[quote=10metreh;182492]It's only a C134, so sieving time will be so small (compared to a C157) that I think we should just take the best: anyone want to test the parameters for the 4.91?[/quote]


Over a tiny test interval, the msieve poly was quite a bit better:
[CODE]
4.814 poly
total yield: 5863, q=5001001 (0.02095 sec/rel)

4.91 poly
total yield: 4305, q=5001001 (0.02157 sec/rel)
[/CODE]

I think the parameters look good, I suggest we go with the poly file jrk posted. 5 MQ should be more than enough for this one. I'll reserve 2M-3M.

[QUOTE=bsquared;182525]I suggest we go with the poly file jrk posted.[/QUOTE]
The poly was actually found by Andi_HB (see post #325), I only added the parameters.

[QUOTE=jrk;183104]Factors:

[code]prp54 factor: 129616193467788152689435837807707789229325708626916411
prp81 factor: 357474561753417224264885128710604089412672852950929900921658833506220956104517181
[/code][/QUOTE]

Line 2426 is 2^5 * 3 * 17 * 41839284258511 * 661383570738065494595663 * c119

[CODE]Input number is 44718209464695191784714835489610894962389758953872980040035617713029840660482876437561955501698845018995557237936968183 (119 digits)
Using B1=3000000, B2=5706890290, polynomial Dickson(6), sigma=3086004836
Step 1 took 7681ms
Step 2 took 4440ms
********** Factor found in step 2: 60743456023791205060853193364305989111
Found probable prime factor of 38 digits: 60743456023791205060853193364305989111
Probable prime cofactor 736181514716260899052084878748455443864989251384540365977037311428554914878692353 has 81 digits
[/CODE]

and then a c150...

I just ran 100 curves at B1=3e6 on the c150, no luck. DB is showing 2156 curves at this B1 so far. GMP-ECM/aliqueit.exe suggest 2350 curves (so ~200 more) at this level before moving on, Syd's DB suggests 2500.
(the 2 curves reported at B1=3e7 were due to a typo in reporting :blush: they were not run)

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;183200]I just ran 100 curves at B1=3e6 on the c150, no luck. DB is showing 2156 curves at this B1 so far. GMP-ECM/aliqueit.exe suggest 2350 curves (so ~200 more) at this level before moving on, Syd's DB suggests 2500.
(the 2 curves reported at B1=3e7 were due to a typo in reporting :blush: they were not run)[/QUOTE]

Suggest you directly move to 43e6.

I'm not running any more ECM for the moment. Somehow I botched entering my curves into the DB. (most likely related to that I tried to set up a bookmark to submit curves...I know I didn't press it, maybe Firefox retrieves the URL at some point during my bookmark editing, without expecting it to mess something up?) I really only ran 20 curves at B1=11e6, not 100. Sorry for any confusion from that, but if we're moving straight to B1=43e6 it shouldn't be [I]too[/I] troublesome.

+100 curves @ B1=43000000, B2=388112953420

Aliqueit suggests we should run just under t45. But I think 2*t45 might pay off.

[quote=10metreh;183243]Aliqueit suggests we should run just under t45. But I think 2*t45 might pay off.[/quote]
What exactly does 2*t45 mean, in ECM?
Aliqueit suggests t44.65 (=.235*150+9.4), which is int(4480*(4.65/5))=4166 (does anyone know if this, ignoring the int() if necessary, is an exact probabilistic figure or just an approximation that aliqueit.exe uses?) curves at B1=11e6, so 2*t45 is...the 43e6 equivalent of 2*4166 curves at 11e6, maybe? What's that?