Don't wait. It looks as if the PSU could not take the extra load. It won't even turn the fans any more. I'll have to take the PC to a repair shop tomorrow for a new PSU (if that's what failed).
I've already had to buy a better CPU cooler to replace the stock one. Adding the cost of a new PSU to that and it'll about double the cost of the GPU. Chris 
[QUOTE=chris2be8;365553]Don't wait. It looks as if the PSU could not take the extra load. It won't even turn the fans any more. I'll have to take the PC to a repair shop tomorrow for a new PSU (if that's what failed).
I've already had to buy a better CPU cooler to replace the stock one. Adding the cost of a new PSU to that and it'll about double the cost of the GPU. Chris[/QUOTE]Sorry to hear that. I'll go ahead and run a test today then to see which of the 3 polys sieves faster. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;365457]If mine sieves close to yours, I'm happy to give it another 2436hr on the GPU to perhaps find improvement. But when my first effort scored 10% worse than yours, I admit to losing interest.
Curtis[/QUOTE]My next jobs are going to be larger, so I assume they will benefit more from an intensive GPU search. As it stands, my highest poly and your poly sieved about the same speed, with yours faster by a hair, but the yield for yours was ~13% less..... I should have my answer in ~10 days or so. 
OK, thanks for the info. I'll proceed to RichD's C160 once I finish a job for my own composite; I should have a first poly Thursday evening, and will let it run until Sunday. A C160 should have 10+ GPU days of poly search, but I don't have the resources available to do that.

for the C184, I reverted back to quintic, and got
[code] R0: 189739683797999317529400126331832722 R1: 693895955161095043 A0: 32453832495498028059546140602061149196755545 A1: 1293761121414808264524462998111743706 A2: 228832774841744122536924096105 A3: 20926589075998572306546 A4: 345246593021584 A5: 35193264 skew 19710555.98, size 3.593e018, alpha 6.391, combined = 3.765e014 rroots = 3 [/code] 
For the C160 from 3408:1385, the first day's search turned up a score 1.19e12. The window msieve "expects" is 1.33e12 to 1.52e12.
I will post any poly that improves on this 1.19 score. Curtis 
For what it's worth I've run npr against the best 100 (of 2669441) entries in msieve.dat.ms from my run on Tuesday. I got: [code]
R0: 135858192791394956439864945410 R1: 570849297736093 A0: 14301565586950358401384714963946613561 A1: 16152650324808439814192471692756 A2: 3567237672198900849530610 A3: 879298234954072455 A4: 49781921806 A5: 3864 skew 7818935.60, size 2.043e14, alpha 7.261, combined = 6.747e12 rroots = 3 elapsed time 00:09:43 [/code] That's probably not very good since the GPU didn't run for very long before the PSU died. Elapsed time above is for npr only. Chris 
For the C160 from 3408:1385
[code]expecting poly E from 1.33e012 to > 1.52e012 R0 4033130224608614852170208876887 R1 180460901903302283 A0 52357711339572497186925087177217184640 A1 428629807184883242734908451572136 A2 111194134081525777552853666 A3 93001930969062599969 A4 9212558892474 A5 3828720 skew 3102530.12, size 1.335e015, alpha 7.118, combined = 1.333e012 rroots = 5[/code] I have no polys above 1.19 except this one. I'll give it one more day to improve, but this is a usable candidate in my opinion. 
I haven't decided whether I want to tackle my next largest composite or go for a "more wanted", but if someone can find a really nice poly for this one, [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=7044&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"]7044[/URL]:i3426.c159:[code]132849801556061831314309873822050317788619462490949245156896198056485583983802960449476380694570581312461543888860167332690420786216424942137403018401845810663[/code]I'll do the more wanted.

