I will start with a leading coef of 12M.....

Thanks to all for running the poly. I really appreciate it. Hoping to dip my toe in the GPU pond next year.
[QUOTE=debrouxl;349907]Aiming at setting new GNFS records for XYYXF, Sean ? :smile: My GT540M is weak, others can help more efficiently...[/QUOTE] Nah, I'm just trying to eliminate all GNFS composites from the xyyxf project. C169 is about as large as I dare try solo. It's fun to be on the record list, but I think it's more the result of Moore's Law than anything else. A C165 fell to GNFS on my i7 in a month. That was probably unimaginable 34 years ago. I can see in the not so distant future where a C175 GNFS is a fireandforget hobbyistfriendly effort on a home rig. How about GPU sieving. Is it theoretically possible? If anyone wants to set the high water mark for xyyxf, there's [url=http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=147%5E136%2B136%5E147]C197_147_136[/url]. It's the largest remaining GNFS. NFS@Home interested?:smile: 
I'll go ahead and run from 80M on the C169.

So far, no good on the C169.
I encourage everyone to post their poly. should they be bad or not. I want competition, if only by name. Best score for now is 3.615e013 (with a leading coef of 12M and a skew of 6.7M) while the excepted range is between 4.05e013 and 4.66e013. I'll dig around to see if I can do any better. 
The last C169 I ran for Swellman in MidJuly produced a best score of 3.32 from 100kb of nps hits 4e22 or better. I don't recall the winning score the 3.32 was my best.
That 3.61 looks pretty strong! Don't believe the forecast for every size. I'm running at coeff=44M. Curtis 
Here's the best I've gotten so far on the C169:
[CODE] expecting poly E from 4.05e013 to > 4.66e013 R0: 108814122533272592708956055223543 R1: 35795218528797959 A0: 5392088451186473967300858158426027843200 A1: 3334511055750972840213938071872634 A2: 1143844152923197626854541213 A3: 2857037486590150968874 A4: 33274016097472 A5: 80442960 skew 3448026.18, size 1.578e016, alpha 7.624, combined = 3.730e013 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
Thanks for all your work on the C176.
I've done test sieving on all eight of the polynomials presented; for scoring, I estimated some parameters from one of the polynomials, ran 100kQ (160190k relations, about 18 CPUhours) on each polynomial, listed the times to get each successive 10,000 relations for each polynomial, listed them in rank order, and worked out the average of the timeranks of each polynomial. VBCurtis's polynomial of [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=347257&postcount=69[/url] was the clear winner, with the two polynomials of [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=347455&postcount=79[/url] neck and neck in second place. The ranking's been pretty stable since 30kQ, so probably you don't need to testsieve much beyond that  say fifty thousand relations per polynomial. 
my best on the last C169
[code] polynomial selection complete R0: 158901476678054196574790648790253 R1: 273171512097277613 A0: 119772796240168711849603868646487794265920 A1: 34101690350238626462893755265184824 A2: 19888694759843446875301033386 A3: 3020714507634859404531 A4: 574986327565814 A5: 12113640 skew 6738936.87, size 1.541e016, alpha 8.050, combined = 3.615e013 rroots = 5 [/code] And just for the sake of it, I'll look around 700M 
I'm taking a whack at C169_141_71 as well. Starting from 60M, don't know how long I'll let it run.
Did anyone find a poly for (5591^611)/((55911)*16556099215542617537*743213379283195327995487*11686924821525596917649777) ? I have polys for the other candidates I posted. I also have a bunch of GNFScandidates (p^q1) in the 160s. I'm working on pretesting them. 
Not that I've seen lorgix.

Lorgix, I went ahead and add your number to my document of polynomial requests. If anybody wants at it, just post and I'll update it.
[url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlFp2DvBLxsUdEtUMFE0bmk3blRQQlJhS2NkcEF2b0E&usp=sharing[/url] Also, new best on the C169: [CODE]expecting poly E from 4.05e013 to > 4.66e013 R0: 108714164971617773602170358979662 R1: 448108841571013439 A0: 295061681144065041864936334197085476805 A1: 1065699402893288703728377652011076 A2: 1620565059022284300728763742 A3: 197667938698960378456 A4: 420679333037017 A5: 80813460 skew 1916604.19, size 1.876e016, alpha 6.662, combined = 4.106e013 rroots = 5[/CODE] 
Lorgix, I'll take a run on the number you just posted (the 157 digit one) starting at 20M.

