mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Aliquot Sequences (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90)
-   -   Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=11615)

RichD 2013-09-30 23:49

c166
 
> 2500 @ 11e7
> 155 @ 26e7

I'll stay with this Seq until NFS@H takes it.
(One core on B1=26e7.)

EdH 2013-10-01 16:25

c166
 
current totals:

2384@11e7
5155@2e8

I think I'll play elsewhere for a bit.. or, maybe take a break... or, something...

RichD 2013-10-02 18:52

c166
 
> 4100 @ 11e7
> 365 @ 26e7

wombatman 2013-10-04 14:39

Just a heads-up. There are 3 similarly scored polynomials in the request thread. Could whoever is doing the sieving run a quick test sieve on them and see how they do? Just trying to determine if more polynomial searching is needed.

VBCurtis 2013-10-04 16:51

[QUOTE=wombatman;355226]Just a heads-up. There are 3 similarly scored polynomials in the request thread. Could whoever is doing the sieving run a quick test sieve on them and see how they do? Just trying to determine if more polynomial searching is needed.[/QUOTE]

20 gpu-days would be a thin effort on this number; 30 reasonable, and 40 not wasted if we don't find an outlier. We're under 20 still, and since each of us has found the same score we surely don't have any rare finds yet.

wombatman 2013-10-04 17:07

Fair point. Time to tilt at some more polynomials!

RichD 2013-10-04 22:12

c166
 
> 5080 @ 11e7
> 930 @ 26e7

RichD 2013-10-05 19:22

c166
 
5500 @ 11e7 - nothing
> 1160 @ 26e7

We are well past t55 testing. I'll let the last few curves of 26e7 run overnight.

RichD 2013-10-06 15:22

c166
 
Final count
1222 @ 26e7 - nothing.

debrouxl 2013-10-17 06:18

"C166_4788_5159" sieved by NFS@Home up to 224-225M raw relations.

RichD 2013-10-18 19:06

[QUOTE=debrouxl;356504]"C166_4788_5159" sieved by NFS@Home up to 224-225M raw relations.[/QUOTE]

I can start the download on Saturday night and begin processing Sunday AM, unless someone else would like to try it. It should be an easy 31-bit with 225M+ rels - as far as 31-bits are easy. :smile:

EdH 2013-10-20 03:44

[QUOTE=RichD;356688]I can start the download on Saturday night and begin processing Sunday AM, unless someone else would like to try it. It should be an easy 31-bit with 225M+ rels - as far as 31-bits are easy. :smile:[/QUOTE]
I could attempt this, but I'm not sure whether completion would be timely. Where would I find the relations? Do I have to join NFS@HOME to retrieve them? I could not start until at least tomorrow...

edit: Which polynomial was used?

RichD 2013-10-20 05:57

[QUOTE=EdH;356823]I could attempt this, but I'm not sure whether completion would be timely. Where would I find the relations? Do I have to join NFS@HOME to retrieve them? I could not start until at least tomorrow...

edit: Which polynomial was used?[/QUOTE]

I had problems tonight and only got a partial download. You do not need to join NFS@Home. Send a PM to [B]debrouxl[/B] and request access to the server. All the .poly, .fb, .ini and other files are in the folder.

I'll keep trying to get the .dat file but it could be another day or two. Feel free to jump in and take over. I'll let you know if I happen to get started but I'm thinking it might be another 48 hours for me.

debrouxl 2013-10-20 06:14

Better asking frmky instead of myself :smile:

RichD 2013-10-20 07:03

Oh yea, [B]frmky[/B] is the administrator of the server and [B]debrouxl[/B] is the sub-administrator for the lasieved (a.k.a. 14e) jobs but is very active in the queue management. My mistake.

I don't have DSL at home so that is my bottleneck.

This job should take about a week on a Core-i5 system - FWIW.

EdH 2013-10-20 13:29

PM sent. I'll see how it goes. I will be attempting to run this across two core2 quad machines using my "new" mpi setup. It will be a good test. I'll post some updates.

EdH 2013-10-21 19:29

I'm in the process of retrieving the relations, but I somehow interrupted the download and had to restart. It looks like it will be this evening before I can start. I'll give an estimate once the LA settles in...

EdH 2013-10-21 21:24

[QUOTE=debrouxl;356504]"C166_4788_5159" sieved by NFS@Home up to 224-225M [B]raw relations[/B].[/QUOTE]
I am assuming "raw relations" means no duplicate removal or other processing? I know msieve takes care of bad relations and duplicates, but I normally run them against remdups4 whenever I'm manually stepping through. Is this a good practice, or am I wasting that time?

