Tomorrow will conclude 14 GPU-days of poly search for me, with nothing better than 9.7e-15. I'll give up tomorrow.

My ~15 day trial of CADO was a disaster because I didn't fully understand the way the results are output until after they were already unrecoverable.

I'm considering redoing the work, the second time by involving my other computer which currently runs GIMPS (I would pause that for the ~week it would take).

Thanks for the update(s). I had totally lost the thread.

VBCurtis - nice effort on your continuing work to find a better poly than RichD's baseline. I have no idea what the duration of GPU poly searching for a C195 GNFS should be before due diligence is considered met.

And Dubslow - that really stinks. Would it help to bring others into the CADO search if you decide to rerun? In other words, could I run your code over half the search range in parallel to you in order to complete the search in half the time? Or does CADO's poly search not work that way? That approach may require so much handholding (of me) as to make it not worth the effort but if you have a Win64 executable I'm willing to help.

And ECM is considered complete, yes? All up to the 15e gatekeepers it would seem.

[QUOTE=swellman;431707]Thanks for the update(s). I had totally lost the thread.

VBCurtis - nice effort on your continuing work to find a better poly than RichD's baseline. I have no idea what the duration of GPU poly searching for a C195 GNFS should be before due diligence is considered met.

And Dubslow - that really stinks. Would it help to bring others into the CADO search if you decide to rerun? In other words, could I run your code over half the search range in parallel to you in order to complete the search in half the time? Or does CADO's poly search not work that way? That approach may require so much handholding (of me) as to make it not worth the effort but if you have a Win64 executable I'm willing to help.

And ECM is considered complete, yes? All up to the 15e gatekeepers it would seem.[/QUOTE]

That would be nice, yes.

See here for details: [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=431611#post431611[/url]

I'm trying to forgo the wrapper Python scripts and just directly call the underlying binaries -- some work is still needed obviously. CADO does search the same way over the leading coefficient as Msieve does, doing size opt then root opt on the n best polys.

For now, download and compile CADO, while I try and figure out a better way to run the binary that actually keeps the results... I'll post calls for assistance in that thread.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;431709]That would be nice, yes.

See here for details: [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=431611#post431611[/url]

I'm trying to forgo the wrapper Python scripts and just directly call the underlying binaries -- some work is still needed obviously. CADO does search the same way over the leading coefficient as Msieve does, doing size opt then root opt on the n best polys.

For now, download and compile CADO, while I try and figure out a better way to run the binary that actually keeps the results... I'll post calls for assistance in that thread.[/QUOTE]

Ok, but I'm going to deal with CADO in a Linux environment. I have no tools/talent/desire to compile in Windows, much less debug it. I'll get CADO up and running on my machine and then await direction from you. Please be patient - I am not a software guy, nor do I play one on TV. But it might be fun to play with CADO.

[QUOTE=swellman;431760]Ok, but I'm going to deal with CADO in a Linux environment. I have no tools/talent/desire to compile in Windows, much less debug it.[/QUOTE]
That makes two of us :smile:

(I'm a pretty hardcore libre-tard)

Okay, per the notes in the CADO thread I've started, you must redirect the [c]polyselect[/c] output to file for it to be of any use.

I've started another run of 0-10M on leading coefficients, subject to the caveat that only LCs divisible by 60 are searched (see the documentation in the CADO thread).

I used the following command: [c]nice -n 19 ./polyselect -degree 5 -P 5000000 -admax 10000000 -nq 1000 -keep 1000 -t 8 -N $(cat num) > a4788.0-5M[/c]

Anyone who wants to search the next highest range would add the following: [c]-admin 10000020[/c] (as well as change -admax and -t to suit).

I'm not yet sure exactly how to pass the results to rootsieve, but I'll work on it for my run here and update.

The 15e queue is looking low. Shall we nominate the C195 for the 15e queue? I believe the best poly to date is [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=430247&postcount=544]here[/url].

[code]
N: 105720747827131650775565137946594727648048676926428801477497713261333062158444658783837181718187127016255169032147325982158719006483898971407998273736975091062494070213867530300194317862973608499
# expecting poly E from 1.08e-14 to > 1.24e-14
R0: -20235742029690041687577373761152054390
R1: 9267958148582139083
A0: -11267322525486743517923188323192978629784204417
A1: 240114201561699843948709214315614352077
A2: 33878720444898812247193073824610
A3: -414616433728607362030181
A4: 1570407958802871
A5: 31157640
# skew 70621938.15, size 4.414e-19, alpha -7.667, combined = 1.044e-14 rroots = 3
[/code]

Dubslow - do you want to continue your investigation of CADO before we declare this poly search complete?

While the poly is likely not the optimal solution, is it good enough to start sieving?

I am trial-sieving this polynomial (basically to figure out whether it needs three large primes on at least one side) and will put it on the queue when done.

Do you have the resources available to do the linear algebra? It will probably take between three and six real-time weeks on a fast machine (i7-5960X or Xeon-v2/v3) and will need 32G of memory.

[QUOTE=fivemack;432571]I am trial-sieving this polynomial (basically to figure out whether it needs three large primes on at least one side) and will put it on the queue when done.

Do you have the resources available to do the linear algebra? It will probably take between three and six real-time weeks on a fast machine (i7-5960X or Xeon-v2/v3) and will need 32G of memory.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if this question is directed at me, but I've only got 16Gb. I can run 32 bit jobs but 33 bits is likely past my capacity.

Is there anyone else here with 32Gb memory willing to postprocess this number?

Please do wait, I'm still investigating, and I believe I have at least one poly with a better reported ME score than the one from RichD. Give me another day and I'll post my results for comparison and trial sieve.