After 1 day, by best on Swellman's new C169 is just 3.68. That 4.10 looks like a winner! I have another 12 hrs of GPU data to process, then I'll move on to Lorgix' 5591^611 posting.
Curtis 
[QUOTE=lorgix;350043]I'm taking a whack at C169_141_71 as well. Starting from 60M, don't know how long I'll let it run.
Did anyone find a poly for (5591^611)/((55911)*16556099215542617537*743213379283195327995487*11686924821525596917649777) ? I have polys for the other candidates I posted. I also have a bunch of GNFScandidates (p^q1) in the 160s. I'm working on pretesting them.[/QUOTE] I ran a halfday on this number back in July, finding a 1.71e12 score; I don't know why I aborted the search, nor why I didn't post even this weak poly. We'll get something good for it this week. 
another poly for swellman C169 :
[code] R0: 70574329567623593855850350397599 R1: 319115713422217939 A0: 209723292287328832289802943774706861280 A1: 598429061904895552641271174461560 A2: 4062997052989133800994001071 A3: 4271517584968935687318 A4: 5799959550341004 A5: 700939512 skew 899896.26, size 1.358e016, alpha 7.181, combined = 3.349e013 rroots = 5 [/code] Not very good,I know. 
Here's an initial hit for Lorgix's C157:
[CODE]expecting poly E from 1.99e012 to > 2.29e012 R0: 754734928404993486930393168259 R1: 43285768764248873 A0: 4802110579359003727584901710197368440 A1: 85570950573115301637711491765378 A2: 99931221296503445803925939 A3: 135339915234481955812 A4: 31283765611140 A5: 20077200 skew 1126185.69, size 2.219e015, alpha 7.919, combined = 1.782e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
Lorgix C157
[code] R0: 1103437414754847615838977449859 R1: 55750041186014801 A0: 873086791320246604576954052331292964 A1: 6423816204639220626317306638268 A2: 15482888406301730540743393 A3: 18367616204405016272 A4: 8257072567026 A5: 3005640 skew 1118845.74, size 2.482e015, alpha 6.748, combined = 1.942e012 rroots = 1 [/code] 
Many thanks for all the GPU brought to bear on this latest C169. This stuff is really impressive.
I'll run some test sieving this weekend, but until then please keep those polys coming (if you're still searching that is). And if anyone needs assistance on a nonGPU task, just drop me a line. I'm here to help. :grin: 
Run 2014's NY marathon and give me all the glory swellman, that's all I ask.. :lol:

Sure, no problem, as long as I can use a Segway...

[QUOTE=swellman;350168]Many thanks for all the GPU brought to bear on this latest C169. This stuff is really impressive.
I'll run some test sieving this weekend, but until then please keep those polys coming (if you're still searching that is). And if anyone needs assistance on a nonGPU task, just drop me a line. I'm here to help. :grin:[/QUOTE] I ran stage1 over leading coeff 60M to 61.434M. That took 21hrs. Size optimization is moving (leading coeff) at about 10000/hour. I'm using stage2_norm=4e22. If I let it finish I should have almost 3000 candidates to sort before running npr on some of them. 
My best for the last C157 is 1.84:
[CODE] n: (5591^611)/((55911)*16556099215542617537*743213379283195327995487*11686924821525596917649777) R0: 942530367041324355849999977433 R1: 66386936784413669 A0: 11627136426338468347417478381938863430 A1: 31537335140191737468233407352821 A2: 55719258620543025550987018 A3: 58361329266411186886 A4: 34306254782868 A5: 6609960 skew 1395583.72, size 2.337e015, alpha 6.965, combined = 1.845e012 rroots = 5 [/CODE] This was 2 days on the GPU, and ends my search on this number. 
My last best for the C157 is:
[CODE]R0: 1102225542723473838562347398326 R1: 46997859610529773 A0: 58978494067576752313653893703695131059 A1: 69333563221774646199876658034895 A2: 169011075619257748542422093 A3: 2025152247490881835 A4: 20641467903774 A5: 3022200 skew 2469855.09, size 2.244e015, alpha 7.219, combined = 1.797e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] Looks like the 1.942e12 is the best. 
[QUOTE=lorgix;350203]I ran stage1 over leading coeff 60M to 61.434M. That took 21hrs.
Size optimization is moving (leading coeff) at about 10000/hour. I'm using stage2_norm=4e22. If I let it finish I should have almost 3000 candidates to sort before running npr on some of them.[/QUOTE] Did any good polys fall out? Again my thanks for the help. 
[QUOTE=swellman;350554]Did any good polys fall out? Again my thanks for the help.[/QUOTE]
I stopped nps early and started npr. I can finish nps if you have time. npr is now running on the best candidates from the range of leading coeff 60M to 60.9M. [CODE]C169_141_71 R0: 115274200224198355694855896328260 R1: 302768509259685271 A0: 201242861993156913967388884915385225277 A1: 882968486254771001548376947426776 A2: 1629011842745093689627719511 A3: 592286320350946094372 A4: 450873229496418 A5: 60291180 skew 1893745.33, size 1.561e016, alpha 6.434, combined = 3.707e013 rroots = 5[/CODE]Maybe I can find a better one. Let me know if I should stop. 
I can wait for as long as it takes. Not on any timetable.
Thanks again. 
[QUOTE=swellman;350625]I can wait for as long as it takes. Not on any timetable.
Thanks again.[/QUOTE] OK, I'll give it some more effort then. What norm did the rest of you use for npr? Posting this one because of the crazy alphavalue; [CODE]C169_141_71 R0: 115352069094744576726520403778903 R1: 686495812988035681 A0: 163446241091275491921780732361558730649640 A1: 130930414646634523589695517244566348 A2: 16371793575226784454320614810 A3: 2136772890666075261961 A4: 943961642526546 A5: 60087960 skew 7293821.18, size 1.487e016, alpha 8.930, combined = 3.535e013 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
I use the default norms for npr. I set a bound on the evalue just to keep output brief that does not alter the polys found.
I did set stage2norm of 3.5e22 while doing nps, and then ran npr on the entire output. Curtis 
I normally reduce the stage 2 norm by one order of magnitude from the default choice and pull the top 100 or 200 (usually 200) results from nps with sort g k 10 file.ms  head 200 > newfile.ms. Then I'll run npr, using a minimum evalue if I already have something and am only looking to better it.