I have had a couple runs where some relations from a previous sieve got mixed into a current one and msieve gave several million error -11 notices, but kept running fine. remdups4, of course, can't find those fumbles...

RichD 2013-10-22 00:29

Raw relations are just that, totally raw. They include the good, the bad and the ugly.

The only time I run remdups4 before post-processing is when I want to try to push for a higher target_density, which reduces BL time. Saves a little bit on multiple filtering runs if that is the case.

This is nicely over-sieved. You might be able to get close to 110 TD.

P.S. I haven't had a chance to finish the download, I was going to be your backup. I would like it if you proved I was not needed. :smile:

EdH 2013-10-22 02:05

[QUOTE=RichD;357008]Raw relations are just that, totally raw. They include the good, the bad and the ugly.

The only time I run remdups4 before post-processing is when I want to try to push for a higher target_density, which reduces BL time. Saves a little bit on multiple filtering runs if that is the case.

This is nicely over-sieved. You might be able to get close to 110 TD.

P.S. I haven't had a chance to finish the download, I was going to be your backup. I would like it if you proved I was not needed. :smile:[/QUOTE]
I would like to prove that, too!:smile:

The d/l just finished. I'm making a copy prior to decompression and turning it loose...

EdH 2013-10-22 17:07

I'm afraid I might be up against a memory problem. I should have asked if 4G in the host machine was enough. It has not returned from "building initial matrix" after two hours. The machine is sluggish over remote vnc. top, via ssh, shows I have less than 90k free memory and swap is using over 2.5G of 5 total.

I had hoped that mpi across two machines would take care of the memory need, but the matrix file construction happens only on the host machine. It is still "trying" to succeed, but it might be a prohibitively slow process.

I can do some memory juggling and perhaps I will in a while, if I don't see any real progress. I think using 2.5G of swap is a "telling" signal.:sad:

I am still going to try to solve this, but I will definitely be slower than expected...

EdH 2013-10-22 18:39

Update: I have doubled the RAM to 8G in the host machine and moved to a secondary with 4G RAM. The host is using >7.8G, but at least the swap is showing 0!:smile:

more later...

Edit: It's later! Does it seem right that this should take a month?
[code]
linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 708h57m
[/code]
I'm not sure my attention can span that long, let alone the occasional power bump. Hopefully the power bumps will be smoothed by the UPSs I installed, but still...

wombatman 2013-10-22 19:59

Ed, which version of MSieve are you using (and which OS are you on)? I'm trying to do postprocessing of a C160 and running into issues as well.

RichD 2013-10-22 20:17

[QUOTE=EdH;357115]Edit: It's later! Does it seem right that this should take a month?[/QUOTE]

If you don't have InfiniBand, running on a single host would be much faster.

SVN 923 is the latest stable version which includes the faster LA code.

EdH 2013-10-23 01:08

Since it says over 700 hours, I'm going to interrupt it and do some more trials. I noticed that this is 886[B]M[/B], but I don't recall changing anything that should have flagged the M. I'll update to 923, as well. Then I'll see what it looks like a couple of different ways. I just ran a c144 in 2.5 hours last week. Should a c166 take [B]that[/B] much longer with my setup?

My OS is Debian 7 on both the host and slave machines. I boosted the RAM from 4G to 8G on the host. The host normally runs LA faster using only two of the four cores. It is a Core2 Quad (Vpro) Q9400, 2.66GHz. Unfortunately, to boost the RAM, I had to take a different machine off line and that machine is kind of needed in the next few days, so I'm going to have to figure something out or acquire some more RAM.:sad:

Thanks for your help. Time to go play...

RichD 2013-10-23 02:02

With SVN 923 you may be able to utilize all four cores. On my Core-i5 it ran faster using 3 cores before upgrading (around SVN 902?) then 4 cores were better.

I thought you were playing around with MPI as an academic exercise. Even Gigabit Ethernet is not fast enough for distributed LA. Keep to one machine for best performance. I'm guessing it shouldn't be more than 8-10 days with your setup. If you can get a tight matrix, maybe half that time.

BTW, rebuild the matrix and add "-nc target_density=110" to the command line. If it doesn't build a matrix, drop it by 5 to 105 and try again. This will build a denser matrix and hence, less iterations and faster BL.

Edit: The default target_density is 70. Increasing it only works if the number is over-sieved, which this number is. I'm thinking (gut feel) a TD in the range of 100-110 would be adequate.

EdH 2013-10-23 03:11

[QUOTE=RichD;357132]With SVN 923 you may be able to utilize all four cores. On my Core-i5 it ran faster using 3 cores before upgrading (around SVN 902?) then 4 cores were better.