I'll have a go at schickel's C160. I'll only scan a limited range of HLQs, but enough to test my scripts, and the new PSU.
Chris 
I didn't get far. After about 27 minutes the system crashed again. This time the PSU survived so I could power the system back up. Running npr on the best 100 entries in msieve.dat.ms found: [code]
R0: 15595511478358973801530755477526 R1: 6316360635713693 A0: 2096409315900123991624591017294407684793 A1: 21208160729383271288378383776159 A2: 79287985949944664147956451 A3: 2064769571596254311 A4: 249346723154 A5: 144 skew 19821182.17, size 1.713e15, alpha 6.031, combined = 1.539e12 rroots = 5 [/code] I think it needs more fans to pump the head from the GPU out. But that will take some time to set up, Chris 
[QUOTE=chris2be8;365932]I didn't get far. After about 27 minutes the system crashed again. This time the PSU survived so I could power the system back up. Running npr on the best 100 entries in msieve.dat.ms found: [code]
R0: 15595511478358973801530755477526 R1: 6316360635713693 A0: 2096409315900123991624591017294407684793 A1: 21208160729383271288378383776159 A2: 79287985949944664147956451 A3: 2064769571596254311 A4: 249346723154 A5: 144 skew 19821182.17, size 1.713e15, alpha 6.031, combined = 1.539e12 rroots = 5 [/code] I think it needs more fans to pump the hea[t] from the GPU out. But that will take some time to set up, Chris[/QUOTE]That's a pretty nice score. I'll run some searching locally and see if I can find anything better. If not, I might go ahead and tackle this one next (5 days or so to go on my current job). My upcoming jobs above c150 are c154, [c159], and c164. (And I'm not real sure I'm up to tackling a c164 again.... 
I've concluded that EVO Labs PSUs don't always provide their full rated power. Another try killed the 700W model I'd replaced the original 500W PSU with. The GPU uses 170W max, but mostly 12v power which the PSU may not be able to provide enough of.
I've replaced it with a Corsair CX750 PSU. That's rated to provide up to 62 amps of 12v power, which should be plenty. But it cost nearly as much as the GPU (that was second hand though). I'm running another soak test against your C160. If the new PSU survives that it should survive anything. I'll post the best poly it finds. This has definitely reached "frustrating". PSUs are supposed to either provide their rated power or have overload protection to stop them being damaged. Chris 
[QUOTE=chris2be8;366027]I've concluded that EVO Labs PSUs don't always provide their full rated power. Another try killed the 700W model I'd replaced the original 500W PSU with. The GPU uses 170W max, but mostly 12v power which the PSU may not be able to provide enough of.
I've replaced it with a Corsair CX750 PSU. That's rated to provide up to 62 amps of 12v power, which should be plenty. But it cost nearly as much as the GPU (that was second hand though). I'm running another soak test against your C160. If the new PSU survives that it should survive anything. I'll post the best poly it finds. This has definitely reached "frustrating". PSUs are supposed to either provide their rated power or have overload protection to stop them being damaged. Chris[/QUOTE]Wow, something to keep in mind for the next system I build. I had a PS go in my main system; luckily, when I ordered a replacement, they had one with a higher rating on sale cheaper than the rating I replaced. 
some PSU are certified. noname PSU and low quality can deliver between 70 to 75% of their nominal power. Certified PSU have better rate. Also a small link.
[url]http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/26734328explainbronzesilvercertifiedsilversbest[/url] 
Run finished. Best poly was: [code]
R0: 6364655919201796079867797099408 R1: 295615254460640777 A0: 179435110610878523647136682144480120081 A1: 75945269806551158820034767590206 A2: 38100445529483857085112451 A3: 7411823563051778744 A4: 537302487308 A5: 12720 skew 7801224.82, size 2.517e15, alpha 7.009, combined = 1.985e12 rroots = 3 [/code] That was searching leading coefficients from 1 to 20000 (in two stages) and running npr on the best 1000 stage 1 hits. I'm now happy that the new PSU can cope. "All" I have to do is learn how to tune polynomial selection for best results on various size inputs. Chris 
[QUOTE=chris2be8;366105]Run finished. Best poly was: [code]
R0: 6364655919201796079867797099408 R1: 295615254460640777 A0: 179435110610878523647136682144480120081 A1: 75945269806551158820034767590206 A2: 38100445529483857085112451 A3: 7411823563051778744 A4: 537302487308 A5: 12720 skew 7801224.82, size 2.517e15, alpha 7.009, combined = 1.985e12 rroots = 3 [/code] That was searching leading coefficients from 1 to 20000 (in two stages) and running npr on the best 1000 stage 1 hits. I'm now happy that the new PSU can cope. "All" I have to do is learn how to tune polynomial selection for best results on various size inputs. Chris[/QUOTE]Thanks. I could not find a higher one after a couple of days of CPU search, so I'm going to start working with this one in the next week or so. 
AS4788:i5212  C158
Looks like Aliquot Sequence 4788 is ready for GNFS with a C158.
The last term is [URL="http://www.factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5212&to=5212"]here[/URL]. And the number is: [CODE]76869571906355491906959871188888092471250708894766586952516503475089113869342318053568967454050390052064136129541897584223796694069753683292240241556441311641[/CODE]A nice poly is requested. 
I'll give the C152 from 4788 a 2GPUday shot. Coeff 3.6M and 4.7M start points.
This size number deserves about a GPUweek, so someone else should have a run also. Curtis 
I'll run from 100k.

Top result so far:
[CODE]expecting poly E from 1.69e012 to > 1.94e012 R0: 2689280107307295526801513157343 R1: 2931167726039959 A0: 99040350235836961822906826562013900000 A1: 95781172805689829891986809259050 A2: 27215466812960912400211495 A3: 10524994985190571386 A4: 7840244511848 A5: 546480 skew 3595166.53, size 2.227e015, alpha 7.379, combined = 1.813e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
Secondary option, but not as good:
[CODE]R0: 2155578372482669365926084128205 R1: 1127260259541943 A0: 40328988024591975714087292182419509328 A1: 66820151154132769497071567631796 A2: 6728377480314191201183140 A3: 25120365631094055045 A4: 7734154948932 A5: 1651716 skew 2071236.75, size 2.021e015, alpha 6.944, combined = 1.693e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
[CODE]
n: 76869571906355491906959871188888092471250708894766586952516503475089113869342318053568967454050390052064136129541897584223796694069753683292240241556441311641 # norm 2.556114e015 alpha 8.042625 e 1.746e012 rroots 3 skew: 8507980.48 c0: 697527486164130532279865895120392673275 c1: 120763715291162991817394881816805 c2: 160759075606110254468802459 c3: 54065299020536806483 c4: 5257027044422 c5: 129960 Y0: 3584173698956592806915920474584 Y1: 98597680939668659 # norm 2.416781e015 alpha 6.370630 e 1.697e012 rroots 5 skew: 3404723.60 c0: 34793535780275951024922226403477538000 c1: 18037274809042927554180583138536 c2: 52891988988073712409582830 c3: 2731440434913531781 c4: 4988767267408 c5: 159600 Y0: 3439889529759048116671987007159 Y1: 228778027137143873 [/CODE] 
Two days on the C152 got me nothing better than 1.58e12. I yield to wombatman's poly.

