[quote=bsquared;192577]It survived 800 curves at 110M (B2 = 776278396540) done last night. Anyone have a complete ECM curve count? Where are we now?[/quote]
43M:
jrk: 2000 curves done
Greebley: started a run of 1956 ecm curves (100/day, started 5 days ago, approx. 500 done)
Andi47: 1712 curves done
bsquared: 4000 curves

110M:
bsquared: 800 curves

total: about 8212 curves @ B1=43M and 800 curves @ B1=110M. 10metreh said the last one had about 8000 at 43M, so that should be plenty for that B1. Do we need more at 110M or should we begin poly search? Maybe someone will be able to use their GPU to find a poly super fast. [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12562[/URL] :smile:

judging by the evidence i would start gnfs now especially if we can poly select on a GPU

BTW if people think that 4788 is getting too large and slow or that it would be nice to process a smaller sequence* together at the same time

*i would suggest one that is in the top 10 for length but not size

522 attempts at 43M with nothing found. I stopped it since it sounds like we are up to the poly part.

The standard msieve -v -np <num> would be 300 hours which seems too long compared to faster methods.

[quote=henryzz;192614]BTW if people think that 4788 is getting too large and slow ...[/quote]

Maybe we should set a stopping point for this sequence. 160 digits, or iteration 2460 (whichever comes first) or something...

I don't have access to a gpu with CUDA :( But I started poly selection on 0-10000 using pol51*.

My GPU with CUDA is arriving on Thursday

I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more.
It is index 2540 for 4788.

[quote=Greebley;192712]I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more[/quote]
Might be too difficult for now, but maybe we should try to get a sequence to index 10000.

[QUOTE=bsquared;192702]Maybe we should set a stopping point for this sequence. 160 digits, or iteration 2460 (whichever comes first) or something...[/QUOTE]

160 digits? We passed that a while ago.

[QUOTE=Greebley;192712]I was thinking it would be neat to get 314718 to index 9000, however it is at 8902 now so that would be a long 92 indices more.
It is index 2540 for 4788.[/quote]

Both those figures are wrong: 314718 is at index 8908, and 4788 is at index 2448.

[quote=10metreh;192716]160 digits? We passed that a while ago.

[/quote]

170 digits, then, sorry. Just thought it might be worthwhile to have a goal to work towards...