster than a 750ti, I imagine I'd still be putting effort into using msieve.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;533352]Behold:
[code]skew: 2382635.076 c0: 3987095627700723668556412616355906815127705992 c1: 10621479627429548899812810235604051573030 c2: 4682349569391313556729607478081235 c3: 18433207794474459950952563135 c4: 1015293418294354295928 c5: 1005061270114440 c6: 39916800 Y0: 110058966911042321282835020413351605 Y1: 14771789483157557668102843 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.201e08[/code]Cownoise: skew 2581491.68923 score 6.25337175e16 [/QUOTE] Msieve found a small improvement: [CODE]# norm 1.602538e15 alpha 10.543517 e 6.454054e16 rroots 6 skew: 3226967.46 c0: 2543005241608251659326321959460452765214183842 c1: 33139987534593547344167381165622666435255 c2: 15215551779833751980190681203957330 c3: 17257164061453212524534319695 c4: 1977227853181703834928 c5: 958120310818440 c6: 39916800 Y0: 110056071714162569817319860596637820 Y1: 14771789483157557668102843[/CODE] 
My best result:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 135395.269 c0: 731803863642148184907152920695855624679056 c1: 7082389535680844516273731959418297544 c2: 215202423296858113904589199612942 c3: 314236139762316178602510253 c4: 37515382402362600715141 c5: 3515549390483760 c6: 1519015680 Y0: 108149603432644423078656532479187581 Y1: 18837068487969546705833869 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.751e09 # f(x) = 1519015680*x^63515549390483760*x^5+37515382402362600715141*x^4+314236139762316178602510253*x^3215202423296858113904589199612942*x^2+7082389535680844516273731959418297544*x731803863642148184907152920695855624679056 # g(x) = 18837068487969546705833869*x108149603432644423078656532479187581 [/CODE] Cownoise says 257289.42671 3.99079450e16 so not a high scoring poly but at least I’m getting CADO to produce something. Will continue my search to admax = 2.5e6. ETA: Now running ad = 2.1 to 2.5e6 with P=14M. 
I'll do a deg 6 poly search for this on CADO, with admin = 5e6, admax = 5.5e6 and P = 16e6 after I finish 47771_188.

I just realized I also have to finish an msieve matrix for NFS@Home as well, so I'm cancelling my run.

Taking 3e6 to 5e6 for CADO deg 6 with P=12M and other params as listed above.

admin = 2.1 and admax = 2.5e6 with P=14M generated a disappointing result:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 559386.705 c0: 783269053626373507790443787773958091992171250 c1: 7541006308544676935957788588704394135191 c2: 7450178083390142379828586195307731 c3: 67582585756453219302354745929 c4: 93930118344551034304789 c5: 113304614208890370 c6: 14630616000 Y0: 104993607429839019815662076500592188 Y1: 18938768306573546433782113 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.918e09 # f(x) = 14630616000*x^6113304614208890370*x^593930118344551034304789*x^4+67582585756453219302354745929*x^3+7450178083390142379828586195307731*x^27541006308544676935957788588704394135191*x+783269053626373507790443787773958091992171250 # g(x) = 18938768306573546433782113*x104993607429839019815662076500592188 [/CODE] Cownoise says skew of 575076.46750 gives a score of 4.58159900e16. Nice low skew at least. Hitting 2.5e63e6 (deg 6) next, again with P=14M and other parameters as above. 
3e6 to 5e6 on CADO deg 6 complete. Best poly is underwhelming:
[code]skew: 1079681.594 c0: 50457770615217022869877235860673265892222752 c1: 265092486914500987328363191756903620546 c2: 1272306689762274825524465213573345 c3: 1158546181084523419055466666 c4: 1745276163212225808374 c5: 109670409952434 c6: 43201620 Y0: 93528774949199039661242124580223849 Y1: 7310614514345840354266259 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.051e08 [/code] cownoise: skew 1266113.52169 score 4.89683793e16 Next I'll take 10M to 30M with incr=4620 (rather than 420 used for the smaller advalues). 
I’ve started another CADO poly search on a second machine, with deg 5, nq = 3125, admax 2e5, incr 420, P = 14000000 and adrange = 1680. I also used ropteffort = 35 though it’s not clear if this parameter is required for deg 5.
Reserving up to admax = 3e6. 
ropteffort is definitely useful for any search.
I'd use nq=15625 for deg 5, but chances are quite high that your search of small advalues will have enormous skews anyway. So, leave it alone, see what pops out. We might choose nq=7776 for deg 6 searches; that is; 45000 might be bigger than optimal. CADO documentation suggests a power of the degree for this, but that's not strictly necessary perhaps something like 10000 for deg 5 is better than 15625. I've never tried. 
I've come to the conclusion that for useful deg 5 polys admin has to be >1e9 otherwise the skew will be to high.