I've just started the polynomial search for 3,766+. Any help you wish to provide would be appreciated.
Just to set a baseline, here's the best so far: [code]# norm 9.900789e16 alpha 9.251101 e 4.224e16 rroots 2 skew: 9073870.85 c0: 139221485278577320652164834978699370706236308160 c1: 1295658612562855727156808735812558835809336 c2: 163771486239390907909286755592113710 c3: 43656819592951246110772775111 c4: 3890115263418711871319 c5: 494769166057413 c6: 8200236 Y0: 58027728060921253760709506018956107 Y1: 72038266426478147627 # norm 9.808488e16 alpha 8.780447 e 4.199e16 rroots 6 skew: 7050029.50 c0: 220945970580033192482207350438562369695523503600 c1: 366418378394057555130756972699810943184540 c2: 65127417239769823903620404282746080 c3: 51919154391212047912008400199 c4: 2144689123321499659289 c5: 528344113932981 c6: 8200236 Y0: 58027728110080022693605341003325653 Y1: 72038266426478147627 [/code] 
edit :oops, C6.. nevermind

I'll start at 10M and work toward 12M or so on 3,766+.
Edit: Or at least I will once I figure out how to get msieve to work on numbers > 311 digits... 
hmm? get to factordb, type 3^766+1; find the C216...
and don't forget to add "polydegree=6" in your parameters [code] 313068751706172934164029607615444196674154606234575242211641355472713959762783712390895701060952639425447396356557581585630115258626457263968597368593309998959766117756941753233822835800989497155176060903761800503381[/code] 
I should have known it was a smaller composite. My bad. I'll start my run tonight.

I estimate 710 GPUmonths to find a poly for this? wowsers.
I'll give it a GPUweek or two, after the heat in the IE subsides a little. 
I'm giving it about 6 GPUmonths over 2 weeks total. Sieving will start in about a week or so.