I thought you were playing around with MPI as an academic exercise. Even Gigabit Ethernet is not fast enough for distributed LA. Keep to one machine for best performance. I'm guessing it shouldn't be more than 8-10 days with your setup. If you can get a tight matrix, maybe half that time.

BTW, rebuild the matrix and add "-nc target_density=110" to the command line. If it doesn't build a matrix, drop it by 5 to 105 and try again. This will build a denser matrix and hence, less iterations and faster BL.

Edit: The default target_density is 70. Increasing it only works if the number is over-sieved, which this number is. I'm thinking (gut feel) a TD in the range of 100-110 would be adequate.[/QUOTE]
I have restarted it with your suggested target_density.

My setup gave me better timing for using two machines over one for previous tests, but adding a third machine really trashed it. All of my setup is a home grown LAN, put together with "junked" machinery, mostly. All kinds of P4 and up, with a couple "others" tossed in.

Thanks for all...

RichD 2013-10-23 03:43

[QUOTE=EdH;357137]My setup gave me better timing for using two machines over one for previous tests, ...[/QUOTE]

Let me know how the new tests perform. I may go out and get me a Gigabit switch for my two i5s. :smile:

EdH 2013-10-23 13:32

[QUOTE=RichD;357140]Let me know how the new tests perform. I may go out and get me a Gigabit switch for my two i5s. :smile:[/QUOTE]
At this point, I'm back to one machine and all four threads and have an improvement:
[code]
linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 302h36m
[/code]I might break in and see how two threads would run, since it did make a difference before. Since I started the LA without mpi, I can't try that without restarting LA. Will changing to two threads require a restart of LA. I suppose I may find out...

RichD 2013-10-23 14:25

[QUOTE=EdH;357177]I might break in and see how two threads would run, since it did make a difference before. Since I started the LA without mpi, I can't try that without restarting LA. Will changing to two threads require a restart of LA. I suppose I may find out...[/QUOTE]

Changing to 2 (oe 3) threads is no big deal. Just be sure to use "-ncr" to indicate a resume.

Edit: Did you get a smaller matrix?

EdH 2013-10-23 15:58

Unfortunately, I got rid of the previous log because it had hundreds of thousands of error -1/-11/-6 lines. For the current log, I simply removed all the error lines, but I was having trouble reloading the other due to several sets of those error lines. Here's the current matrix build section, but I don't know if it can answer any of what you ask:
[code]
Wed Oct 23 02:03:17 2013 building initial matrix
Wed Oct 23 02:16:16 2013 memory use: 4571.7 MB
Wed Oct 23 02:17:15 2013 read 10590337 cycles
Wed Oct 23 02:17:17 2013 matrix is 10589507 x 10590337 (4440.9 MB) with weight 1368844072 (129.25/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:17:17 2013 sparse part has weight 1037074145 (97.93/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:23:37 2013 filtering completed in 3 passes
Wed Oct 23 02:23:40 2013 matrix is 10573751 x 10573951 (4437.5 MB) with weight 1367700655 (129.35/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:23:40 2013 sparse part has weight 1036388696 (98.01/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:25:54 2013 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Wed Oct 23 02:25:57 2013 matrix is 10573751 x 10573951 (4437.5 MB) with weight 1367700655 (129.35/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:25:57 2013 sparse part has weight 1036388696 (98.01/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:25:57 2013 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Wed Oct 23 02:26:00 2013 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Wed Oct 23 02:26:01 2013 matrix is 10573703 x 10573951 (4299.0 MB) with weight 1146577764 (108.43/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:26:01 2013 sparse part has weight 1021217371 (96.58/col)
Wed Oct 23 02:26:01 2013 using block size 8192 and superblock size 294912 for processor cache size 3072 kB
Wed Oct 23 02:27:29 2013 commencing Lanczos iteration (4 threads)
Wed Oct 23 02:27:29 2013 memory use: 3563.9 MB
Wed Oct 23 02:30:11 2013 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 302h36m
[/code]Changing to 2 threads increased the ETA to 374h57m. Changing back to four has brought it back down to 299h 8m. So a definite advantage! I am running four 2G memory modules now, while I previously only had two 2G modules. Maybe that's the difference.

According to top, the machine is still using almost all of the 8G and ~50M of swap space. Is this a potential slow down?