My first deg 5 effort with CADO to admax = 2e5, the result being a very high skew (and apparently incapable of improvement or scoring by cownoise) poly:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 793565000.033 c0: 296183829866616673978610883054549331035904575033571950 c1: 1803889324581136986860772969432750937688290385 c2: 2871473145762276337090828771070946326 c3: 1383027719019022289629291033 c4: 3893225332311264192 c5: 972866160 Y0: 2331785922123026514071918561866671528246462 Y1: 505059498353022512351192971 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.640e09 # f(x) = 972866160*x^53893225332311264192*x^4+1383027719019022289629291033*x^32871473145762276337090828771070946326*x^21803889324581136986860772969432750937688290385*x+296183829866616673978610883054549331035904575033571950 # g(x) = 505059498353022512351192971*x2331785922123026514071918561866671528246462 [/CODE] It is as VBCurtis and Gimarel predicted  searching on low values of a5 produces untenable polynomials. I’m bailing on my reserved range of admax = 3e6. Instead reserving admin = 1e9 for a range of 1e6. Will start searching with a smaller chunk of 100,000 just to see if CADO produces useful quintics. And I will try bumping nq to 15625. 
For deg 5 searching, I suggest you take a page from Gimarel's msieve searches and set incr to 120120 or 210210.
1001 = 7*11*13, so 210210 = 210 * 1001 = 2*3*5*7*7*11*13, while 120120 = 120*1001 = 2*2*2*3*5*7*11*13. I've played with 120120 myself. I suppose 30030 might be fruitful, too. Good luck! 
Deg 5 CADO search with admin = 1e9 results in a much better skew poly, though still not a great score:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 93538652.862 c0: 164523557893662943796717352790852500285901385104107 c1: 4792313235809904351042387494952954383763528 c2: 25123717386359997987823357136788862 c3: 49557042588250550452052948 c4: 11885981563875775869 c5: 9000675180 Y0: 317246328253894345004777241765941376352878 Y1: 181842605602377583548024937 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.887e09 # f(x) = 9000675180*x^511885981563875775869*x^449557042588250550452052948*x^325123717386359997987823357136788862*x^24792313235809904351042387494952954383763528*x+164523557893662943796717352790852500285901385104107 # g(x) = 181842605602377583548024937*x317246328253894345004777241765941376352878 [/CODE] Cownoise says skew of 139010939.44436 gives a score of 2.233e16. I’m relieved, at least things seem to be getting better. Searching the remaining 900,000 in my search range with incr = 30030. 
30030 got me through a range of 900,000 overnight, with poor results. But I’m getting more comfortable with CADO. Now working range 970M < a5 < 1B using the same incr of 30030.

Here's the result of my next deg 6 run:
[code]skew: 1080763.305 c0: 201869394004181205724423495608425095348224384 c1: 1533975234876098133833772337881747505224 c2: 4276663040354231769078308262478714 c3: 30519115901769437344788339659 c4: 6106082259814635100149 c5: 8268339420665676 c6: 1132306560 Y0: 79750366340269635074646060047152969 Y1: 163481813872529787753319279 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.066e08 [/code] cownoise: skew 1030433.87131 score 5.06955831e16 This was about 10M threadseconds of work. admin 1e7 admax 3e7 incr 4620. Taking a break from this poly search for a bit. 
Deg 6 search with admax = 3e6 gave a reasonable result:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 641389.376 c0: 120561174635091771898975998857907044093318250 c1: 880187848484739419183546057061251000005 c2: 4764916896756892833867595202349562 c3: 24246448571150763259239758749 c4: 16360844327421682351876 c5: 15319532132265900 c6: 1097560800 Y0: 103653625868807926755041004802191418 Y1: 62548308560499268785701639 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.975e09 # f(x) = 1097560800*x^6+15319532132265900*x^516360844327421682351876*x^424246448571150763259239758749*x^3+4764916896756892833867595202349562*x^2+880187848484739419183546057061251000005*x120561174635091771898975998857907044093318250 # g(x) = 62548308560499268785701639*x103653625868807926755041004802191418 [/CODE] Cownoise says best skew of 814245.20 gives an escore = 4.813e16. Next I’ll go at admin = 5e6, admax = 10e6, incr = 2310, adrange = 4620, all else as above. 
I’ve now got msieveGPU searching for a deg 5 poly over the range 40M < c5 < 45M.

