Rich-
This new one, score 3.69, sieves just worse than the 3.64 find from last week. Both are 7-10% worse than the 3.51. 3 days on my GPU turned up a 3.05 and 3.01 as best, so I'll let you find the good ones and just keep test-sieving what you provide. One of the 3.6's "should" sieve 4-6% better than the 3.51 (if it sieves as well compared to its score as the 3.51 does). If we find such a thing, I think we could stop the poly search at that time.

I've now tested the f siever- the binary works! For 15e/33 bit, searching low Q values has a time per relation equal to 15e at its best q (right around half of alim, so 90M for my tests with the poly scored at 3.51e-14). I haven't done enough testing to find where the f and e have the same time per relation, but something like using f from 5M to 60M and e from 60M to 160M should provide enough relations. Yield is better with f, I guess due to the full factor base being used? I used the -d 1 flag as Henry suggested.

Sieve time estimate: 600M raw relations at 33bit @ 0.11 or 0.12 sec/rel -> 1.2 Megaminutes single-core -> ~7 months on quad-core desktop. I'll contribute up to a quad-core-month. If the 15f siever generates a higher duplicate rate at low Q, my estimates are low. But, we may find a 5% better poly still!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;397413]Rich-
This new one, score 3.69, sieves just worse than the 3.64 find from last week. Both are 7-10% worse than the 3.51. 3 days on my GPU turned up a 3.05 and 3.01 as best, so I'll let you find the good ones and just keep test-sieving what you provide. One of the 3.6's "should" sieve 4-6% better than the 3.51 (if it sieves as well compared to its score as the 3.51 does). If we find such a thing, I think we could stop the poly search at that time.

I've now tested the f siever- the binary works! For 15e/33 bit, searching low Q values has a time per relation equal to 15e at its best q (right around half of alim, so 90M for my tests with the poly scored at 3.51e-14). I haven't done enough testing to find where the f and e have the same time per relation, but something like using f from 5M to 60M and e from 60M to 160M should provide enough relations. Yield is better with f, I guess due to the full factor base being used? I used the -d 1 flag as Henry suggested.

Sieve time estimate: 600M raw relations at 33bit @ 0.11 or 0.12 sec/rel -> 1.2 Megaminutes single-core -> ~7 months on quad-core desktop. I'll contribute up to a quad-core-month. If the 15f siever generates a higher duplicate rate at low Q, my estimates are low. But, we may find a 5% better poly still![/QUOTE]
I have been finding some numbers are better for the f siever than others. Different fb bounds might be better at very low q.

Since the sieving probably won't take more than 100 wall-clock days, it's not worth more than 5 more days of polynomial-searching to try to find an unlikely 5%-better polynomial.

(I will not have any spare cycles until the beginning of April, but at the beginning of April I will be able to put up to four modern quad-cores on the job)

I hope nobody has started sieving on this yet. I decided to tackle it:

[url]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000670257174[/url]

[QUOTE=ryanp;398929]I hope nobody has started sieving on this yet. I decided to tackle it:

[url]http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000670257174[/url][/QUOTE]

Check the link again, it is already factored. I assume someone submitted the factors between your post and now.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;398930]it is already factored.[/QUOTE]
He meant it as a report that the number is now factored, not as a reservation ;).

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;398930]Check the link again, it is already factored. I assume someone submitted the factors between your post and now.[/QUOTE]

I suppose that someone was ryanp.

[QUOTE=VictordeHolland;398932]He meant it as a report that the number is now factored, not as a reservation ;).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rajula;398933]I suppose that someone was ryanp.[/QUOTE]

:redface: I read his post as saying just the opposite.

It picked up a 7, yuck. Thanks, Ryan!

Could you post the log, or at least the parameters you chose for this?

C194 @ i5236
 

Yuck, yay!
It lost the 7.
The first decrease in years ??

It has ~t50 (here), and most likely Ryan already grilled it well, maybe a t55.
Best to run 3e8 curves on it now. Or 110e6 on smaller computers, if you wish.