I don't think I have the figures anymore, but memory tells me that one of my "tests" (possibly a c132) showed ~3.5 hours for one machine, ~2.5 hours when I added a second one via mpi, but almost 6 hours when I added a third via mpi. The first two machines were core2 quad and the third was an i7. If I simply swapped the second and third I had a similar, but slightly greater ETA, compared with the earlier two system run. I made the assumption that my weak LAN was the trouble, which leads to a question:

If I was to add a Gigabit switch to a leg of my current LAN, would that help at all with the machines connected directly to it, or would the entire LAN need upgrading? I recently received a sales flyer for a 5-port Gigabit switch for only ~$20.00. There are probably even better deals around.

Another question for any tech gurus: Much of my current LAN is composed of 4-wire cabling. Does this cause speed loss? Maybe that's where my trouble lies...

RichD 2013-10-23 17:51

I don't have any experience with MPI except what I've read on this forum.

Does your NIC cards support Gigabit? An easy test is to wire two of them together with a cross-over cable and eliminate any switches or routers. That would be the optimum configuration. I've read someplace the newer cards can detect straight Cat-5 or cross-over and adjust accordingly. Again, no experience in that area.

Perhaps you are getting better performance by only moving two threads of data across the LAN and that is not a bottleneck (yet).

RichD 2013-10-23 17:59

I was going to get the rest of the .dat file to run with you but noticed it is already removed from the server. I also see Greg is running this number so he'll have the results in a few days. I guess he got impatient and needed to free up some space on the server.

EdH 2013-10-24 02:14

[QUOTE=RichD;357201]I was going to get the rest of the .dat file to run with you but noticed it is already removed from the server. I also see Greg is running this number so he'll have the results in a few days. I guess he got impatient and needed to free up some space on the server.[/QUOTE]
I'm kind of impatient myself. This job is tying up the machine I had running all my others for both ecm and sieving, so I spent today changing everything over to another machine. I finally have the others running ecm again, while the main one works on the c166. Now it shouldn't bother me to "let it be.":smile:

It would be more than frustrating to try to upload the .dat file somewhere - my upload speed is severely limited. It may only be 1/10 my download, which took several hours.

If you guys can't wait for my "slow butt," that's perfectly fine. If it was factored faster by someone else, it really wouldn't upset me in the least. It would free me up that much sooner. But, if it can take a while, I should have something in about 287h31m...

RichD 2013-10-25 20:41

c167 @ i5160
 
2^4 * 3 * 31 * ... * c167

EdH 2013-10-25 21:09

Excellent! I was still at 243h30m. I will have to seriously rework some things before I try anything that large again.:sad:

By how far did we miss the probability of finding the p(rp)63 during ECM?

And, a sincere "Thank you" to whomever "bailed me out.":smile:

RichD 2013-10-25 21:19

Greg did the post-proceasing as shown at the bottom of [URL="http://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching.php"]this page[/URL].

We barely got started toward t60 so we were just past t55. Not a near miss by any standards.

frmky 2013-10-26 00:12

Sorry. I somehow completely missed that you were running it.

EdH 2013-10-26 00:36

[QUOTE=frmky;357462]Sorry. I somehow completely missed that you were running it.[/QUOTE]
That's quite all right! I was in over my head. It took me all day to d/l the relations and then find out I really didn't have the required memory. Even after increasing the memory it was looking like a couple weeks to finish it.

Thanks for all...

RichD 2013-10-26 02:09

c128 @ i5164
 
2^3 * 3 * … * c128

The C128 has been fully ECMed. A moderately easy GNFS task for an individual for a few days. I have moved on to assist in a larger project.

EdH 2013-10-26 02:51

[QUOTE=RichD;357474]2^3 * 3 * … * c128

The C128 has been fully ECMed. A moderately easy GNFS task for an individual for a few days. I have moved on to assist in a larger project.[/QUOTE]
I'll try to knock it out "overnight" - let's see what happens...:smile:

schickel 2013-10-26 02:56

[QUOTE=RichD;357474][COLOR="Red"][B]2^3 * 3[/B][/COLOR] * … * c128

The C128 has been fully ECMed. A moderately easy GNFS task for an individual for a few days. I have moved on to assist in a larger project.[/QUOTE]*cough* *cough* Hey, don't do that when I'm taking a drink! Did anyone else notice what happened just 2 lines after the big gnfs c166? That's right:[code] 5161 . c178 = 2^4 * 3 * [COLOR="Green"]31^2[/COLOR] * [COLOR="Blue"]p173[/COLOR][/code]:party:
Talk about extraordinary luck! It's just a shame that the '3' was there. Without it, there was a chance it could have avoided 2^3 * 3.....but you still can't argue with that escape! :cool:

EdH 2013-10-26 13:17

An interesting find this morning:
[code]
GMP-ECM 6.4.4 [configured with GMP 5.1.2, --enable-asm-redc] [ECM]
Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), 2 threads
Done 1/20; avg s/curve: stg1 568.2s, stg2 161.3s; runtime: 737s

Run 1 out of 20:
Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=2256742655
Step 1 took 569323ms
Step 2 took 161338ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 23725821245086537435130711983948448089958946186929
Found probable prime factor of 50 digits: 23725821245086537435130711983948448089958946186929
Probable prime cofactor 681239635497746997442332642051682014873561471115153741181581865369559689620039 has 78 digits

****************************************
[/code]on one machine, and:
[code]
Sat Oct 26 07:49:17 2013 prp50 factor: 23725821245086537435130711983948448089958946186929
Sat Oct 26 07:49:17 2013 prp78 factor: 681239635497746997442332642051682014873561471115153741181581865369559689620039
[/code]on another.

In case there is interest, the following numbers of curves had been reported back to the ECM controlling machine at the time of the find:
[code]
300@2e3 814@11e3 4815@5e4 972@25e4 1820@1e6
4020@3e6 4660@11e6 1400@43e6 148@11e7 56@2e8
[/code]

EdH 2013-10-26 19:36

Another index down and now there's a c149 at i5156.

Just a protocol query - should a post be made each time another index is factored, or is it enough to inform the db?

My system is set to automatically submit the factors and it may be quite some time before I notice, so I can post here.

schickel 2013-10-27 02:11

[QUOTE=EdH;357532]Another index down and now there's a c149 at i5156.

Just a protocol query - should a post be made each time another index is factored, or is it enough to inform the db?

My system is set to automatically submit the factors and it may be quite some time before I notice, so I can post here.[/QUOTE]My thought would be that sporadic progress reports are OK, unless they're more significant than a couple of days.

And let us know if you hit a significant roadblock so anyone with spare horsepower can throw some curves at the composite... And definitely let us know if it manages to drop the '3'!

Jayder 2013-10-28 00:59

What sort of ECM has been done on the C149?

EdH 2013-10-28 02:42

[QUOTE=Jayder;357669]What sort of ECM has been done on the C149?[/QUOTE]
[code]
240@2e3 666@11e3 1177@5e4 756@25e4 1340@1e6
2480@3e6 3980@11e6 2000@43e6 1996@11e7 200@2e8[/code]I'm a quarter of the way into sieving right now, at about seven hours wall time. I got what looked like a good E-score poly, early on, but it isn't really producing much over 2:1 (and, seems slow to get those):
[code]
expecting poly E from 4.85e-12 to > 5.58e-12
...
R0: -228068698365456203798456910867
R1: 4680322185839309
A0: 3549555056540004149137632540889975112080
A1: -65819641610372184687985483708388
A2: -24087912207459438992914212
A3: -900357079220039035
A4: 9615741194
A5: 60
skew 54072163.55, size 1.738e-14, alpha -7.420, combined = 5.995e-12 rroots = 3[/code]

EdH 2013-10-30 03:36

[code]
prp69 factor: 641543882505385880738851781766110232149333253148056252387686962042751
prp80 factor: 57710485834889365193560020218946363641651756832846624687537738377448021585581323
[/code]

kar_bon 2013-10-30 08:30

Found P42 at i5170 . Now at index 5173 with C133.

EdH 2013-10-30 15:40

[QUOTE=kar_bon;357889]Found P42 at i5170 . Now at index 5173 with C133.[/QUOTE]
[code]Found probable prime factor of 45 digits: 233912517890844630265947926061711407640330221
[/code]And, now a c157 awaits at i5174 - hopefully, only briefly, but something is broken in my scripts and I must investigate...

EdH 2013-10-30 17:26

Well, now it has a c170 at i5176...

firejuggler 2013-10-30 18:00

-pm1 1e9 nothing

Batalov 2013-10-30 20:44

c170 at i5176
 
All 43e6 curves are done.
9000 110e6 curves +
4000 260e6 curves ~= t55. No factor.
Also, (an overkill) 4000 850e6 curves.

The number is ready for GNFS.

firejuggler 2013-10-30 23:24

need a poly? ask for one in the relevant thread.