[QUOTE=firejuggler;351022]hmm? get to factordb, type 3^766+1; find the C216...
and don't forget to add "polydegree=6" in your parameters [code] 313068751706172934164029607615444196674154606234575242211641355472713959762783712390895701060952639425447396356557581585630115258626457263968597368593309998959766117756941753233822835800989497155176060903761800503381[/code][/QUOTE] Yes; a smaller composite, C216. Perhaps it is worth recalling that the two previous gnfs from the 3+ extension, C202 (745+) and C207 (706+) both had p62 factors, left after tests to p60; perhaps 2t60 if Sam finished an initial t60. Since there's already an extensive polyn search in progress, perhaps it is too late for "more" ECM. Ah; looks like I already finished my t60, so this number is no more undertested than the previous two. Seems that there's a sharp difference between these and the numbers from preextension Cunninghams that ryanp is sieving; no p6x's, hardly any p7x's. Looks like his smallest snfs factor is a p68 from 7,334+ C205  just slightly smaller than his spectacular ECMs p70, p69 and p68 from the oldest Cunninghams, 2^N1, 1000 < N < 1200; N = 1069, 1051 and 1067, from the Mersenne list. Maybe Bob's right that lots of curves were run, by lots of people, to remove most p<70s. In any case, this gnfs216 is a large step up from the current gnfs212; probably still twice as difficult for the extra 4digits? With some advance notice, we might have run a larger proportion of a t65. Speaking of which, looks like Greg has reserved two more [code] 7,394+ c197 NFS@Home gnfs 10,770M c212 NFS@Home gnfs 3,766+ c216 NFS@Home gnfs 11,323+ c221 NFS@Home gnfs [/code] Bruce PS  Ah; a nice p69 from 2, 2186L C227. 
Yes, this one sneaked up on me. It's been a really crazy summer, and it just dawned on me last week how quickly the current c197 will finish. I quickly put all my gpus on it. :smile:
There is time to give 11,323+ some more ECM if it's needed. Thanks! 
[QUOTE=frmky;351166]Yes, this one sneaked up on me. It's been a really crazy summer, and it just dawned on me last week how quickly the current c197 will finish. I quickly put all my gpus on it. :smile:
There is time to give 11,323+ some more ECM if it's needed. Thanks![/QUOTE] Yes, I see that we've switched to the c197, now that you mention it. This one had a bunch of B1=900M curves, 23834of13061=t60, just on the dual8core machine, during burnin. For 11,323+ I have 3t55; I'll plan on adding 2or3 t60's, depending how they go. Looking forward to hear progress on postprocessing of 10, 770M. Bruce 
Starting a week on the c216 today glad you pointed out it's going to begin sieving quickly.
This will stretch the 16e siever quite a bit, yes? Can you compare the parameters for this vs the c212? Are you confident the c221 will be possible with 16e (perhaps that depends on how the 216 goes?). 
It should be possible to raise the large primes limit(a recompile after removing the check will be necessary). I have checked that the siever and msieve work with larger large primes(I think I checked 35 bits. It will have been at least 34. I think jasonp reckoned that >35 would be too many relations for msieve to handle). I haven't checked that it doesn't miss some of the relations with larger large primes but if that is an issue it will be discovered during parameter selection anyway.
I would imagine after raising the large prime limit there is a fair amount more room in 16e. You could also try sieving with >3 lp using the lasieve5 siever. 
Here's a somewhat better one for 3,766+:
[CODE]# norm 1.088509e15 alpha 10.727690 e 4.501e16 rroots 6 skew: 10476738.56 c0: 5369554424004030826402973140282841011572519398275 c1: 3414866216469788096538063790563208721226714 c2: 854150826092935212357938287070651342 c3: 341347932610455553798257621420 c4: 19812274695016079944507 c5: 1277018966659986 c6: 9218160 Y0: 56907029561383080746868850208970432 Y1: 20291767539399957581 [/CODE] 
[QUOTE=frmky;351287]Here's a somewhat better one for 3,766+:
[/QUOTE] Although the skew is very high, this degree 5 poly seems to sieve 10%20% better: [CODE]# norm 2.316186e21 alpha 8.836349 e 3.282e16 rroots 3 skew: 1161620713.03 c0: 150197586295000094627583800604174270758750606052640635 c1: 972901144347733530674190364546696103274696609 c2: 588214638592090440436049221701783597 c3: 2579751407152116188605093717 c4: 122719450234339820 c5: 102342240 Y0: 314135458405637114606970259658568784545142 Y1: 131759766057910809619 [/CODE] But that probably needs to be verified with the actual sieving parameters and for the Qrange to be sieved. 
[QUOTE=swellman;350625]I can wait for as long as it takes. Not on any timetable.
Thanks again.[/QUOTE] I'm done with C169_141_71. I didn't find anything better than the 3.7 I posted. 
[QUOTE=lorgix;351404]I'm done with C169_141_71. I didn't find anything better than the 3.7 I posted.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for all your efforts. I'll do some test sieving next week. 
It's not better than the polys posted, but here's my best so far on the C216:
[CODE]#skew 4318719.56, size 6.192e016, alpha 9.299, combined = 3.282e016 rroots = 6 N 313068751706172934164029607615444196674154606234575242211641355472713959762783712390895701060952639425447396356557581585630115258626457263968597368593309998959766117756941753233822835800989497155176060903761800503381 SKEW 4318719.56 R0 56118476053099371919661459200054844 R1 3376910376775132711 A0 422506237083294610548658191220217155380023123625 A1 838036371757770978178729323549824699235795 A2 202841735403297089138679493763867919 A3 220430066293747906637149137727 A4 15892839097395096736892 A5 7154030015548284 A6 10023156[/CODE] 
I do not have any luck either
[code] R0: 43691089618675121990463269690614331 R1: 8280875056331246431 A0: 882667634292843493128109607284600675569970860000 A1: 1045365354762879660059156791608455967589860 A2: 262046219683142179195810002182539336 A3: 232917903025869392497781403589 A4: 37574151948391299096992 A5: 4597605901709826 A6: 45007248 skew 5344180.09, size 7.638e016, alpha 9.814, combined = 3.854e016 rroots = 6 [/code] 
Well, that's fourth place among the ones posted in this thread.
What parameters are you using? 
beside the polydegree 6? stage2_norm=1e27