HP[SUB]6[/SUB](96) has a c168. I ran a full t55 on it.
If any of you feel like looking for a poly you should go ahead. But I have a few numbers waiting for GNFS, so it might be a while before I get to it. 
Here's a quick initial one:
[CODE]polynomial selection complete R0: 351185084381712098737001356638663 R1: 6845968206438053 A0: 1576437232461335934077481224737190849790080 A1: 59688835068123814058351767034530824 A2: 11054644286537809640172862132 A3: 16485688320011887029 A4: 20579079041540 A5: 140556 skew 30830220.54, size 1.753e016, alpha 7.577, combined = 3.959e013 rroots = 3 elapsed time 00:17:13[/CODE] 
And here's a much better one:
[CODE]R0: 148138110612077723916876612082378 R1: 8339809050965341 A0: 12770912230199211021871868495951883270795 A1: 13079726119391213221893906059256122 A2: 1496544624011384736520582339 A3: 1484564397432902982318 A4: 82524300618068 A5: 10524360 skew 5555477.07, size 2.099e016, alpha 7.736, combined = 4.460e013 rroots = 5[/CODE] 
Aliquot Sequence 3366 is now ready for GNFS with a c154.
The last term is [url="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=3366&action=range&fr=2120&to=2120"]here[/url]. The composite is: [code]3308009973407192231807077520689238593649607835059580923229693691366589979099091729341044080076948136375169476605174148416558932726440741541408142888471481[/code] A nice poly is requested. 
Starting at 100,000 and running overnight.

A little low, but a good start.
[CODE]expecting poly E from 3.10e012 to > 3.57e012 polynomial selection complete R0: 376204185518317275648739469673 R1: 1226119532674199 A0: 24163564970005681572050262530157268480 A1: 41684539050837063806347703372056 A2: 13347999928080102193859026 A3: 12359935788342500071 A4: 1096104627318 A5: 438984 skew 3049806.24, size 5.349e015, alpha 7.266, combined = 3.033e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
Small improvement:
[CODE]polynomial selection complete R0: 313426207408478690741807350442 R1: 4985154433895227 A0: 64274525925439519677314518508387370465 A1: 50955331804223207969796444100169 A2: 16775534299649772885367939 A3: 14160958980613019665 A4: 335875177338 A5: 1093680 skew 2722245.55, size 5.610e015, alpha 7.448, combined = 3.081e012 rroots = 3[/CODE] 
C166 @ AS3408:i1399
Aliquot sequence 3408 is ready for GNFS and a poly.
The current term is [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=3408&action=range&fr=1399&to=1399"]here[/URL]. The C166 composite is: [CODE]1123367150134848120647467256535952482658686476885324744360520386356344637194859571636314844955603685901980138488599119535795850301781912277982445337403841501308675373[/CODE] A nice poly is requested. 
Since no one else seems interested I'll have a go. I'll let you know when I've got something.
Chris 
C166 @ AS3408:i1399 polys
[CODE]
N: 1123367150134848120647467256535952482658686476885324744360520386356344637194859571636314844955603685901980138488599119535795850301781912277982445337403841501308675373 # norm 4.740739e016 alpha 6.805832 e 6.493e013 rroots 3 skew: 4440977.86 c0: 177048535144577104002100358070738707625 c1: 365723560219633695438695599995825 c2: 495640540820121872411293295 c3: 111509067703870473337 c4: 7960709240186 c5: 1321320 Y0: 61080521272901563946054800533482 Y1: 875338835798211529 # norm 4.462039e016 alpha 7.435898 e 6.237e013 rroots 3 skew: 9112731.34 c0: 23808740138726624289321423454604296645443 c1: 1466967236654254780631224580887119 c2: 967665755570684778379380281 c3: 130649495154318981865 c4: 382514849014 c5: 1321320 Y0: 61080522378333716799855808469480 Y1: 875338835798211529 # norm 4.491349e016 alpha 7.834517 e 6.233e013 rroots 5 skew: 10120852.14 c0: 2487662169925619011414083785466603069415 c1: 17900717407620781734682035008680428 c2: 1738977030042289153018461673 c3: 780255315421125543468 c4: 15384833651358 c5: 1312740 Y0: 61160160247186338969070336749222 Y1: 864634448508699529 # norm 4.496146e016 alpha 7.259351 e 6.231e013 rroots 5 skew: 8596150.68 c0: 15831684823536804655058985745100802791721 c1: 10704450769273425265783975355355078 c2: 192151769714510808550440602 c3: 425569331212241159887 c4: 5995995318156 c5: 1447380 Y0: 59977426957982371068013390847954 Y1: 5137117526847881 [/CODE] 
My best result is: [code]
n: 1123367150134848120647467256535952482658686476885324744360520386356344637194859571636314844955603685901980138488599119535795850301781912277982445337403841501308675373 # norm 5.501656e16 alpha 7.179471 e 7.119e13 rroots 5 skew: 36195688.86 c0: 75577562337689364028481050776760905394833 c1: 3224013476052476246459675851031357 c2: 1644146666659802871764747813 c3: 9297976523287591189 c4: 1376786174160 c5: 1692 Y0: 231432459847718112775382371692070 Y1: 2775839702823571 [/code] Chris 
My best one is below sashamkrt's polys.

And my second best result is: [code]
# norm 5.386430e16 alpha 7.124421 e 7.002e13 rroots 5 skew: 39711911.18 c0: 313768005569780256947621801516554049147768 c1: 5242099641663080151981840862637332 c2: 1623782187706610058329399198 c3: 12691336302789308989 c4: 1371563435460 c5: 1692 Y0: 231432459849431763536721989131065 Y1: 2775839702823571 [/code] I should have posted that earlier, but sleep got in the way. Sorry. Chris 
If RichD does some testsieving, I am curious to hear what yield is for Chris' polys vs sashamkrt's. I still don't have a firm grasp of the effect of skew on the sieving phase, but Chris' skews are very high due to his tiny A1 choice.
Or, for the NFS experts: what effect will sieving with a poly skew of 3040M for this C166 have? Is that effect outweighed by the Murphy score running 10% higher than Sasahmkrt's polys, the best of which has skew 4M? Is it valid that if the yield of the highskew poly is good enough to produce enough relations before poly performance drops off, we don't care what skew is? 
The Murphy score assumes a sieving region of fixed area, and factor bases of fixed (small) size. I don't think there's a set answer to your question, the sieving rate could be higher or lower than the Murphy score would indicate. Lattice sieving doesn't care very much that the sieving region is very wide and thin, and we don't have many samples of (good) polynomials with very large skew to compare with.

