[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;192227]I can provide lattice siever code. GGNFS is available......
You once used my (line) siever code before switching to CWI.

Allow me to ask: how will you do 10,269- without participants?
This number is quite difficult.[/QUOTE]

Sieving is in progress here, with the 16e siever. Region has width
200M-20M, of which 50M or so is complete. I'm keeping the number
of cores between 200-300, with up to 100 small memory cores (1Gb)
running Batalov-Dodson numbers (3, 521+ due tomorrow). -Bruce

PS - page 112 looks to be full, at 30 entries; Serge reports that
the first-five are already updated. Sam's also upated the progress
on the wanted lists from page 111.

[QUOTE=bdodson;192229]Sieving is in progress here, with the 16e siever. Region has width
200M-20M, of which 50M or so is complete. I'm keeping the number
of cores between 200-300, with up to 100 small memory cores (1Gb)
running Batalov-Dodson numbers (3, 521+ due tomorrow). -Bruce

PS - page 112 looks to be full, at 30 entries; Serge reports that
the first-five are already updated. Sam's also upated the progress
on the wanted lists from page 111.[/QUOTE]

I find it curious that over time the number of entries per page has shrunk...
There used to be near 60 entries/page.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;192231]I find it curious that over time the number of entries per page has shrunk...
There used to be near 60 entries/page.[/QUOTE]

Maybe due to smaller numbers? It's just the most recent
2 or 3 pages that seem to have stopped near 30 entries;
back at page 90 there were 40 entries. There has already
been a lot of activity on wanted and/or first-fives; so perhaps
I'm premature on the page closing, due to wishful thinking.

-Bruce

[QUOTE=bdodson;192239]Maybe due to smaller numbers? It's just the most recent
2 or 3 pages that seem to have stopped near 30 entries;
back at page 90 there were 40 entries. There has already
been a lot of activity on wanted and/or first-fives; so perhaps
I'm premature on the page closing, due to wishful thinking.

-Bruce[/QUOTE]

I think it driven by the need to have everything fit on an 8.5" x 11"
*printed* page. Many of the numbers have to be broken into 2 lines.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;192227]I can provide lattice siever code. GGNFS is available......
You once used my (line) siever code before switching to CWI.
[/QUOTE]

As I stated over in the NFS@Home thread, the issue is not access to source code for a lattice siever. The issue is access to development platforms and programmers who have the time, tools, and ability to debug the porting of a common protocol to the various platforms.

I have a "NFSNet" version of the siever siever running on Mac OSX. However, my largest contributor does not have a "compatible" version on 64-bit Linux. Nor do we have a version for any form of Windows.

[QUOTE]
Allow me to ask: how will you do 10,269- without participants?
This number is quite difficult.
[/QUOTE]

The same way that Tom does things -- a very non-NFSNet collaboration of a few contributors (with access to many machines).

I find it interesting that NFSNet is continually "faulted" because of shortcomings when competing efforts are applauded even though they have those same shortcomings.

I think the way that I do things gets a rather different set of collaborators than NFSnet or NFS@home can manage: in particular, I imagine that the administrators of large clusters with idle time and with batch-submission interfaces are generally much happier with users running scripts which call executables to do a fairly well-defined job than with users running clients that collect their own work over the Internet.

Certainly I would not be happy to run NFS@home on the machines here at the office on which I sometimes run gnfs-lasieve4I16e.

I know that my approach is much inferior in terms of getting really large amounts of compute time to fully-automated systems running on many home PCs, but the activation energy to doing it my way is much lower, and something like the way I do it is necessary to exploit the set of machines that I get to use.

Tom,

I understand your comments about "effort", and the "constraints" on comfortable participation.

My only regret is that we cannot all come together and produce a protocol that provides a common "format" for the allocation and reporting of results.

This protocol would provide a uniform method of problem description, and a uniform format for the reporting the results. This reporting should be done in a manner that allows the easy extraction of a summary of the sieving without transmitting ALL of the details of the relations found.

NFS@Home has effectively replaced NFSNet because Greg (at least thinks that he) has the resources to handle thousands of participants on a single central server. NFSNet did not utilize that approach because we lacked the resources and also wished to have a "fall bacK" protocol that would compensate for a failure at any server node within the system.

Calling Don Leclair
 

Does anyone know how to reach Don?

it has been some time since I have been on contact with him.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Very nice to hear from you. I'll send you my current e-mail address in a PM.

-Don