My CADO deg 5 search has finished 970e6 < a5 < 1e9:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 81925937.712 c0: 20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 c1: 702888888638716632053630701142158258021494 c2: 4805942957212842715569169595729246 c3: 1015952315801263566432172936 c4: 1641253174806907117 c5: 970539570 Y0: 319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 Y1: 56066781401775656648141249 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 2.372e09 # f(x) = 970539570*x^51641253174806907117*x^41015952315801263566432172936*x^3+4805942957212842715569169595729246*x^2+702888888638716632053630701142158258021494*x+20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 # g(x) = 56066781401775656648141249*x319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 [/CODE] Cownoise says skew of 206843455.873 gives an escore of 3.441e16. Continuing search with same parameters over range 1e9 < a5 < 1.05e9. 
Latest CADO deg 5 search complete, nothing worth reporting (2handle).
I’m done with CADO deg 5 for awhile. Still looking with msieveGPU (quintic) however. 
CADO deg 6
I got more mediocrity:
[CODE] n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 2058663.979 c0: 7227529639082336742982103470079671384153944555 c1: 6164846704258636790237816162225501345606 c2: 24129259369683291720655314363854474 c3: 19182308707757823090942526634 c4: 6301474710764360046959 c5: 561347624034756 c6: 52889760 Y0: 90713561941969834349832662159935024 Y1: 162111780315595201754399887 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 1.885e09 # f(x) = 52889760*x^6+561347624034756*x^56301474710764360046959*x^419182308707757823090942526634*x^3+24129259369683291720655314363854474*x^2+6164846704258636790237816162225501345606*x7227529639082336742982103470079671384153944555 # g(x) = 162111780315595201754399887*x90713561941969834349832662159935024 [/CODE] Cownoise says skew = 2312291.175 gives a score of 4.4625e16. Not even close to previous top sextic(s). I am done with CADO searches of any degree for this C217. However I am still plugging away with msieveGPU searching for a quintic. 
[QUOTE=swellman;535611]Latest CADO deg 5 search complete, nothing worth reporting (2handle).
I’m done with CADO deg 5 for awhile. Still looking with msieveGPU (quintic) however.[/QUOTE] My GPU using msieve finished its search space today with only a 2handle reported. I’m done with any further searching for this C217 poly. 
Degree 6 Poly:
[CODE]# norm 1.539652e15 alpha 10.773710 e 6.242975e16 rroots 4 skew: 19200731.16 c0: 6563328381431671105476687730958294548638654650310 c1: 1918762361267264992524060905783378957147557 c2: 174150593910087798813490057246969159 c3: 13731686969791369412592238867 c4: 578977586331285342649 c5: 23575687256670 c6: 307800 Y0: 261092067112483547589168893048831124 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267[/CODE]A short testsieving indicates that this poly is a tiny bit better than the previous 6.4e16 poly. I have two degree 5 poly for the reference: [CODE]# norm 2.656725e21 alpha 7.428886 e 3.562884e16 rroots 3 skew: 33805777.34 c0: 186407826716370335113862643897359103893651875218 c1: 114383776405350799342371085242910198064315 c2: 19606741164333889808309757587619788 c3: 1045588221180880211982927089 c4: 19611168098126871042 c5: 20020160160 Y0: 200131543180127953608923271705080948407984 Y1: 2416652314481504137021 # norm 2.433873e21 alpha 9.305626 e 3.467306e16 rroots 3 skew: 1648467371.17 c0: 152846678216810291989513529754965636568937234900682525 c1: 670527287056758688994113376441626943037338110 c2: 2257668140393388020553277621574749709 c3: 130710515042535741225910378 c4: 225363295565144052 c5: 103423320 Y0: 499435443249227062358799483739191334109094 Y1: 2620519854036764841503[/CODE]The first degree 5 poly sieves about 20% worse than the degree 6 poly. The second degree 5 poly sieves about equal for q above 1e9 but only about 20% for low q because the skew is too high. I guess to get a competing degree 5 poly we need one with a score of 4.2e16. I'm not very optimistic but I haven't given up. 
[QUOTE=Gimarel;536461]Degree 6 Poly:
[CODE]# norm 1.539652e15 alpha 10.773710 e 6.242975e16 rroots 4 skew: 19200731.16 c0: 6563328381431671105476687730958294548638654650310 c1: 1918762361267264992524060905783378957147557 c2: 174150593910087798813490057246969159 c3: 13731686969791369412592238867 c4: 578977586331285342649 c5: 23575687256670 c6: 307800 Y0: 261092067112483547589168893048831124 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267[/CODE]A short testsieving indicates that this poly is a tiny bit better than the previous 6.4e16 poly. I have two degree 5 poly for the reference: [CODE]# norm 2.656725e21 alpha 7.428886 e 3.562884e16 rroots 3 skew: 33805777.34 c0: 186407826716370335113862643897359103893651875218 c1: 114383776405350799342371085242910198064315 c2: 19606741164333889808309757587619788 c3: 1045588221180880211982927089 c4: 19611168098126871042 c5: 20020160160 Y0: 200131543180127953608923271705080948407984 Y1: 2416652314481504137021 # norm 2.433873e21 alpha 9.305626 e 3.467306e16 rroots 3 skew: 1648467371.17 c0: 152846678216810291989513529754965636568937234900682525 c1: 670527287056758688994113376441626943037338110 c2: 2257668140393388020553277621574749709 c3: 130710515042535741225910378 c4: 225363295565144052 c5: 103423320 Y0: 499435443249227062358799483739191334109094 Y1: 2620519854036764841503[/CODE]The first degree 5 poly sieves about 20% worse than the degree 6 poly. The second degree 5 poly sieves about equal for q above 1e9 but only about 20% for low q because the skew is too high. I guess to get a competing degree 5 poly we need one with a score of 4.2e16. I'm not very optimistic but I haven't given up.[/QUOTE] Fundamental question: Does the forum have a polynomial that is good enough to hand off to Greg? NFS@Home is running 2,2158L. I estimate 6 weeks to sieve. He will need the polynomial after it finishes. 
Yes, we have a couple that score well enough to be considered both records for size 217, and that fit the trendline for 210+ digits / degree 6 polynomials.
Surely someone will find time to testsieve to confirm which poly is best Gimarel suggests his new one beats mine, which is great news! 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;536537]Yes, we have a couple that score well enough to be considered both records for size 217, and that fit the trendline for 210+ digits / degree 6 polynomials.
Surely someone will find time to testsieve to confirm which poly is best Gimarel suggests his new one beats mine, which is great news![/QUOTE] I can run some test sieving later this week and identify the best deg 5 and 6 polynomial found to date. 