I've got a c154 from aliquot sequence 611156:i7547 that needs a poly:[code]1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437[/code]Something nice would be appreciated.

611156:i7547 c154 poly
[CODE]
611156:i7547 n: 1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437 # norm 8.191801e015 alpha 7.444448 e 3.477e012 rroots 5 skew: 1837012.21 c0: 9524788629911251806899820614452358175 c1: 19825309048338991034711681062715 c2: 12548193435218537869063512 c3: 16897387341480048942 c4: 5214672777134 c5: 1375980 Y0: 245770001251625498938715399762 Y1: 43639219601327273 [/CODE] 
[QUOTE=sashamkrt;371951][CODE]
611156:i7547 n: 1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437 # norm 8.191801e015 alpha 7.444448 e 3.477e012 rroots 5 skew: 1837012.21 c0: 9524788629911251806899820614452358175 c1: 19825309048338991034711681062715 c2: 12548193435218537869063512 c3: 16897387341480048942 c4: 5214672777134 c5: 1375980 Y0: 245770001251625498938715399762 Y1: 43639219601327273 [/CODE][/QUOTE]Thank you for that! A local CPUonly search got this score after 100+ hours:[code]# norm 6.673765e015 alpha 7.751098 e 3.299e012 rroots 5 skew: 34808196.94[/code] 
Greetings,
I've got a c161 from 96^1271. (ecm pretested to t55) [CODE]29402026346876404520391138812753203396665114819180002640111042211241267771985958243562132692098504888206091141479100367473237624904438034507578300300706369793341[/CODE] Any help would be much appreciated. :smile: 
I'll have a go. It'll probably take about 2 days to produce a poly.
Chris 
Thanks Chris,
I've started 6 CPU cores on the old pol51 binaries for something to compare with. They should be done in a couple of days. 
My best score was 1.388e12, It appeared 3 times in msieve.dat.p, all for the same poly.
My best 3 ignoring duplicates are: [code] # norm 1.667441e15 alpha 7.002235 e 1.388e12 rroots 5 skew: 67950163.58 c0: 92018656678781734318812584786978993173168 c1: 17606278543589316445642626684590972 c2: 184245044024739887319988260 c3: 9925624700183687723 c4: 23633660818 c5: 660 Y0: 33866214470571755539145261052495 Y1: 119692786004264443 # norm 1.664533e15 alpha 7.463580 e 1.375e12 rroots 5 skew: 13851961.80 c0: 3980366090430387084049780075594783704630 c1: 1150963403949097102401214675385591 c2: 240601330168742354186263763 c3: 35973749870761629187 c4: 1525113916932 c5: 21672 Y0: 16845956005729258547405590420453 Y1: 22299707395951193 # norm 1.620840e15 alpha 6.981357 e 1.359e12 rroots 5 skew: 76448553.94 c0: 98489208632605476746240133473937531314816 c1: 26848738563981520237901585677130936 c2: 16059473682133602087809922 c3: 10261934626721014715 c4: 1907497018 c5: 660 Y0: 33866215258591475056417014729393 Y1: 119692786004264443 [/code] I'll be interested if pol51 gets anywhere near as good a score. In my experience msieve generates better polys on a CPU. And my GPU should have searched a much larger range than a CPU could in that time. Chris 
pol51 holds its own
Top 3 Candidates:
[CODE]skew: 1195653.98 # norm 5.84e+22 c5: 22302000 c4: 464777566858860 c3: 99436795485673648928 c2: 578297457968152336612278175 c1: 48812371410286624110411117747644 c0: 91385745414121004257569049157219000311 # alpha 7.75 Y1: 1082295975254504197 Y0: 4207335607185413648657384925588 # Murphy_E 1.18e12 # M 20751775683164952457242854624160015284564131656598338624140314606734216907514433651924011151071370571710908193183434894211011777674434219738391337425965679674713 skew: 603563.67 # norm 2.79e+21 c5: 17088660 c4: 55736335067836 c3: 24337375383614088601 c2: 22783222883034211139137917 c1: 3762710284495542565468049664129 c0: 83444455839241142352217880538651963 # alpha 4.90 Y1: 584188293422681497 Y0: 4437453482190738444802154305568 # Murphy_E 1.12e12 # M 14893812980472872748426252973158126516305595988165839050371884840345042253354616381401043147671151873314700192158970186409363237060108595396222768522630896644523 skew: 961948.16 # norm 1.75e+22 c5: 53091120 c4: 60160923641566 c3: 99495731552476470845 c2: 54975499562688884099764359 c1: 32588660991353723457107645266731 c0: 2287737267985726330614672965275562463 # alpha 6.28 Y1: 4036339538754394157 Y0: 3537294243672844580035463385550 # Murphy_E 1.10e12 # M 25747597891659421512785722580208176486812627500621563442893503693548474750169867971141097140926018640467241525952556349336043133438320153062186410883050302658875 [/CODE] I must say that I was expecting a larger gap between the pol51 top poly and the msieve GPU top poly. Something like an order of magnitude. For a single sample area only, SpecialQ range of 100000, I'm getting a 14.2% increase in yield. Cheers 
I should probably make the script search for larger HLQs. It's not really tuned for C161s (it just searches HLQs from 1 to 100000). But I don't know how to choose a range for a given size of number.
Chris 
I doubt anyone would be able to get a 10x difference in sieving performance by choosing a better polynomial; for RSA512, the largest difference in sieving performance between totally unoptimized polynomials and the output of Kleinjung's algorithm, that anyone has been able to find, is something like a factor of four.
For a C161 I'd start looking at coefficients above 1000000. 
Thanks Jason for straightening out my muddled thinking there.:davieddy:
(FWIW, I probably heard the order of magnitude ref in regards to how much time the GPU version takes for an equivalent MurphyE which could be totally correct. Of course, boosting the MurphyE score takes a nonproportional increase in effort.) 
Requesting GNFS polys for both of these xyyxf composites. SNFS yields for both are just plain terrible.
[code] C168_130_71 = 293577856524534308556608110931494014404182621098756377812259533965962071178386204940945650625875365752664844816196696488552291293374296950182835664858833152967071700503 C168_134_94 = 451591044633621500700127843125932943919387601290262860485200418433795934760393784972054631775554879954085888690144804817796633480540639229986141076270921955279078568333 [/code] Thanks for any help! 
[QUOTE=sashamkrt;371951][CODE]
611156:i7547 n: 1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437 # norm 8.191801e015 alpha 7.444448 e 3.477e012 rroots 5 skew: 1837012.21 c0: 9524788629911251806899820614452358175 c1: 19825309048338991034711681062715 c2: 12548193435218537869063512 c3: 16897387341480048942 c4: 5214672777134 c5: 1375980 Y0: 245770001251625498938715399762 Y1: 43639219601327273 [/CODE][/QUOTE]18 days later:[code]prp62 factor: 15397886342298096881993126507804932212098047954161942939890657 prp92 factor: 80130095903332114576197636633232711661580076072271741043519900823811963455142901912702330541[/code]Thanks again! 
C168_130_71 polys
[QUOTE=swellman;373248]
[code] C168_130_71 = 293577856524534308556608110931494014404182621098756377812259533965962071178386204940945650625875365752664844816196696488552291293374296950182835664858833152967071700503 [/code][/QUOTE] [code] # norm 2.543780e016 alpha 7.960966 e 4.428e013 rroots 5 skew: 28988859.01 c0: 1062215008480970792901257152198983339519285 c1: 183447334833241615015815837774853009 c2: 11275670137112669226852509629 c3: 972496338763237373105 c4: 16927684068408 c5: 196560 Y0: 272173367430666031300850149081496 Y1: 137410100549285747 # norm 2.582543e016 alpha 7.601118 e 4.411e013 rroots 5 skew: 17409001.95 c0: 7955852503352268262565791828072786886325 c1: 29671650887957557467125296674725865 c2: 5547713341035381175926696651 c3: 1090949680455146448497 c4: 15110874091608 c5: 196560 Y0: 272173367684683167636863076700178 Y1: 137410100549285747 [/code] 
Thank you  much appreciated!