Batalov 2013-10-31 13:55

[CODE]Input number is 86493715643420583534343823875861532928077840293141944141392242150714620105785333494270370719352550381994424651383513977592873406245696390958987897584118183631899307240079 (170 digits)
Using B1=850000000, B2=15892628251516, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=457699565
Step 1 took 3330266ms
Step 2 took 726565ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 4974515815052328262112056759286572830155594587799769130559
Found probable prime factor of 58 digits: 4974515815052328262112056759286572830155594587799769130559
Probable prime cofactor 17387363687074886304264149089734301879388872649742587176851486605820160786462315562032666688211440562376109967281 has 113 digits[/CODE]

Batalov 2013-10-31 15:11

[CODE]Input number is 2317782814450051052073047195769465050354001952101721902529829350520426985336704129030974530507567521691595773402817891488419330746034874391364516540246822333 (157 digits)
Using B1=110000000, B2=776278396540, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=2180346194
Step 1 took 404375ms
Step 2 took 117108ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 203155870027420948175076099054300939654790520657784481
Found probable prime factor of 54 digits: 203155870027420948175076099054300939654790520657784481
Probable prime cofactor 11408889214656748496525154991349154907880685993630229044952057384741921732760164716438694300740786017693 has 104 digits
[/CODE]

schickel 2013-10-31 15:32

[QUOTE=Batalov;358031][CODE]Input number is 2317782814450051052073047195769465050354001952101721902529829350520426985336704129030974530507567521691595773402817891488419330746034874391364516540246822333 (157 digits)
Using B1=110000000, B2=776278396540, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=2180346194
Step 1 took 404375ms
Step 2 took 117108ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 203155870027420948175076099054300939654790520657784481
Found probable prime factor of 54 digits: 203155870027420948175076099054300939654790520657784481
Probable prime cofactor 11408889214656748496525154991349154907880685993630229044952057384741921732760164716438694300740786017693 has 104 digits
[/CODE][/QUOTE]Two in a row!

:bow: :bow:

Batalov 2013-10-31 16:24

A few more than two, actually, -- the iteration is 5185 now (size 183).

firejuggler 2013-10-31 16:53

Batalov, do you need help running the seq or do you prefer working alone?

EdH 2013-10-31 20:02

I guess I should tell my machines to stop working on that c170...:smile:

I only had these many curves done:
[code]
60@2e3 296@11e3 963@5e4 1620@25e4 2560@1e6
4800@3e6 4520@11e6 7120@43e6 372@11e7
[/code]Moving to whatever's next... unless Batalov does wish to run with it a while...

Batalov 2013-10-31 20:16

c147 is almost done.

wombatman 2013-10-31 20:58

Batalov, what hardware are you running that ECM on? Just curious for curve execution time comparison. Thanks!

Batalov 2013-10-31 21:18

[QUOTE=wombatman;358064]Batalov, what hardware are you running that ECM on? Just curious for curve execution time comparison. Thanks![/QUOTE]
Some pretty standard (maybe even a bit old) 2800-3000MHz Intel CPUs.

wombatman 2013-10-31 23:14

Strange. Mine is much slower on a Core i7 processor, even with a 64-bit compilation. Are you on linux?

Batalov 2013-11-01 03:16

The c158 is ready for GNFS. (The sequence is released.)

RichD 2013-11-05 00:32

Polynomial requested [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=358417&postcount=327"]here[/URL].

Batalov 2013-11-10 22:21

c158 = p71 * p87

Now, a c161 in i5193. It had survived 10k 260e6 curves (>t55). Ready for GNFS by the forum.

RichD 2013-11-14 04:03

Poly requested [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=359231&postcount=332"]here[/URL].

Mini-Geek 2013-12-17 12:30

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=362272#post362272"]c161 = p68*p93[/URL]

The next line has a c164 that has, so far, survived t30 and 220/904 curves of ECM with B1=1M

Mini-Geek 2013-12-17 17:30

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;362273][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=362272#post362272"]c161 = p68*p93[/URL]

The next line has a c164 that has, so far, survived t30 and 220/904 curves of ECM with B1=1M[/QUOTE]

It survived t40 (2350 curves@B1=3M)as well. Needs more ECM (t48 or so?), but I've stopped on it.

RichD 2013-12-17 19:01

c164
 
I'll start a few thousands @ 11e6.

RichD 2013-12-18 02:25

c164
 
4500 @ 11e6 - nothing.
8e9 -pm1 - nothing.

I'll start a run of 43e6 overnight.