And a slightly better one:
[CODE]#skew 4046323.72, size 6.980e016, alpha 10.086, combined = 3.539e016 rroots = 6 N 313068751706172934164029607615444196674154606234575242211641355472713959762783712390895701060952639425447396356557581585630115258626457263968597368593309998959766117756941753233822835800989497155176060903761800503381 SKEW 4046323.72 R0 56080138255852003624871619361635946 R1 9812788240400569969 A0 217428344690088236980111921227628323587881810755 A1 304896515339816524240109075958463638965304 A2 653295607884514249440865324339558838 A3 11482264525447064228014465568 A4 155933079432204874141015 A5 4263623035233592 A6 10064340[/CODE] 
c148 poly?
This might be too little of a request. Aliquot Sequence 3408 is approaching GNFS readiness. ECM to nearly t50.
The last term is [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=3408&action=last&fr=0&to=100"]here[/URL]. The C148 number is [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000630792634"]here[/URL]. Let us know if we should just do a CPU poly search. 
C148 is definitely enough for one of the GPUers to tackle it. I imagine one or more of us will post polys for you Monday.
My best for the C216 is 3.87, with alpha 9.40. I used a variety of stage 2 settings, settling on 1.1e27 as plenty wide enough, and only two nps hits below 3e26 (one 1.2e26!). I left stage 1 default. If I'd had any hits above 4.00, I would have messed with npr settings; my best hit had norm 9.2e16. Curtis 
Still working on the C216, but I'll run the C148 as well. I'll run from 7M headed to 10M.

Stopped working on the C216, will work on the C148

First hit on c148 is low: 5.16e12. This is the second time around c150 that I get no hits from npr at the default msieve settings! Seems we still have some parametertweaking on the default settings to do.
Curtis 
A small improvement on the C216:
[CODE]# norm 1.151728e15 alpha 9.599450 e 4.614e16 rroots 6 skew: 2050199.35 c0: 1579353278635676715631290757256478191243559744 c1: 3429903439852403145526446933945902857792 c2: 36880018074606679524160256525283636 c3: 13697458855764052177232835104 c4: 47728830331085590774493 c5: 190187915747686 c6: 3219216 Y0: 67813308479544618717746782002380725 Y1: 11562712847052532201 [/CODE] 
If you want to play with npr settings, the 4 best polys come from these two hits from nps:
[CODE]3219216 188896147381798 47792211291020524851873 920936794704352912477068289 106160083630569026815528289307099010 801811354690321198689852105715175167948 30607416062921875004876714127680707377837022015 11562712847052532201 67813308480317909827531961250919203 2.10 4.076245e+26 9218160 1113893264248146 37441391074710636811327 1260310938060465689277990112 19301218289127125020178978701622320 254628563593934339925002254936864479487 1291403264521702360220048668647081873991457257 20291767539399957581 56907029501535474987469427717617758 2.55 9.851720e+25 [/CODE] Interestingly, the best poly so far comes from first of these, which comes close to not making the top1000 from nps. 
Interesting. I normally take the top 200 or so for the npr step.