C168_134_94 polys
[QUOTE=swellman;373248]
C168_134_94 [/QUOTE] The best I've found: [code] C168_134_94 = 451591044633621500700127843125932943919387601290262860485200418433795934760393784972054631775554879954085888690144804817796633480540639229986141076270921955279078568333 # norm 2.823478e016 alpha 6.482150 e 4.730e013 rroots 5 skew: 3361097.76 c0: 307614352606874801585694333843444177201 c1: 1401169162224492060422172914867970 c2: 894215456445484381015296096 c3: 135179339454555085966 c4: 73678892093863 c5: 10197684 Y0: 134663146019366686167859460191928 Y1: 458872479559461347 # norm 2.559875e016 alpha 6.802294 e 4.533e013 rroots 3 skew: 3201711.31 c0: 1263970061965078222765677851115619674831 c1: 202421940857837946691009854043805 c2: 883109385510979954289052600 c3: 154827687975231270885 c4: 22102810195129 c5: 10778040 Y0: 133180642537639277642324211796970 Y1: 109998887046030013 # norm 2.459939e016 alpha 6.667674 e 4.313e013 rroots 3 skew: 1975697.11 c0: 324920921271212032847546328915881597625 c1: 48151046352838040184498268911605 c2: 1051996428693474022859339243 c3: 365477064513368583179 c4: 322817089512834 c5: 11671920 Y0: 131075223761471907716419321629736 Y1: 219812386093713251 [/code] 
Again, my thanks.

Anyone like to have a go at finding a poly for this C150 from Aliquot sequence 829332:3534?
[QUOTE]317861755950589524663668143654241775869683357813561272912580550015875979854007874694938191790792005111631751001246771609088835690096693017036893082583[/QUOTE] Thanks very much in advance! 
[offtopic]
please use code section instead of quote section. it makes the post very difficult to read on my twodollars terminals... [/offtopic] 
Whoops, sorry about that LaurV!

I'll run overnight starting at 1,000,000.

Here's the best one from a range that spanned from 1e6 to about 6.3e6:
[CODE]polynomial selection complete R0: 42871029888439449149155215493 R1: 110147580964787 A0: 211421791366353129151562921662744800 A1: 1558626214321169860712785635120 A2: 811722799717554488528036 A3: 3314064974445742552 A4: 1802001073407 A5: 2194920 skew 997647.75, size 1.297e014, alpha 7.112, combined = 5.049e012 rroots = 3 elapsed time 00:07:29[/CODE] 
Thanks a lot! My 31/2 day CPU search came up with a score of 6.348000e012. I'll test sieve both and see which is better.