Top 3 scores for degree 6 polys:
[CODE] # norm 1.602538e15 alpha 10.543517 e 6.454054e16 rroots 6 skew: 3226967.46 c0: 2543005241608251659326321959460452765214183842 c1: 33139987534593547344167381165622666435255 c2: 15215551779833751980190681203957330 c3: 17257164061453212524534319695 c4: 1977227853181703834928 c5: 958120310818440 c6: 39916800 Y0: 110056071714162569817319860596637820 Y1: 14771789483157557668102843 # cownoise calculated score of 6.25337175e16 skew: 2382635.076 c0: 3987095627700723668556412616355906815127705992 c1: 10621479627429548899812810235604051573030 c2: 4682349569391313556729607478081235 c3: 18433207794474459950952563135 c4: 1015293418294354295928 c5: 1005061270114440 c6: 39916800 Y0: 110058966911042321282835020413351605 Y1: 14771789483157557668102843 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=2.147e+16) = 1.201e08 # norm 1.539652e15 alpha 10.773710 e 6.242975e16 rroots 4 skew: 19200731.16 c0: 6563328381431671105476687730958294548638654650310 c1: 1918762361267264992524060905783378957147557 c2: 174150593910087798813490057246969159 c3: 13731686969791369412592238867 c4: 578977586331285342649 c5: 23575687256670 c6: 307800 Y0: 261092067112483547589168893048831124 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 [/CODE] Top 2 scores for degree 5 polys: [CODE] # norm 2.656725e21 alpha 7.428886 e 3.562884e16 rroots 3 skew: 33805777.34 c0: 186407826716370335113862643897359103893651875218 c1: 114383776405350799342371085242910198064315 c2: 19606741164333889808309757587619788 c3: 1045588221180880211982927089 c4: 19611168098126871042 c5: 20020160160 Y0: 200131543180127953608923271705080948407984 Y1: 2416652314481504137021 # cownoise calculated score of 3.441e16 skew: 81925937.712 c0: 20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 c1: 702888888638716632053630701142158258021494 c2: 4805942957212842715569169595729246 c3: 1015952315801263566432172936 c4: 1641253174806907117 c5: 970539570 Y0: 319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 Y1: 56066781401775656648141249 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 2.372e09 # f(x) = 970539570*x^51641253174806907117*x^41015952315801263566432172936*x^3+4805942957212842715569169595729246*x^2+702888888638716632053630701142158258021494*x+20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 # g(x) = 56066781401775656648141249*x319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 [/CODE] The rest are too low scoring. Listing these here in the hope that Max can spin some/all up a bit. Once Max does his thing (if possible), I will test sieve each on 16e for 10,000 Q @40M, @150M and @[STRIKE]300M[/STRIKE]. [I]Correction 400M[/I] 
C217 polys
@swellman
Thank you for the PM. I saw the 5 polys. I'll do my best during this weekend and answer with my findings here. 
[QUOTE=swellman;536904]Top 3 scores for degree 6 polys:
[/QUOTE] Note that this poly [CODE] # norm 1.602538e15 alpha 10.543517 e 6.454054e16 rroots 6 [/CODE]is an msieve optimization of this poly: [CODE] # cownoise calculated score of 6.25337175e16[/CODE] One more degree 6 poly. I didn't testsieve this poly. [CODE]# norm 1.532885e15 alpha 10.663919 e 6.167586e16 rroots 6 skew: 13169474.90 c0: 1023735201309774246420532958336660120924961565920 c1: 995951334583249051832847919997394867745920 c2: 228409353245738642065033416449151622 c3: 7991582155794456227507263689 c4: 2040419130460960418821 c5: 61122488216070 c6: 693000 Y0: 227484134920273250744569883728074583 Y1: 10110547595475849804503267[/CODE] 
C217 poly
[QUOTE=swellman;536904]
Top 2 scores for degree 5 polys: [CODE] # norm 2.656725e21 alpha 7.428886 e 3.562884e16 rroots 3 skew: 33805777.34 c0: 186407826716370335113862643897359103893651875218 c1: 114383776405350799342371085242910198064315 c2: 19606741164333889808309757587619788 c3: 1045588221180880211982927089 c4: 19611168098126871042 c5: 20020160160 Y0: 200131543180127953608923271705080948407984 Y1: 2416652314481504137021 [/CODE] [/QUOTE] Just for reference, there is one here that is a bit lower (but still higher than the next top scoring degree 5):[code] Y0: 200131543180153229931310466087596002561814 Y1: 2416652314481504137021 c0: 4491829208299024732947205309178495582822026700868 c1: 779116650391269131588854564129131560499095 c2: 39771713110588658172491572498053398 c3: 247018503097833034497096449 c4: 18564190799375487042 c5: 20020160160 skew: 42238597.02444 # size 2.197e21, alpha 7.429, combined = 3.545e16 rroots = 3 [/code] 
C217 poly
[QUOTE=swellman;536904]Top 2 scores for degree 5 polys:
[CODE] # cownoise calculated score of 3.441e16 skew: 81925937.712 c0: 20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 c1: 702888888638716632053630701142158258021494 c2: 4805942957212842715569169595729246 c3: 1015952315801263566432172936 c4: 1641253174806907117 c5: 970539570 Y0: 319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 Y1: 56066781401775656648141249 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=8.590e+17) = 2.372e09 # f(x) = 970539570*x^51641253174806907117*x^41015952315801263566432172936*x^3+4805942957212842715569169595729246*x^2+702888888638716632053630701142158258021494*x+20979117737896229889501593134036124581546875899439 # g(x) = 56066781401775656648141249*x319154102222244908033626629552413265381850 [/CODE] [/QUOTE] 4handle it is! 16.9% up! :stirpot: [code] Y0: 319154103273695928190552289959192641142053 Y1: 112133562803551313296282498 c0: 998948860466322315779636068194177185404977857456 c1: 63173211469851462649297026734535945822936 c2: 14609182693856061217887437854035851 c3: 444710848676934482139797820 c4: 1732258472013681067 c5: 1941079140 skew: 105094248.92076 # size 2.563e21, alpha 7.535, combined = 4.024e16 rroots = 3 [/code] It's better than an old Gimarel's record for c216_5: [code] 216_5 3.61e16 Gimarel 0813 3,766+ [/code] 
[QUOTE=Gimarel;537055]
One more degree 6 poly. I didn't testsieve this poly. [CODE]# norm 1.532885e15 alpha 10.663919 e 6.167586e16 rroots 6 skew: 13169474.90 c0: 1023735201309774246420532958336660120924961565920 c1: 995951334583249051832847919997394867745920 c2: 228409353245738642065033416449151622 c3: 7991582155794456227507263689 c4: 2040419130460960418821 c5: 61122488216070 c6: 693000 Y0: 227484134920273250744569883728074583 Y1: 10110547595475849804503267[/CODE][/QUOTE] This one doesn't spin up in msieve, need to try CADO on it. 
C217 poly  first 7handle!
I found the first 7handle for degree 6. Will post today.
