A couple of core-hrs of test sieving shows that 16e/33 sieves about 10% slower than 15e/33, and 16e/34 is not faster than 16e/33 (about 70% more relations found per unit time, but 70% more needed and a larger matrix to solve).

15e/33 with a/rlim=314M (chosen by python script) and two large primes yields over 4, so 15e/32 and 16e/32 can be considered. I'll continue tinkering with test-sieving this evening.

The 16e/34 yield near 20 was a new experience for me.

The 16e yield is so high that a q-range of 70M or so would be enough. Does that mean alim/rlim of 300M is too big?

Thanks for the reply about 15e/34! I haven't compiled the sievers, but this may motivate me to try.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;396981]... you should post (or test) the 3.51 also.[/QUOTE]

OK
[CODE]R0: -943458323040788615580657516498371403
R1: 294791163397249211
A0: -3611166902472558851670819726384084615231028480
A1: 126541352673573186758634973864132850288
A2: 2209274649814415688972259393648
A3: -28394659605543653907266
A4: -169757533624755
A5: 424080
skew 126028353.96, size 3.167e-18, alpha -7.133, combined = 3.516e-14 rroots = 5[/CODE]

[QUOTE=RichD;397044]OK
[CODE]R0: -943458323040788615580657516498371403
R1: 294791163397249211
A0: -3611166902472558851670819726384084615231028480
A1: 126541352673573186758634973864132850288
A2: 2209274649814415688972259393648
A3: -28394659605543653907266
A4: -169757533624755
A5: 424080
skew 126028353.96, size 3.167e-18, alpha -7.133, combined = 3.516e-14 rroots = 5[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Using 15e/33bit, this sieves 4-6% faster than the higher-scoring poly you posted earlier, over an admittedly small sample of 3 1k intervals. Please keep posting any 3.5 or better polys! I haven't found anything scoring that well yet.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;397031]A couple of core-hrs of test sieving shows that 16e/33 sieves about 10% slower than 15e/33, and 16e/34 is not faster than 16e/33 (about 70% more relations found per unit time, but 70% more needed and a larger matrix to solve).

15e/33 with a/rlim=314M (chosen by python script) and two large primes yields over 4, so 15e/32 and 16e/32 can be considered. I'll continue tinkering with test-sieving this evening.

The 16e/34 yield near 20 was a new experience for me.

The 16e yield is so high that a q-range of 70M or so would be enough. Does that mean alim/rlim of 300M is too big?

Thanks for the reply about 15e/34! I haven't compiled the sievers, but this may motivate me to try.[/QUOTE]

Assuming you run on Windows then these binaries should work I think.

How hard will the matrix be for this one? I would like to fiddle around and work out the duplicate rate after some sieving with the f variant. Will 4 GB be enough for the filtering? My core 2 will likely be too slow for actually doing the matrix.

I could probably do filtering/matrix.

I suspect the filtering and the matrix job would fit in 16GB but not in anything significantly smaller.

[QUOTE=fivemack;397204]I suspect the filtering and the matrix job would fit in 16GB but not in anything significantly smaller.[/QUOTE]

I could indeed do it then -- but not too much larger then this. (16 GiB happens to be what I have.)

[QUOTE=henryzz;397183]Assuming you run on Windows then these binaries should work I think.

How hard will the matrix be for this one? I would like to fiddle around and work out the duplicate rate after some sieving with the f variant. Will 4 GB be enough for the filtering? My core 2 will likely be too slow for actually doing the matrix.[/QUOTE]

Your 15e siever works fine to try 34bit lp. Thanks! I haven't played with f yet, but I appreciate you posting those, too.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;397238]Your 15e siever works fine to try 34bit lp. Thanks! I haven't played with f yet, but I appreciate you posting those, too.[/QUOTE]
The f variant allows sieving below the factorbase bound. It can also sieve composite special q. The maximum number of factors in a special q can be controlled with -d. Sieving composite special q seems to slow down relation finding slightly as far as I can see so I use -d 1.
Sieving small q can provide very good yield. How much this lowers the secs/rel depends on the size of the number and the parameters chosen. The duplicate rate may be higher with the lower q.
I would suggest using the f variant is probably a good idea once you are much below the factor base bound.

I suspect that this number is a bit too big for me to experiment in a useful way with my limited resources. I can only use 2 out of 4 cores sieving due to memory usage with the factorbase bounds you chose. Reducing the bound to 100M doesn't harm speed much and yield isn't an issue as you noted earlier.
I noted that hardly any time is used on the quadratic sieve factoring for large primes.

300M for alim/rlim does seem too big. I'll use 180M for my next tests.
I tried 3 large primes with 33 bit and found sec/rel improved almost 20%, but yield stayed roughly constant. Sieving something like 30M to 200M should be enough to build a matrix, but perhaps too big a matrix for dubslow or I to solve on home equipment (I have a 6-core i7 with 16GB).

If 15f is more productive down really low, perhaps a sieve range like 5M to 160M would be faster.

C186 @ i5232
 

Another one to play with/test from the 1.0-1.1M range.
[CODE]R0: -784171785411817668204933354637697383
R1: 226807616081850997
A0: 5659929256521862665448251658528575438240
A1: 8112093496713326197144222976345393744
A2: -2464554855231923962723017259338
A3: -93313161866957928016503
A4: 1133441776831664
A5: 1069068
skew 43803291.66, size 3.577e-18, alpha -7.815, combined = 3.690e-14 rroots = 5[/CODE]