As noted [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=379863#post379863"]here[/URL], I have a [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=7044&action=last20&fr=0&to=100"]c170[/URL] that is ready for GNFS. I will be running this starting in the fall since my local daytime temps limit me to ~1/2 my cores. A nice poly would be greatly appreciated for this number:[code]44372976609219605920970917073060893237104077933564785933283944210773143942177660972637693825980692133877619049897368796520149382235143537600699965770310835229937169064489[/code]Thanks to [URL="http://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo//y_status_ecm.php"]yoyo[/URL] and [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=379563#post379563"]Batalov[/URL] for running ECM for me that is out of reach with my horsepower.

Better metrics than Murphy_E ?
Hello all.
I've just done a moderately big GPU polynomial select for a C165, and, having trialsieved rather more polynomials than I usually do, reached the slightly unexpected position where the 17thbest polynomial by Murphy_E was overwhelmingly the best by actual sieving yield. I get the impression that Murphy_E is systematically larger for small leading coefficients; has anyone done empirical work on that scaling? Would it be worth trialsieving a thousand polynomials on my next big GNFS job (this would be an effort about the size of the GNFS job) and seeing if I can quantify the effect? 
How did your list of polynomials sort by the 'size' score? This is an integral by Bernstein that is independent of translation and skew, a higher score is better.

C165_134_120 poly request
Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?
[code] 459438041044149873293447911775750189334188171266352133449167595646830565714968065622756071729107336241581305604971832140291528446199347566513765523766901738465034561 [/code] Thanks in advance. 
Are the new CADO poly select tools available? Does anyone have them running yet? The paper they put out suggests their new tools find Escores about 5% better than msieve.
I don't have a linux environment with a GPU, and I believe CADO is linuxonly; am I mistaken? 
I'll run a little bit overnight and see if anything good comes up.

[CODE]expecting poly E from 6.54e013 to > 7.52e013
polynomial selection complete R0: 72282121430503005558365347862554 R1: 30143549754266929 A0: 10866930325383798521006629494754432253955 A1: 4586200568910877479742643013046673 A2: 1246880392864919530859391791 A3: 43030078174711951269 A4: 15521930381334 A5: 232848 skew 12300099.06, size 3.978e016, alpha 7.237, combined = 6.508e013 rroots = 3[/CODE] Best from an overnight run. 
Although the skew is a bit high, this poly sieves 5%10% better.
[CODE]# norm 5.312242e16 alpha 7.130420 e 6.877599e13 rroots 5 skew: 43719798.98 c0: 11733960296493447965970979138987511920000 c1: 44340805857506327391452974614472304 c2: 4104856773330359330123402924 c3: 7221946156103196292 c4: 1875581206735 c5: 10800 Y0: 133585893493588108010583707471589 Y1: 350799735559930687 [/CODE] 
Many thanks to both of you.

Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?
[code] 46862651776313668832684618638310007043245135907468247470585960688008180534742005269578548831878148535158738789789506710579367525183636389872513135592162572724499935530721 [/code] Thanks in advance. 
[QUOTE=piguy227;388648]Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?
[code] 46862651776313668832684618638310007043245135907468247470585960688008180534742005269578548831878148535158738789789506710579367525183636389872513135592162572724499935530721 [/code] Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]Why? That is, why should we find a polynomial for you for an apparently uninteresting number. Make it interesting for us and we may do something. 
Could I get someone with reasonably heavy resources to have a go at the C184
(125!+1)/(359*1003874788568233) ? 
I need to do a search for a C129 first, but I'll take a whack at this for a few days or so. :smile:

My CUDA setup is dead (laptop power plug failed). I bought Xyzzy's 750ti, but it's in an ubuntu box, and he mentioned when I bought it that linux drivers weren't mature yet so I haven't tried installing CUDA on it.
If someone has info that says otherwise, I'll be excited to resume poly searching for myself and this thread after I get CUDA set up on the new card. A 750ti will be quite an improvement over a 460M, too! 
[QUOTE=fivemack;379917]Hello all.
I've just done a moderately big GPU polynomial select for a C165, and, having trialsieved rather more polynomials than I usually do, reached the slightly unexpected position where the 17thbest polynomial by Murphy_E was overwhelmingly the best by actual sieving yield. I get the impression that Murphy_E is systematically larger for small leading coefficients; has anyone done empirical work on that scaling? Would it be worth trialsieving a thousand polynomials on my next big GNFS job (this would be an effort about the size of the GNFS job) and seeing if I can quantify the effect?[/QUOTE] Did any further conclusions ever come of this? This MurphyE effect would explain why searchers in this thread routinely found "good" polys with tiny leading coeffs compared to the coeffs usually searched by the big guns/more seasoned factorers. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;407923]My CUDA setup is dead (laptop power plug failed). I bought Xyzzy's 750ti, but it's in an ubuntu box, and he mentioned when I bought it that linux drivers weren't mature yet so I haven't tried installing CUDA on it.
If someone has info that says otherwise, I'll be excited to resume poly searching for myself and this thread after I get CUDA set up on the new card. A 750ti will be quite an improvement over a 460M, too![/QUOTE] I have a GTX 750Ti working on Debian with the legacy nvidia drivers and some debian packages. CUDA and OpenCL are working fine. You should be able to install the same packages on Ubuntu but I don't know about the legacy Driver part. These are my currently installed packages with *nvidia*, *cuda* or *opencl* for comparison. There may be some dev packages that you don't need. [CODE]dpkgquery l '*nvidia*'  grep 'ii' ii glxalternativenvidia 0.5.1 amd64 allows the selection of NVIDIA as GLX provider ii libegl1nvidia:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary EGL libraries ii libgl1nvidiaglx:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary OpenGL libraries ii libgles1nvidia:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary OpenGLES 1.x libraries ii libgles2nvidia:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary OpenGLES 2.x libraries ii libnvidiacompiler:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA runtime compiler library ii libnvidiaeglcore:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary EGL core libraries ii libnvidiaml1:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA Management Library (NVML) runtime library ii nvidiaalternative 340.762 amd64 allows the selection of NVIDIA as GLX provider ii nvidiacudadev 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA CUDA development files ii nvidiacudadoc 6.0.375 all NVIDIA CUDA and OpenCL documentation ii nvidiacudagdb 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA CUDA Debugger (GDB) ii nvidiacudatoolkit 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA CUDA development toolkit ii nvidiadetect 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA GPU detection utility ii nvidiadriver 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA metapackage ii nvidiadriverbin 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA driver support binaries ii nvidiainstallercleanup 20141201+1 amd64 cleanup after driver installation with the nvidiainstaller ii nvidiakernelcommon 20141201+1 amd64 NVIDIA binary kernel module support files ii nvidiakerneldkms 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary kernel module DKMS source ii nvidiamodprobe 340.461 amd64 utility to load NVIDIA kernel modules and create device nodes ii nvidiaopenclcommon 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA OpenCL driver ii nvidiaopenclicd:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA OpenCL installable client driver (ICD) ii nvidiaprofiler 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA Profiler for CUDA and OpenCL ii nvidiasettings 340.462 amd64 tool for configuring the NVIDIA graphics driver ii nvidiasmi 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA System Management Interface ii nvidiasupport 20141201+1 amd64 NVIDIA binary graphics driver support files ii nvidiavdpaudriver:amd64 340.762 amd64 Video Decode and Presentation API for Unix  NVIDIA driver ii nvidiavisualprofiler 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA Visual Profiler for CUDA and OpenCL ii nvidiaxconfig 340.461 amd64 X configuration tool for nonfree NVIDIA drivers ii xserverxorgvideonvidia 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA binary Xorg driver ii oclicdlibopencl1:amd64 2.2.41 amd64 Generic OpenCL ICD Loader ii oclicdopencldev:amd64 2.2.41 amd64 OpenCL development files ii openclheaders 2.0~svn289732 all OpenCL (Open Computing Language) header files ii libcuda1:amd64 340.762 amd64 NVIDIA CUDA Driver Library ii libcudart6.0:amd64 6.0.375 amd64 NVIDIA CUDA Runtime Library[/CODE] 
Thanks, Christian! I've been meaning to move the card into my main system; your working setup encourages me to give this a go. Between CUDAecm and poly select, I miss having a GPGPU.

Just as a headsup, I started at 100M and am currently passing through 102M or so.