Edit: :stirpot: [code] Y0: 260968666439530399918037023459605116 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 7196950527960991555193580748097474856362083938 c1: 185821459719837526919356848735242248023269 c2: 13272626163537786723022096770871759 c3: 18948859018327120212361982771 c4: 247383589152687754249 c5: 17631163093470 c6: 307800 skew: 12177468.53879 # lognorm 61.88, E 50.91, alpha 10.97 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=7.09307485e16 [/code][code] Y0: 260989330799288036199207667091722388 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 526347917581245904556569298174297826996685901670 c1: 442197618652939124803241605871343108242909 c2: 43412439357169306744171898756487583 c3: 18363294836235511962533007635 c4: 296242399274834833849 c5: 18626617842270 c6: 307800 skew: 14282731.33022 # lognorm 61.66, E 50.89, alpha 10.77 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)= 6.56961162e16[/code][code] Y0: 260967145833156142223541215526214828 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 385989545117301752091314625356714578405870346514 c1: 2601924861341163051552621041066331318141765 c2: 10660736940797386570858918492791775 c3: 18987830913928763376659484915 c4: 243894240504271615849 c5: 17557911618270 c6: 307800 skew: 19865113.23285 # lognorm 62.00, E 51.08, alpha 10.92 (proj 2.57), 2 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=6.39771900e16[/code][code] Y0: 260991485119442207157368655166776186 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 8382509859968721089075449810704134449212282540 c1: 14861473852394895062702410033234086621851 c2: 46568898205510345532955939396615361 c3: 18296117377392039329569523611 c4: 301490499493918847749 c5: 18730396921470 c6: 307800 skew: 9163234.70195 # lognorm 61.94, E 51.72, alpha 10.22 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=6.33754526e16 [/code][code] Y0: 261013013752851045169698876603712706 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 2380673550083031447629831065410191822111647474980 c1: 562454059732010780130840959257252579560149 c2: 76692988186823078518636588364619001 c3: 17558740967616193107371889851 c4: 355537677228353513749 c5: 19767485929470 c6: 307800 skew: 14522027.88111 # lognorm 61.70, E 51.17, alpha 10.53 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=6.27032176e16[/code] 
C216 degree 6 poly
Two more:[code]Y0: 260968411305519188619205095217453231
Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 111880065637009028705827184084453860064526907680 c1: 177781820222650986513890155178281704301584 c2: 12895450908143303490814172806120966 c3: 18955436562614575250902923651 c4: 246797116683180964999 c5: 17618872639470 c6: 307800 skew: 11908146.33575 # lognorm 61.88, E 51.31, alpha 10.57 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=6.51422387e16[/code][code]Y0: 261002597307824722531016999073717204 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 c0: 1057209953408397926511293091880454579591436985734 c1: 644416630508080642985321645023729851264613 c2: 62220480720467115022108843409733127 c3: 17930678149490424768592439827 c4: 329023800671153646649 c5: 19265699288670 c6: 307800 skew: 15386754.46461 # lognorm 61.59, E 50.85, alpha 10.74 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=6.42332159e16[/code] 
Top poly
The best poly was degree 6, with spin:
[CODE]n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 12177468.53879 c0: 7196950527960991555193580748097474856362083938 c1: 185821459719837526919356848735242248023269 c2: 13272626163537786723022096770871759 c3: 18948859018327120212361982771 c4: 247383589152687754249 c5: 17631163093470 c6: 307800 Y0: 260968666439530399918037023459605116 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 # lognorm 61.88, E 50.91, alpha 10.97 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=7.09307485e16 rlim: 536000000 alim: 536000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 96 mfba: 66 rlambda: 3.7 alambda: 2.8 [/CODE] Resulted in yield = 0.5371 and speed of 9.6438 sec/rel at Q0=150M. Slowest sieving I've ever personally measured but its the best of the lot. 
C217 best poly
[QUOTE=swellman;537464]The best poly was degree 6, with spin:
[CODE]n: 3213773553731676734673029767649076184026081109505643819433123522398392216242493939130914684819990019996494667995485530318906995221039607546449005638410444687839629323036119079997039490112821634482150496640217083568211 skew: 12177468.53879 c0: 7196950527960991555193580748097474856362083938 c1: 185821459719837526919356848735242248023269 c2: 13272626163537786723022096770871759 c3: 18948859018327120212361982771 c4: 247383589152687754249 c5: 17631163093470 c6: 307800 Y0: 260968666439530399918037023459605116 Y1: 38337191767287578050825267 # lognorm 61.88, E 50.91, alpha 10.97 (proj 2.57), 4 real roots # MurphyE(Bf=1.000e+07,Bg=5.000e+06,area=1.000e+16)=7.09307485e16 rlim: 536000000 alim: 536000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 96 mfba: 66 rlambda: 3.7 alambda: 2.8 [/CODE] Resulted in yield = 0.5371 and speed of 9.6438 sec/rel at Q0=150M. Slowest sieving I've ever personally measured but its the best of the lot.[/QUOTE] Congrats to Gimarel for finding with msieve, CADONFS for spinning it up, and swellman for testsieving and sending me a PM! Whoever is actually organizing and performing the sieving (Gregg or VBCurtis), matrix, and solving  good luck! I wish I could hang around more often with you guys, but a lot of things is happening at the same time, and all of them are in a good direction. It looks that my next available month will probably be September. Keep sending PMs, I'll do my best. This is what really interests me right now: [url]https://mathoverflow.net/questions/352295/hardonemoregeneratorneededforaz6ellipticcurve[/url] I suspect it would be wombatman's (or his colleagues') area of expertise, please pass along. 
[QUOTE=swellman;537464]The best poly was degree 6, with spin:
Resulted in yield = 0.5371 and speed of 9.6438 sec/rel at Q0=150M. Slowest sieving I've ever personally measured but its the best of the lot.[/QUOTE] I suggest you PM Greg with your post; he may be ready to queue it soon. I am willing to offer some CADO sieving on low Q while it sieves on nfs@home Greg, I can sieve from Q=10M up to whatever you decide the starting Q is (50M?). I'm not sure I'll get the whole range done, but that should add a couple dozen million relations to the pool. Just tell me what parameters to use so I match the nfs@home effort. I may use this opportunity to test A=32, which is a 40% larger sieve area than I=16 / 16e. That could get me above 50M relations. 
Wow, this is going to be a long one! I'm testing it locally now.