RichD 2013-12-18 22:04

c164
 
Passing thru
4000 @ 43e6

Started another short run, passing thru
80 @ 11e7

RichD 2013-12-20 00:27

C164
 
5000 @ 43e6 - nothing
1000 @ 11e7 - nothing

RichD 2013-12-21 21:34

C164
 
Final push.
100 @ 26e7 - nothing.

yoyo 2013-12-22 09:58

Should I give it a try in yoyo@home?
How many curves on which B1?

prgamma10 2013-12-22 13:27

[QUOTE=yoyo;362658]Should I give it a try in yoyo@home?
How many curves on which B1?[/QUOTE]
A c164 need about 16500 curves at 11e7 (nearly a t55, by the 1/3 rule).
RichD has done 1000 curves, and 500 curves by me, so there are 15000 curves left.

yoyo 2013-12-22 15:35

I queued some.

yoyo 2014-01-04 08:55

Nothing found so far: [url]http://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/y_status_ecm.php[/url]

RichD 2014-01-06 21:30

Wow! Thanks for all the curves.

A good [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=363189&postcount=367"]polynomial[/URL] was found by [B]Alfred[/B]. Not sure how [B]Batalov[/B] found his post. Maybe it was accidentally deleted after the critique. It did sieve better than [B]VBCurtis[/B] which was posted later.

This might be a nice job for NFS@Home...

Batalov 2014-01-06 21:39

No, no.
There was no post.

Instead of a post (or a post with quote), "Alfred" pressed the "Report the post" button, and the system sent an email to all moderators. Way to go. We have nothing else to do other than read "complaints" about the posts which are not even complaints. Or reposting posts which were not even posts. But hey, we are nice -- we can do even that.

RichD 2014-01-06 22:04

So [B]Alfred[/B] was reporting his results, but not by posting a post, but by reporting a post.

So he used report a post, to report his results, instead of posting a post.

I get it. (I think.) :smile:

Batalov 2014-01-09 20:09

A 50-50 chance to crack the 2^3*3^2 driver here, hmm?
(No one seems to be excited...)

LaurV 2014-01-10 02:40

[QUOTE=Batalov;364227]A 50-50 chance to crack the 2^3*3^2 driver here, hmm?
(No one seems to be excited...)[/QUOTE]
You know, first I was thinking exactly to the same thing, hehe. Then I realized that if you consider the 3 (mod 4) factor in front and the fact that the cofactor is not prime (and it has 164 digits, and also can split in more than two ways), then the chances are much much smaller... somewhere close to one in billions... many billions...

Batalov 2014-01-10 02:49

[QUOTE=LaurV;364282]... consider the 3 (mod 4) factor in front and ... many billions...[/QUOTE]
Maybe we are looking at different "in front"s?
...97 is 1 (mod 4) and ...21 is 1 (mod 4).
As Ostap Bender used to say, "I can determine that even without a stethoscope"

RichD 2014-01-10 03:20

[QUOTE=LaurV;364282]... (and it has 164 digits, and also can split in more than two ways) ...[/QUOTE]

Not very likely since [B]yoyo[/B] has taken it to a full t60. Anyway [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19065"]Team sieve #43[/URL] is on the board. Come join in on the fun. Hopefully I didn't have another brain fart this time. :smile:

LaurV 2014-01-10 03:39

[QUOTE=Batalov;364284]Maybe we are looking at different "in front"s?
...97 is 1 (mod 4) and ...21 is 1 (mod 4).
As Ostap Bender used to say, "I can determine that even without a stethoscope"[/QUOTE]
No, we were looking to the same. It was a typo on my side about that 97 being 3 mod 4 (in fact was not a typo, I was idiot in the morning, as usual, but in the tests I put 97, grrr)... Also, the cofactor is 2 mod 3 and 1 mod 4, which is 5 mod 12. Your error (if it was not a joke about 50-50, I took it as a joke) might come from the fact that you forgot to take out the primes, or composites which contains 3, or are 1 mod 3, for all those you get higher chances (especially adding the primes, two primes which are 1 mod 4... but we know the cofactor is not prime). As the digits go higher the chances to get rid of the 2^3 are lower. Also, please remark that in my test there are a lot of multiples of 97 in those k's, therefore artificially increasing the chance of losing the driver (you get 97 squared, so you have two times a perfect square in front, this always adds a bit more than 1% chances (1/97) from which you can't get rid off, but in reality the chances are much lower, you have to decrease 0.01 from the final result [edit: in bold red]). The test takes only composites over a number of digits, which are 5 mod 12 and counts them. When going higher, factoring goes slower, therfore the breaks.