[QUOTE=wombatman;351595]Interesting. I normally take the top 200 or so for the npr step.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but we take 200 from a week's work; he's taking 1000 from 56 GPUmonths. Note the size is well within any bound we would set for this I had only 1215 hits better than this "bad" one in 5 days. 
Good point. It's a bit mindboggling to consider multiple months worth of hits :smile:
On a related note, I've still not found anything really even close to the best polys thus far, but I'll keep on searching for a bit. 
for the C148
[code] expecting poly E from 7.18e012 to > 8.25e012 R0: 14103494893784526519356005989 R1: 14231751083558387 A0: 1082563197314027058117447692104240 A1: 6763855833638605837425179132 A2: 683918654337887371011610 A3: 1178635426885569059 A4: 25388067192588 A5: 6020820 skew 174228.78, size 2.420e014, alpha 6.975, combined = 7.292e012 rroots = 5 [/code] 
Nice find! My best was 6.70, with no other hit above 6.10.
Curtis 
re: c148
@firejuggler: Thanks!
If I could ask for some more guidance (or, a source to review) in supplying the rest of the necessary elements for the file to be used for sieving, I'll proceed with gathering some relations. 
Thanks for 3270.677 work
Hello everyone
3270.677 is now slain. A slightly larger and older dragon is 8352.1755 [code]4501201576453331166199832789791297593369658735642360757062244642928667372333520186228057700129947196448599558976151228285312199225640499870800004359537419188757959878137081775709[/code] I've run 7855 curves at 3e8, which seems to have taken around a CPUyear; if anyone has spare computrons and would like to try for a polynomial, I would appreciate it greatly. 
Two days on the C216 didn't produce anything better than this:
[CODE]R0: 55254695430285730547103940791165762 R1: 312119293759135507 A0: 30293185997072202023126406251938943320224112555 A1: 39022686988409701912269268856413080821476 A2: 308597010425180289043844970668583500 A3: 95335518703809504663944362 A4: 187151833690387205781241 A5: 2008030111355554 A6: 11000808 skew 2896044.67, size 6.043e016, alpha 9.361, combined = 3.125e016 rroots = 6[/CODE]The rest of the top: 3.089 2.954 2.943 2.910 
[QUOTE=fivemack;351648]Hello everyone
3270.677 is now slain. A slightly larger and older dragon is 8352.1755 [code]4501201576453331166199832789791297593369658735642360757062244642928667372333520186228057700129947196448599558976151228285312199225640499870800004359537419188757959878137081775709[/code] I've run 7855 curves at 3e8, which seems to have taken around a CPUyear; if anyone has spare computrons and would like to try for a polynomial, I would appreciate it greatly.[/QUOTE] Added to the list ([url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlFp2DvBLxsUdEtUMFE0bmk3blRQQlJhS2NkcEF2b0E&usp=sharing[/url]), and I'll take a whack at it in a day or so. 
Working on fivemack's C178. Leading coef of 26M to 27M for now. stage 2 bound is normal one/10 +1 rounded down
edit : ok, the skew is still too high, 106107M and stage2_norm dropped to 1e24 
[QUOTE=fivemack;351648]Hello everyone
3270.677 is now slain. A slightly larger and older dragon is 8352.1755 [code]4501201576453331166199832789791297593369658735642360757062244642928667372333520186228057700129947196448599558976151228285312199225640499870800004359537419188757959878137081775709[/code]I've run 7855 curves at 3e8, which seems to have taken around a CPUyear; if anyone has spare computrons and would like to try for a polynomial, I would appreciate it greatly.[/QUOTE] Here's something to improve upon: [CODE]R0: 13510300690714233128962473784787911 R1: 6033666436834932973 A0: 7034748373882411992025425942353529267330539568 A1: 71338558289372431896711534793022720038 A2: 14748583117555536229325143815075 A3: 26578335541599568634856 A4: 4478227283242628 A5: 10000080 skew 62604670.38, size 1.049e017, alpha 8.504, combined = 6.838e014 rroots = 5[/CODE]And one with lower skew: [CODE]# norm 1.268524e017 alpha 7.678027 e 6.640e014 rroots 5 skew: 17111756.25 c0: 210599198530084596051506780338272197545928 c1: 2527411309030685160782799540300491498 c2: 1065181840417068104646006801855 c3: 364038192920007149521688 c4: 3207651518717828 c5: 10000080 Y0: 13510300537390852798621699508797335 Y1: 6033666436834932973[/CODE] 
hmmm, sorry lorgix ^^
edit : and as soon as I post, I get something better... edit2: and one again.... [code] R0: 8424609947188589022080303049239527 R1: 2883303214296225487 A0: 1025957941551236123340742630353362456769120 A1: 23139567493487836324707827126723976 A2: 336879047668564417814061593030 A3: 25774464945517024330291 A4: 11994763228641670 A5: 106066800 skew 5914607.03, size 1.586e017, alpha 7.883, combined = 9.118e014 rroots = 5 [/code] 
firejuggler, what's the expected score on this one?

expecting poly E from 1.06e013 to > 1.22e013

one slightly better
[code] R0: 8407143352811808814320719097477087 R1: 1093231323027035599 A0: 1033043932332288447826927595522335408816144 Tue Sep 03 06:14:22 2013 A1: 17897682125008254951716401225227540 Tue Sep 03 06:14:22 2013 A2: 87833614330134391302128104568 A3: 10121373174071281106151 A4: 544593508546310 A5: 107173200 skew 7910402.55, size 1.751e017, alpha 7.557, combined = 9.911e014 rroots = 3 [/code] tried to mess with npr stage to no avail 
Doc is updated with the newest high score. I'm taking a quick break from the C216 and running a day or so on the C178 starting at 200M. Still nothing to top the best on the C216 or C148, but I'm still running the C148 as well and will return to the C216 soon.

[QUOTE=bdodson;351151] ...
In any case, this gnfs216 is a large step up from the current gnfs212; probably still twice as difficult for the extra 4digits? With some advance notice, we might have run a larger proportion of a t65. Speaking of which, looks like Greg has reserved two more [code] 7,394+ c197 NFS@Home gnfs 10,770M c212 NFS@Home gnfs 3,766+ c216 NFS@Home gnfs 11,323+ c221 NFS@Home gnfs [/code] ...[/QUOTE] OK; 11,323+ is at 3t60 =.c 60% of a t65. That's the same amount of ecm pretesting as 10,770M; while gnfs 221 is a lot harder, four times at least. Probably enough to have found a p62; but there's still lots of space in [p63,p79] for factors in ecmrange. I'm taking a break; pending 10,770M. Bruce 
[QUOTE=wombatman;351725]Doc is updated with the newest high score. I'm taking a quick break from the C216 and running a day or so on the C178 starting at 200M. Still nothing to top the best on the C216 or C148, but I'm still running the C148 as well and will return to the C216 soon.[/QUOTE]
We are using the c148 poly provided by firejuggler yesterday. Thanks to all who have assisted. 
Good deal!

half joking, but should I refrain from posting my poly until someone else has posted something?