[QUOTE=frmky;537543]Wow, this is going to be a long one! I'm testing it locally now.[/QUOTE]
I can request more CPU power from several teams and also would help if you post on the news requesting more power. 
Also, the 15e queue could use a shortterm, temporary boost while waiting for this to go active. :smile:

[QUOTE=RichD;537689]Also, the 15e queue could use a shortterm, temporary boost while waiting for this to go active. :smile:[/QUOTE]
BOINC clients prefer to crunch for higher paid sub project not by type of project, and 14e/15e are not on their list. Also I said hundreds of times before that the sub project memory requirements must be updated since 15e tasks use more memory than 16e ones. 
For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.

[QUOTE=frmky;537784]For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.[/QUOTE]
Make an announcement, double the points for this case only, etc ...I'm happy up to 4 GB/thread. 
[QUOTE=frmky;537784]For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.[/QUOTE]
Greg Please post parameters here once you decide them lim's and mfb's/lp's. I don't think your client is 34bit capable, so I imagine we're on 33/33 for LP. I'd like to start sieving very small Q locally on CADO. I'll use A=32, which is equivalent of 16.5e (40% larger sieve area). I have just one 20core machine available at present, so I won't get far, but I can start at Q=10M and contribute some relations. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;537808]Greg
Please post parameters here once you decide them lim's and mfb's/lp's. I don't think your client is 34bit capable, so I imagine we're on 33/33 for LP. I'd like to start sieving very small Q locally on CADO. I'll use A=32, which is equivalent of 16.5e (40% larger sieve area). I have just one 20core machine available at present, so I won't get far, but I can start at Q=10M and contribute some relations.[/QUOTE] After testing I'll stick with the suggested parameters: rlim: 536000000 alim: 536000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 96 mfba: 66 rlambda: 3.7 alambda: 2.8 I usually start at 20M, but I can up that a bit if you wish. 
Thanks!
How about you start at 40M, and I'll run Q=540M on CADO? I think I'll get yield 36x higher than ggnfs at those smaller Q (plus the extra 40% from using a larger siever), since CADO is fine with sieving Q values below lim. I'll get CADO fired up later this week, and will post yield and sec/rel data once I have a reasonable sample. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;537880]Thanks!
How about you start at 40M, and I'll run Q=540M on CADO? I think I'll get yield 36x higher than ggnfs at those smaller Q (plus the extra 40% from using a larger siever), since CADO is fine with sieving Q values below lim. I'll get CADO fired up later this week, and will post yield and sec/rel data once I have a reasonable sample.[/QUOTE] The lower you go the faster it gets in general. Of course, this has to be balanced with increased duplication. The nonstandard options of adjuststrategy might help keep the duplication rate down(different q will get different logI and logJ combos). I would be interested in hearing the results of any test sieves. Is it possible to estimate duplication rates based on test sieving? 
Not a good sample yet, but at Q=5M after Q=4000 interval I have yield around 6.0, roughly 3.5 sec/rel (with all hyperthreads in use on ECM or CADO, so roughly 2.0 cpusec/rel), just under 20GB per 10threaded sieve process.
This is with CADO A=32, which is the equivalent of I=16.5. I'm running two 10threaded processes until I reach Greg's starting Q. I'll update yield and sec/rel in a day or two after I've searched 50kQ or more. If yield is cut in half by 40M compared to 5M, I would still get something like 140160M relations from Q=540M; however, that would take me 78 months on 20 threads. I'll add at least one more client later, and if anyone with 20GB free memory is interested I can open CADO access in the exactsame manner that we did on the C207 team sieve from last summer. Note that Greg may run out of Q to sieve with ggnfs; if that looks to be the case after testsieving, he should move his starting value to Q=50M or 60M and we should ask for clientCADOhelp. Is 1200 million raw relations a reasonable target? 
I have 20GB free and am happy to point 16 cores at it.

I can contribute some cores as well.

Will only contribute through NFS@Home, might bring some friends to the mix CADO and NFS@Home.

