Was 5234 a lucky ECM hit or just a whole bunch of hardware to gnfs a C139 in only ~6 hours? I imagine that's well within Ryan's capabilities...?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;398981]Was 5234 a lucky ECM hit or just a whole bunch of hardware to gnfs a C139 in only ~6 hours? I imagine that's well within Ryan's capabilities...?[/QUOTE]
Well within.

EDIT: I've run about 7000 3e8 curves sometime earlier on the c194.

EDIT2: And 12,000 860e6 curves. No factor.

c194 @ i5236
 

Some poly search but not very successful.
Search leading coeff. 400k-1500K.
The best so far.

[CODE]# expecting poly E from 1.22e-14 to > 1.41e-14
R0: -28802679190347950640622961076905085992
R1: 407302386245641081
A0: 133724758664977289938633386515649724519728371415
A1: 3087354419180727365131065771008983083315
A2: 8198257518534189800659473133083
A3: -91339106683419659560699
A4: -1417256419326482
A5: 683400
skew 211980820.13, size 5.400e-19, alpha -7.736, combined = 1.169e-14 rroots = 3[/CODE]

Others were:
1.069e-14
1.058e-14
1.055e-14
1.055e-14 (two different ones)

I will look further as time permits.

I expanded my range from 100-1800K and only found one better score than the previously mentioned.
[CODE]R0: -41022789855819100446245236901416664699
R1: 1019636817060566507
A0: 384112992671117638711020950081661326068804342572
A1: 1976467057936727996025149999228597147176
A2: -78157658069982024722140360208107
A3: -295747804241547935485310
A4: 945198674876430
A5: 116604
skew 316580135.19, size 5.565e-19, alpha -7.880, combined = 1.188e-14 rroots = 5[/CODE]

More when time permits.

I'l test-sieve these two, as well as any others posted with score higher than 1.15e-14. I'll try a GPU-day or so on poly search myself, mostly to get a sense of how rare/nice your finds are.

I assume 16e/33 is best, but I'll try 15e/34 and 16e/34 for posterity.

C194
 

I’ve searched 0-2.2M and nothing better has surfaced. Is it worthwhile to do a little more since we are not in the expected range?

I have no experience with numbers this big. I wouldn’t know what parameters would be best. I can assist on the polynomial selection and help with sieving. Some one else would have to coordinate this effort.

[QUOTE=RichD;401026]I’ve searched 0-2.2M and nothing better has surfaced. Is it worthwhile to do a little more since we are not in the expected range?

I have no experience with numbers this big. I wouldn’t know what parameters would be best. I can assist on the polynomial selection and help with sieving. Some one else would have to coordinate this effort.[/QUOTE]

Yes. The big guns who have previously done numbers this big usually search with coefficient 50M or more, to reduce the skew a little while not changing the [expected] score. However, the best-scoring polys seem to have lower coeffs, so I don't think you're wasting effort searching the low coeff space.
Rule of thumb for poly select is to spend a minimum of 3% of the expected project length on poly searching; for a C150, that's around a day, so for C194 that's more days than you and I care to spend (say, a GPU-year). So, we keep searching. Perhaps if we find a nice-enough polynomial, Ryan will do the heavy lifting again for us.
I'll have a GPU free in a day or two, and I'll start searching at 40M. I haven't trial-sieved your first two polys yet.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;400747]I'l test-sieve these two, as well as any others posted with score higher than 1.15e-14. I'll try a GPU-day or so on poly search myself, mostly to get a sense of how rare/nice your finds are.

I assume 16e/33 is best, but I'll try 15e/34 and 16e/34 for posterity.[/QUOTE]

Posterity is useless, since I have no idea how many relations 34LP would need vs 33 for this job.

The first poly you posted, a5 = 683400, sieves 10% or so faster than the second poly a5 = 116604, after a single 1k test region at Q=50M. I'll test a few more regions to confirm. I picked alim=400M, without any good reason.

1.7-2x the number of relations depending on the size of number.

[QUOTE=henryzz;401219]1.7-2x the number of relations depending on the size of number.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. So, if test-sieving 34LP find relations 80% faster than 33, and we need somewhere between 70% more and 90% more, we can conclude.... nothing. This is exactly the case for my small test- 1.82 sec/rel at 33 bit vs 1.02 at 34 bit (on an i7 laptop, about 1/3rd the speed of most desktops).

Well, I suppose there is one useful conclusion: Since it's not obvious that 34 is faster, the doubling of data to manage trumps the unknown improvement in sieve effort.

4 GPU-days have turned up a 9.56 and a 9.40 poly, not competitive to Rich's finds. I'll keep looking.

I have covered 50 to 50.2M and 40 to 40.5M with stage 1 norm 2.1e28. This selection leaves 9 pieces for each coeff, meaning anyone else who has a go at the same ranges I chose has a 1/9 chance of duplicating work. Not that there's any incentive to search the same range...