Definitely not! Post away. It helps give a good benchmark to aim for so we have an idea of what can be reached, scorewise.

For the C178:
[CODE]# norm 2.336437e017 alpha 8.750154 e 1.042e013 rroots 1 skew: 8101608.89 c0: 1124802423237697198907119489783480071149680 c1: 974204032868244810143592284577125356 c2: 186990917123318951862940976624 c3: 8439029065470934693477 c4: 4981313244457890 c5: 200514600 Y0: 7417140276099365940084623920414947 Y1: 820410665804958487[/CODE] 
Here's a much better degree 5 poly for 3,766+
[CODE]# norm 2.775079e21 alpha 8.960946 e 3.612e16 rroots 5 skew: 63077872.55 c0: 1887020519362839888115657135050861565577526397568 c1: 1063754686294298940104013857297655722687416 c2: 487067776713547205197156932678978146 c3: 10205037559243136766266083631 c4: 110430678512311392366 c5: 100503683280 Y0: 79193866781948524407733628428745627292279 Y1: 8357656079342536381 [/CODE] 
Is the expected score different for the degree 5 polynomial? The best degree 6 score is 4.614e16

They aren't directly comparable. I will test this degree 5 poly and the best degree 6 I find to see which sieves better. Thanks!

[QUOTE=frmky;351949]They aren't directly comparable. I will test this degree 5 poly and the best degree 6 I find to see which sieves better. Thanks![/QUOTE]
My first degree 5 poly seems to sieve better for higher specialQ, you should consider it too. What range do you plan to sieve? 
Here are the best two I've found so far for the C178:
[CODE]# norm 2.074604e017 alpha 8.370658 e 9.554e014 rroots 5 skew: 27407813.51 c0: 34479147319693175161599349315340052834699584 c1: 4429282378256539747970358196795900328 c2: 1434881867303190777125708901302 c3: 33628945964909798531803 c4: 1929401141291154 c5: 10000080 Y0: 13510300181730257396835568376043747 Y1: 814102016366565773 # norm 2.003266e017 alpha 7.203611 e 9.529e014 rroots 3 skew: 13010929.25 c0: 976352382201425037872835478818751759346434 c1: 274755295225894962489202667192849721 c2: 115707756918283545938338351718 c3: 5529842672220826821354 c4: 1055486076049144 c5: 10029720 Y0: 13502305455454092085413920152946925 Y1: 3084936245691597311[/CODE]I've found eight ones >9e14. Maybe the one wombatman found is a winner. 
From trial sieving it looks like firejuggler's [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=351690&postcount=169[/url] (c5=107173200) is the best of the C178 so far, with wombatman's [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=351781&postcount=176[/url] in second place.
I think we're ready to think about sieving that one; may I propose 4788.5154 [code] 17285154910805941577069464828335617544658066950627644021728302169526833018711670895092479561808160256160945139573800969912234390238908363042669550995167201537635764747005337 [/code] as a next polynomialselection target? It's received an enormous amount of ECM from yoyo@home  I suspect twice as many cycles as will be required for the sieving. 
Sure. I'll start at 100M. I've updated the document with it as well.

ok, i'll start at 150 M, then.
Since I get away from home Tuesday afternoon, I won't be able to do much. expecting poly E from 2.27e013 to > 2.61e013 
and here is a first look at it
[code] R0: 649106117267591846867343899276661 R1: 1476313446490191469 A0: 10782780581991004974082092246843346818160832 A1: 9872003751360519183436215391887794588 A2: 1198519317595998643602562010588 A3: 107539073258193732676277 A4: 4960166814080970 A5: 150001200 skew 15362972.91, size 4.139e017, alpha 8.994, combined = 1.602e013 rroots = 5 [/code] Getting in the excepted poly range should be easy. 
a better one :
[code] R0: 649106121065203735403440768762520 R1: 829423026522415277 A0: 11840833659022501956266274797457992656701 A1: 5416933874751647390737163098891614 A2: 28064405985398111945180071556 A3: 1010129301483599319579 A4: 5394748664135520 A5: 150001200 skew 2484106.52, size 5.271e017, alpha 7.341, combined = 1.895e013 rroots = 5 [/code] messing with npr sometime work : "natural" poly was ( same NPS hit) [code] R0: 649106121436268520739959348140949 R1: 829423026522415277 A0: 5795439107163174921644154112805635510096 A1: 5300282288863527562360450565041500 A2: 20364562350473250910946757532 A3: 10363853521995763895739 A4: 5059213229873520 A5: 150001200 skew 2183932.81, size 4.821e017, alpha 6.973, combined = 1.784e013 rroots = 5 [/code] 
Here's a nice jump that puts us closer to the expected:
[CODE]R0: 703882715400154767239221030785027 R1: 109256907036035759 A0: 32458290986930814614288309447638552942448 A1: 103153855552643435982140704058765640 A2: 30534525659025455419966454893 A3: 8313312278444358634242 A4: 994692832026932 A5: 100039560 skew 5450899.35, size 5.768e017, alpha 7.498, combined = 2.022e013 rroots = 5[/CODE] 
[code]
R0: 697013904459768580991097397641011 R1: 5606793472754501 A0: 1847971520796502134306506190386798968500 A1: 40821386607537415162180472039027730 A2: 65031139921790296595480109002 A3: 11389536971489005146365 A4: 2922818243778546 A5: 105066936 skew 4418742.30, size 5.992e017, alpha 7.710, combined = 2.022e013 rroots = 5 [/code] exact same score 
Hahahaha, nice!