Roughly one day on 20 (hyper)threads got me 60kQ and 362,000 relations. Yield, then, is 6.0 at Q=5M. I changed to 3 10threaded instances today.
I copied the setup parameters for nonlocal access from the C207 job file; I hope it works! Same info as y'all used for 2330L, except the port number is now 35029 (randomly assigned, possible it might change if CADO crashes and is reset). Default number of sieve threads is 10, so most of you will need to set that with the override switch that we used on 2330L. Using my 30 threads, I'll complete 1MQ in about 11 days. That means I'm good for 810MQ. Sounds like Greg won't queue this for a couple weeks, so we have a little time to decide how many Q we can get done with this miniteameffort, and then tell Greg what Q to start at. 
I just pointed two machines at this task. Names:
DESKTOPC5KKONV DESKTOPB1R3FI2 All seems to be working. Happy factoring! 
I pointed a few cores at you for a little while, as well:
math##.math## 
I think I broke it.:sad:
I await a verdict. . . 
My machines lost contact...had to retask one of my machines as it didn’t meet recommended memory specs. DESKTOPB1R3FI2 still active but seemingly just spinning in circles.

I missed the memory requirement part. Are my machines too weak to play? I hope that wasn't what broke it. . .
I have been having troubles with the latest CADONFS revision stopping handing out WUs. I did not have that trouble with my previous revision. 
Memory requirement is likely 24GB for the system, as the process takes just under 20GB according to top.
Since only 80 or so workunits had been completed when we ran the job out of failed units, I decided to restart the job at Q=5.08M. I can just cat the relations from the first folder together with these when I send them to Greg. When perusing the log, I noticed that every workunit included a mention of buckets full, so I added bkmult=1.12 in an effort to reduce the number of retried/recalculated Q values. This should result in a singledigit percentage speed gain, though memory use may be marginally higher (I'll edit this post once I find out). CADO is generating free relations now, and will be ready to hand out workunits on port 44455 within ten minutes or so. This time, the port is specified, so the inevitable serverkicking won't potentially change the port. Edit: WUs available. Memory use still 19.5GB according to top. 
Well, sorry if I caused a lot of reissue of WUs.
I had an "interesting" time, here! I typically shut down about half my farm at night. When I shut them down last night many were the ones I had tasked with this project. They went off line, but this morning, I found them back on and tying up the LAN. They were trying to get work again. I had to physically unplug, hold power buttons and reboot to get them operating normally again. I'll try to pay more attention next time. . . 
When the time comes you can direct your efforts to mersenneforum team at NFS@Home by running BOINC client. [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/team_display.php?teamid=2082[/url]

OK, I realized that I'm a bit of an idiot. This is a GNFS sextic at the edge of where we should be using a sextic, so the algebraic side is going to be by far the largest. So we need to choose q's on that side, and put the 3LPs on that side. That's not what I did. :picard:
So with the proper parameters, this one isn't that hard at all. Even with my usual lowermemory parameters below, q of up to 3.5 billion are enough. That's officially routine for NFS@Home. [CODE]alim: 250000000 rlim: 250000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 67 mfba: 96 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 3.7[/CODE] Sorry for all the inconvenience! 
OK, I've restarted CADO at Q=5.5M with the new lim values. Due to ignorance, I left CADO to sieve on its default side, which happened to be the algebraic side. That might explain why I was 4x faster than the r side ggnfs test sieve!
I have 3M or so relations from Q=5M to nearly 5.5M. I'm starting at 5.5M in case those relations are useful; if they're not (I don't think they are), I can run 45.5M if time permits. The usual address (same as C207 from last summer), port 44455. EDIT: I was paying even less attention than I thought I also had set mfba to 96. I originally flipped side 0 and side 1 on CADO, not for the first time, so I accidentally ran the params Greg has recently specified, except for lim's at 536M rather than 250M. That lim is the only change is why I think there's a tiny chance the first 3M rels I gathered may be useful. For those watching at home: Side 0 is rational, side 1 is algebraic. See the params.c90 file for more details. Default sieve side is side 1 (if left unspecified). 
They absolutely are useful. As long as the polynomial is correct, the relations will be valid. Sieving on a different side with different limits will still produce valid relations.
In fact, it's quite useful to sieve the lower q that you are doing with higher limits as long as the higher memory use isn't a problem. So you might to back to sieving on the algebraic side with 536M limits and 3 large primes on the algebraic side. 
What’s our progress? I’ve thrown 8 cores into the pot  we can always use more sievers!
(Though the 24 Gb minimum memory requirement isn’t for everyone.) 
[QUOTE=swellman;538778](Though the 24 Gb minimum memory requirement isn’t for everyone.)[/QUOTE]
Can I dumbdown a Corei5 client to say only use 2 cores and 12 GB? What would be the command line? 
The memory requirement is fixed by the siever size, not by the number of cores. If nobody else joins Sean and I, then we can consider running with A=31 rather than 32, which would reduce memory from ~18GB to ~9GB (same as C207 job from last summer, roughly). I want to wait on that a couple weeks, since these lowest Q values are most valuable to search with the bigger siever area; once we reach Q=10M it seems reasonable to allow folks to use A=31 and less memory. Yield will still be 3.5 or so with the smaller siever.
As of this morning, we're at around Q=6.2M, with 3.3M relations from this run. The lower lim's result in a bit lower yield, roughly 5.0 rather than 6.0. We had about 3M relations from the first run before Greg edited the parameters, which I kept (but are separate from this run, so CADO isn't counting them). I still have 30 threads on it, with 10 threads running an msieve matrix. I'm shopping for memory now for my home machine, which would allow me to add another 10ish faster threads. 
How would one go about participating in this sieving? I have a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32 GB ram running Ubuntu.