[CODE]gp > cnt=0; digits=5; kcn=0; n=12*10^digits; for(k=1,10^6, p=n+12*k+5; if(!isprime(p), kcn++; a=2^3*3^2*97*p; s=sigma(a)-a; f=factorint(s); if(f[1,2]!=3,cnt++; printf("...%d : %2.7f...%c",k,1.0*cnt/kcn,13))))
[COLOR=Red][B]...999999 : 0.2972856...[/B][/COLOR]
gp > cnt=0; digits=10; kcn=0; n=12*10^digits; for(k=1,10^6, p=n+12*k+5; if(!isprime(p), kcn++; a=2^3*3^2*97*p; s=sigma(a)-a; f=factorint(s); if(f[1,2]!=3,cnt++; printf("...%d : %2.7f...%c",k,1.0*cnt/kcn,13))))
[COLOR=Red][B] ...134719 : 0.2059614...[/B][/COLOR]
*** user interrupt after 34,942 ms.

gp > cnt=0; digits=40; kcn=0; n=12*10^digits; for(k=1,10^5, p=n+12*k+5; if(!isprime(p), kcn++; a=2^3*3^2*97*p; s=sigma(a)-a; f=factorint(s); if(f[1,2]!=3,cnt++; printf("...%d : %2.7f...%c",k,1.0*cnt/kcn,13))))
[B][COLOR=Red] ...337 : 0.0701220...[/COLOR][/B]
*** user interrupt after 1min, 42,441 ms.
break>[/CODE]

RichD 2014-01-12 15:13

C178 @ i5202
 
2^3 * 3^4 * ... * C178

t50 by [B]batalov[/B] posted [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=364444&postcount=9"]here[/URL].

Any more curves should be 11e7 or higher.

yoyo 2014-01-12 15:51

I'll run 18000 curves @11e7.

Batalov 2014-01-12 18:55

Dequeue it.

[CODE]Input number is 2095010378204563656695741756783753159964364216690645080311033160647013838264880542506213777203448658545077137439156781436919049807995514691947165591832132016043699139605979500193 (178 digits)
Using B1=110000000, B2=776278396540, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=3956050449
Step 1 took 556782ms
Step 2 took 155374ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 1077913448667516704097705450282212306427030148155783504079
Found probable prime factor of 58 digits: 1077913448667516704097705450282212306427030148155783504079
Probable prime cofactor 1943579404074001253889247299623124721716456137318152011934607052797939588595842046790643454874442505982249244857574561167 has 121 digits
[/CODE]P.S. Replace it with the [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"]c184[/URL] ...at B1=260e6 (110e6 is done)
[URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"][/URL]

debrouxl 2014-01-12 19:55

Phew. Sieving that one would have been a mildly painful process :smile:

schickel 2014-01-13 06:01

[QUOTE=Batalov;364460]P.S. Replace it with the [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"]c184[/URL] ...at B1=260e6 (110e6 is done)
[URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"][/URL][/QUOTE]Let's hope we can crack the c184 with ECM. If we can, we'll have another sequence hit 190 digits:[code] 3366 2106. sz 180 2^3 * 3^2 * 53
276 1769. sz 181 2 * 3^4 * 7^2 * 3191 * 9664277081 * 16213702303683581
842592 8031. sz 181 2^3 * 3 * 5 * 37 * 73 * 11069
660 895. sz 183 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 3163 * 14159 * 32070039222359 * 81741146396847353333
8352 1759. sz 185 2^2 * 7 * 47 * 83 * 523 * 55933 * 122027 * 215552863 * 10440672146963
4788 5208. sz 189 2^3 * 3 * 3023
2340 723. sz 189 2^3 * 3^2 * 5 * 13 * 1109 * 2081467 * 9183439
3270 687. sz 191 2^5 * 3 * 7 * 499 * 2297 * 28151[/code]2340 has a chance to beat 4788, but it won't hit 190 until i725....

yoyo 2014-01-13 19:21

[QUOTE=Batalov;364460]
P.S. Replace it with the [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"]c184[/URL] ...at B1=260e6 (110e6 is done)
[URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=range&fr=5208&to=5208"][/URL][/QUOTE]
Ok, I queued 42000 curves @260e6.
Should be visible as soon as the first result returns.
yoyo

RichD 2014-02-17 04:36

GNFS on C184
 
We should have factors by the end of the week.

RichD 2014-02-22 19:10

C152 @ i5211
 
Thanks to [B]ryanp[/B] for splitting the C184 = p70 * p115.

Now 2^3 * 3 * ... * C152.

prgamma10 2014-02-26 10:42

[QUOTE=RichD;367565]Now 2^3 * 3 * ... * C152.[/QUOTE]
t45 done, no factor.
3300@43e6 needed.

~75 secs per 11e6 curve, is that a problem?

RichD 2014-02-27 07:30

C158
 
1038 @ 43e6 - no factor

[...pausing...]


All times are UTC. The time now is 01:43.

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