[QUOTE=frmky;351949]They aren't directly comparable. I will test this degree 5 poly and the best degree 6 I find to see which sieves better. Thanks![/QUOTE]
For the C216, Gimeral's e 3.612e16 degree 5 poly sieves about 15% better than a degree 6 poly with e 4.662e16. 
[QUOTE=frmky;352366]For the C216, Gimeral's e 3.612e16 degree 5 poly sieves about 15% better than a degree 6 poly with e 4.662e16.[/QUOTE]
Does this suggest that perhaps msieve's rootopt for deg 6 is rough enough that the theoretical "line" for deg 5 vs deg 6 is lower than realworld work? Are the CADO rootopt tools better for deg 6? Perhaps someone could collect the best few hundred hits for a CADO rootopt run? 
after running for the night, I got
[code] R0: 696455968474482254849269323572607 R1: 348684257076673921 A0: 214663815990857477983089978209004516580928 A1: 177424600277632306484616564575041074 A2: 34342254092265056219064954433 A3: 8565004414637263688679 A4: 546856311911345 A5: 105488460 skew 6382404.47, size 6.264e017, alpha 7.953, combined = 2.130e013 rroots = 3 [/code] for the latest composite 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;352382]Does this suggest that perhaps msieve's rootopt for deg 6 is rough enough that the theoretical "line" for deg 5 vs deg 6 is lower than realworld work?
Are the CADO rootopt tools better for deg 6? Perhaps someone could collect the best few hundred hits for a CADO rootopt run?[/QUOTE] I suspect it's less the crossover point between degree 5 and 6 than the scaling factor between degree5 Evalues and degree6 Evalues. Hopefully everyone knows but it's worth repeating: the Evalue algorithm was invented to compare polynomials of like degree only. My anecdotal experience is that the best output from the CADO rootopt tools is noticeably better than what you get with Msieve, but on average they work equivalently well. Even among samedegree polynomials, the definition of Evalue would make one think that a polynomial with X percent better Evalue would sieve X percent more efficiently, but experience with RSA768 shows the difference is much smaller than that. i.e. we found lots of degree6 polynomials with half the Evalue score of the one actually used for RSA768, that sieved maybe 1520% slower. 
2nd effort
[QUOTE=bdodson;351728]OK; 11,323+ is at 3t60 =.c 60% of a t65. That's
the same amount of ecm pretesting as 10,770M; while gnfs 221 is a lot harder, four times at least. Probably enough to have found a p62; but there's still lots of space in [p63,p79] for factors in ecmrange. I'm taking a break; pending 10,770M. Bruce[/QUOTE] OK, never mind the polyn search for 11,323+ C221: [code] Input number is 47684588221623639056961705608173079138153779302378955848869404 42648307317037627130989942393222503668627639186419734789253370 97393792502082005378750936019951281361678639264962841236093010 58482691872665246622667910987254487 (221 digits) Using B1=400000000, B2=15892277350966, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=4180268258 Step 1 took 3510272ms Step 2 took 1859204ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 482632031053134403896770035981249734273506307638396123269389497006923 Found probable prime factor of 69 digits: 482632031053134403896770035981249734273506307638396123269389497006923 Probable prime cofactor 98801126227724201982197175315480431013249163755336329531650444 70656245838965370494907444192757868193236504714266221744759846 9879406843807465214724901669 has 152 digits [/code] on one of the pc's running 8 curves on an i7. This near the end of a new 7t55. Ah, there was another 1.8t55 of leftovers from last weekend's count. Looks like my total curve count is c. 23.3t55*, out of 25t55 for t65. Wow! a new highest count for me; not so much luck, as sustained effort. Please apply this to the account with the two p62's "not found" for not having run enough on the NFS@Home 3+ gnfs's! Bruce *PS  OK, that's 127,215 curves with B1=400M, default B2, to be precise. This p69 is just short of my previous, the current 10thofthetop10, 482... vs 563... 
All times are UTC. The time now is 12:54. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.