[QUOTE=axn;539033]How would one go about participating in this sieving? I have a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32 GB ram running Ubuntu.[/QUOTE]
Patience, grasshopper. Greg will start it fairly soon. 
[QUOTE=axn;539033]How would one go about participating in this sieving? I have a Ryzen 5 3600 with 32 GB ram running Ubuntu.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;538289]. . . The usual address (same as C207 from last summer), port 44455. . . .[/QUOTE] . . . if VBCurtis is still running the CADONFS server. 
[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;539037]Patience, grasshopper.
Greg will start it fairly soon.[/QUOTE] NFS@Home is sieving 2,2158L, I have wus between Q=2225M to Q=2653M. 
[QUOTE=EdH;539038]. . . if VBCurtis is still running the CADONFS server.[/QUOTE]
I am; we have gathered just 7M relations so far, as only swellman and I have cores aimed at it. If axn needs the address for the server, he should PM me or swellman (both, really). It is not publicly listed to reduce the chance of nefarious targeting of the machine. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;539046]If axn needs the address for the server, he should PM me or swellman (both, really).[/QUOTE]
YGPM 
axn's R5 is responsible for 5 of the last 12 workunits submitted. I have 3 10threaded processes running on Ivy Bridge, and swellman has an 8threaded process occupying all of a HTquadcore.
Axn's machine is running at roughly the speed of 25 Ivy Bridge Xeon (hyper)threads. Thanks for the boost! We're at about 10M raw relations from the CADO portion of this job, with Q at 6.84M (started at 5M). That's a yield around 5.4; the smaller lim's adopted at Q=5.5M reduced yield by 20% or so, from ~6 to the high 4's. 
Good to know! :smile:

The CADO server seems to be offline.

[QUOTE=swellman;539220]The CADO server seems to be offline.[/QUOTE]
The last workunit submitted was 8 minutes ago, and the serverwindow appears normal. I'll wait 10 min or so to see if any new workunits are received; if not, I'll kill the server process and restart. EDIT: Both axn's machine and the local clients are communicating fine. Maybe restart your client? 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;539223]The last workunit submitted was 8 minutes ago, and the serverwindow appears normal. I'll wait 10 min or so to see if any new workunits are received; if not, I'll kill the server process and restart.
EDIT: Both axn's machine and the local clients are communicating fine. Maybe restart your client?[/QUOTE] What? Are you suggesting the problem is on my end?! :shock: All kidding aside, I had lost connectivity with the net for reasons unknown. Back online and chewing WUs now. Sorry for the interruption. 
Given our adventures with CADO last summer on 2330L, yours was the logical conclusion!

Good news: we have collected over 15M relations (edit: Q from 5M to 8.1M) using CADO for this factorization. I finally got my main desktop repaired, so I added 10 Haswell threads to the task as of yesterday.
Bad news: I was notified today that my campus is physically closed, including disallowing employee entry. If the CADO server is turned off or loses connection, I won't be able to renew it until VirusPanic subsides. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;539723]Bad news: I was notified today that my campus is physically closed, including disallowing employee entry. If the CADO server is turned off or loses connection, I won't be able to renew it until VirusPanic subsides.[/QUOTE]
Looks like this may have happened. As of half an hour back, the client is not able to upload results or download new WU. 
My machine is still processing a slug of work but I have no doubt it will fail to communicate with the server sometime in the next hour. If that occurs, I’ll point my machine elsewhere until the crisis is over.
I wonder if Greg has the same dilemma? 
CADO had indeed failed. I did the usual login/kill server/restart server, and it is again sending & accepting workunits.
Seems the usual software failure, rather than physical issue. Greg is with the Cal State system, while I am with University of California. While he may well face similar decisions in the coming days, our systems are run entirely separately (and many decisions are being made campusbycampus). 
I don't know if this may be of interest, but I did "git log" on my previous install and my current one, since I never had the previous one stop issuing WUs and the current one has on several occasions. This is the same server, but I used a new directory and new install each time I update. If the WU issue becomes too annoying, I can swap back to the previous one by simply renaming both directories. My scripts will never know the difference.
Older (working) "git log:" [code] commit ea3f28ba3f41ecbcdf3c15f9fe3433680ab0df42 Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr> Date: Fri Sep 6 17:23:13 2019 +0200 [polyselect1] avoid polynomials that are found multiple times commit b5a1635fbcf6083923c44b439f92ece5ad91292f Merge: 053a11b 43ae1d1 Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr> Date: Fri Sep 6 10:04:56 2019 +0200 Merge branch 'master' of git+ssh://scm.gforge.inria.fr/git/cadonfs/cadonfs commit 053a11b449753ec69018593c4634de63ed5d7e89 Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr> Date: Fri Sep 6 10:04:39 2019 +0200 added KnuthSchroeppel function commit 43ae1d1ddc095f74709ecb50e98b9e2413716c34 Author: Pierrick Gaudry <pierrick.gaudry@loria.fr> Date: Thu Sep 5 12:30:51 2019 +0200 : [/code]Newer (occasional WU failure) "git log:" [code] commit df6dcc0d7986298c2d4fb0bb6d9aedb2747d7e91 Author: Alexander Kruppa <akruppa@gmail.com> Date: Thu Oct 24 13:02:52 2019 +0200 Define GENUINE_GNUC if compiler is FSF's gcc commit 83eedfe13b8692f1f39244db7740401f794a1680 Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr> Date: Tue Oct 22 19:47:22 2019 +0200 added comments commit 342ed75d4e7e87012e116d74694de05d5e3d005d Author: Alexander Kruppa <akruppa@gmail.com> Date: Tue Oct 22 16:25:47 2019 +0200 Use doublewidth integer types for integer products, if available commit b54c734bacdf4015e2a2d7cb1a5410f74671b79b Author: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr> Date: Tue Oct 22 16:16:27 2019 +0200 reduced adrange for c190 : [/code] 
All times are UTC. The time now is 16:11. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.