Here's the best two I've found so far. Neither is really close to the expected evalue, but they may be worth trialsieving:
[CODE]expecting poly E from 4.57e014 to > 5.26e014 R0: 137547131193043341793334930193270566 R1: 70224319209054721 A0: 48715040541374867514878224348681604586285 A1: 275708572214962467144881300531857095 A2: 397914309979816733185360998057 A3: 8084283143447552273377 A4: 607205817813118 A5: 101468208 skew 8049123.93, size 4.248e018, alpha 6.525, combined = 4.117e014 rroots = 1 R0: 137052228970709324982229261366831248 R1: 38784020496691787 A0: 44875760234631994289855676839471716527683225 A1: 26415950906429837100672340418747601895 A2: 1882671010943471032317074656115 A3: 187234878234320539666327 A4: 4219616160069306 A5: 103313520 skew 21539398.15, size 3.540e018, alpha 7.329, combined = 3.696e014 rroots = 5[/CODE] I'm going to play around in the 500M range for a bit, and if nothing good shows up there, I'll drop down to a lower coefficient like 1M. 
Here's the best in the 500510M range:[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: 99597953807168680476889254921237040 R1: 155679631953907381 A0: 92612284320573352971113764845050011599172263 A1: 14544423142209256027253616209189318319 A2: 3861979188784232836840703659203 A3: 261460166847969497979769 A4: 19772402213056250 A5: 509724600 skew 12734708.51, size 3.757e018, alpha 8.313, combined = 3.829e014 rroots = 3[/CODE] I'll try down at around 100M (and maybe 10M). 
Here's a good one:[CODE]R0: 278041983541936879812937287512480720
R1: 83839300817041243 A0: 3390086640132698923491414956173048512425481 A1: 3738332722384494113415434782471399053 A2: 1160199637312567120662841930769 A3: 40839181952932892416147 A4: 1087473801891780 A5: 3006324 skew 32140665.92, size 4.576e018, alpha 7.218, combined = 4.328e014 rroots = 3[/CODE] Still under the expected, but best score so far. 
[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: 256712836882622622457839933429900183 R1: 61840577050423613 A0: 602093201366745363780865731715111641933619000 A1: 92059674952581867600427558954630776650 A2: 1195424019900556240035714699635 A3: 58210719595944209591027 A4: 330526880428891 A5: 4480740 skew 64846617.97, size 4.451e018, alpha 7.480, combined = 4.305e014 rroots = 5[/CODE] 
Anyone like to have a go at finding a poly for this C154 from Aliquot sequence 829332:3589?
[CODE]4537787384062167229294057374468826821223279315636792016447006047185936215587115121338899234285565806951562459365575674996087301727915180317496191381025877[/CODE] This would be most appreciated! Thanks, Rich 
[QUOTE=richs;411875]Anyone like to have a go at finding a poly for this C154 from Aliquot sequence 829332:3589?[/QUOTE]
I should have something later tonight. 
I went to 5M and the best is:
[CODE]N: 4537787384062167229294057374468826821223279315636792016447006047185936215587115121338899234285565806951562459365575674996087301727915180317496191381025877 # expecting poly E from 3.05e12 to > 3.50e12 R0: 399979656975273365701998369366 R1: 1067710737833939 A0: 519125690666296999062877195771789597 A1: 2025984829776720254430274320937 A2: 1154519980571878704863718 A3: 3142397915330686792 A4: 883463054330 A5: 443256 # skew 1379910.48, size 6.239e15, alpha 5.942, combined = 3.375e12 rroots = 5[/CODE] 
Thanks, Rich!
Rich 
I have a C166 that will be my first personal 15e factorization, and my first foray into the CADO tools for CPU poly select. Could someone give it some GPU time, so I might compare the effectiveness of msieve vs CADO for poly select?
Please list the GPUhours you spent, so I can compare effort as well as results to my own CADO run. [CODE] N: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 [/CODE] The number is the remaining cofactor of 13*2^9241. 
Stage 1: 22,3h GPU (GeForce GTX 650 Ti) + ~3,2h for one CPU thread.
Sizeopt and rootsieve: ~4h for one CPU thread. Best poly: [CODE] n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 # norm 4.663644e16 alpha 7.071486 e 6.464067e13 rroots 5 skew: 29930803.76 c0: 179409669872419787875791142567559019315525 c1: 28507155776738138662132445463560139 c2: 142812890347046919926946189 c3: 97138933140798385355 c4: 790917891528 c5: 25200 Y0: 201367272691407156150843550143488 Y1: 805187391468667987 [/CODE]Note that I modified msieve: HIGH_COEFF_MULTIPLIER 420. The deadline per coefficient and the randomization are disabled. 
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;417843]I have a C166 that will be my first personal 15e factorization, and my first foray into the CADO tools for CPU poly select. Could someone give it some GPU time, so I might compare the effectiveness of msieve vs CADO for poly select?
Please list the GPUhours you spent, so I can compare effort as well as results to my own CADO run. [CODE] N: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 [/CODE] The number is the remaining cofactor of 13*2^9241.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gimarel;418008]Stage 1: 22,3h GPU (GeForce GTX 650 Ti) + ~3,2h for one CPU thread. Sizeopt and rootsieve: ~4h for one CPU thread. Best poly: [CODE] n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 # norm 4.663644e16 alpha 7.071486 e 6.464067e13 rroots 5 skew: 29930803.76 c0: 179409669872419787875791142567559019315525 c1: 28507155776738138662132445463560139 c2: 142812890347046919926946189 c3: 97138933140798385355 c4: 790917891528 c5: 25200 Y0: 201367272691407156150843550143488 Y1: 805187391468667987 [/CODE]Note that I modified msieve: HIGH_COEFF_MULTIPLIER 420. The deadline per coefficient and the randomization are disabled.[/QUOTE] For a number of this size, it's probably worth posting the top 35 polys by either CADO or msieve for a better comparison. (Unless by "best" you mean you trial sieved rather than relying upon the Murphy score.) 
[QUOTE=Dubslow;418010]For a number of this size, it's probably worth posting the top 35 polys by either CADO or msieve for a better comparison. (Unless by "best" you mean you trial sieved rather than relying upon the Murphy score.)[/QUOTE]
I did trialsieve. The poly has the best score and sieved best. 
[QUOTE=Gimarel;418011]I did trialsieve. The poly has the best score and sieved best.[/QUOTE]
Sweet :smile: Just checking. 
More thorough trialsieving showed that the poly with the second best score sieves a little bit better.
[CODE] n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 # norm 4.504602e16 alpha 7.446747 e 6.383632e13 rroots 3 skew: 36418581.30 c0: 6206292264781510140235453638003213286408 c1: 53762734012950656320733897775170588 c2: 966037993270550888998755014 c3: 105304721455866115403 c4: 333326337528 c5: 25200 Y0: 201367269767225015489302863783315 Y1: 805187391468667987 [/CODE]And a poly with a lower score sieves almost as good as the highscore. [CODE] n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889 # norm 4.072475e16 alpha 7.147561 e 5.982085e13 rroots 3 skew: 36320379.21 c0: 10900050903348427457786768699738222025160 c1: 53136490784077126637321358609712604 c2: 1063694405957759563314685958 c3: 105692114573027200331 c4: 294449793528 c5: 25200 Y0: 201367269518789276975994168402387 Y1: 805187391468667987 [/CODE]I have 17 more polys with a score higher than 5.98e13 that sieve worse. 
I don't see a way to get a secondbest poly out of CADO; it appears pretty dogmatic that the highestscoring poly is the choice, period. So, I'm splitting my runs into ~12hr chunks in hopes of getting a few polys to compare; So far after 36 hr x 2 instances (3 coredays) I have just two polys competitive, with the other 4 runs producing nothing meaningful.
The Escore generated by CADO is not remotely comparable to msieve; I have multiple polys with score better than 2e11 by CADO reckoning that testsieve worse than an msieve 6e13 poly I have from the current GNFS165 job. I'm giving CADO 5 coredays total to search, and will post the best poly it produces for anyone interested to compare to Gimarel's (or another GPU searcher?) msieve poly. Gimarel thank you for the work, and for testsieving, and for the detailed tracking of timeonsilicon. 
The msieve poly with score 6.38e13 sieves about 15% faster than my best CADO poly. I'll give CADO another ~40 corehours, but 15% is pretty hard to overcome.
I was pleased with a 6.67e13 poly for my current G165 project these two (6.38 and 6.46) are nice finds for this G166! 
CADO produced nothing better. I *just* got GPUmsieve configured on my linux box, so I'm running a day of my own poly select under msieve. That also means I return to contributing polynomials to this thread, rather than requesting them!

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:55. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.