mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Aliquot Sequences (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=90)
-   -   Team sieve #8: c157 from 4788.2422 (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=12119)

bsquared 2009-07-15 13:37

Got em, 1160878 relations.

fivemack 2009-07-15 13:57

[url]http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~twomack/017-018.rels.gz[/url] (1149279)

[url]http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~twomack/043-046.rels.gz[/url] (3382786)

Hope that's nearing enough

bsquared 2009-07-15 14:47

[quote=fivemack;181105][URL]http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~twomack/017-018.rels.gz[/URL] (1149279)

[URL]http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~twomack/043-046.rels.gz[/URL] (3382786)

Hope that's nearing enough[/quote]

Got those, thanks.

I'm still missing the 49-52 range, as it's stuck on the NPLB server. In the meantime filtering is running to see where we're at.

bsquared 2009-07-15 15:20

1 Attachment(s)
[quote=bsquared;181110]Got those, thanks.

I'm still missing the 49-52 range, as it's stuck on the NPLB server. In the meantime filtering is running to see where we're at.[/quote]

We have 38594402 unique relations (45813049 raw), and msieve isn't happy with that. So if you could post the 49-52 range that would help. Also, I'll reserve 15-17M.

edit:
attached log.

henryzz 2009-07-15 15:24

[quote=bsquared;181115]We have 38594402 unique relations, and msieve isn't happy with that. So if you could post the 49-52 range that would help. Also, I'll reserve 15-17M.[/quote]
how not happy?
could you attach the log?

10metreh 2009-07-15 16:49

Ben, why did you use 1.41?

bsquared 2009-07-15 17:01

[quote=10metreh;181125]Ben, why did you use 1.41?[/quote]

I happened to have it handy.

I haven't yet compiled the newest version; would it give significantly better performance? I also haven't kept up to date with the latest improvements...

10metreh 2009-07-15 17:06

[quote=bsquared;181130]I happened to have it handy.

I haven't yet compiled the newest version; would it give significantly better performance? I also haven't kept up to date with the latest improvements...[/quote]

The main changes are the introduction of degree 4 poly selection, and also a revamp of the filtering that severely reduces disk use for the singleton removal. It halves the speed of filtering over here, and it also seems to everywhere else. Note that 1.42 is currently only in its beta stages.

Andi47 2009-07-15 17:23

[QUOTE=10metreh;181132]The main changes are the introduction of degree 4 poly selection, and also a revamp of the filtering that severely reduces disk use for the singleton removal. It halves the speed of filtering over here, and it also seems to everywhere else. Note that 1.42 is currently only in its beta stages.[/QUOTE]

Note that degree 4 polys from msieve1.42 give a huge speedup in a range of ~90-100 digits

bsquared 2009-07-15 17:33

[quote=Andi47;181133]Note that degree 4 polys from msieve1.42 give a huge speedup in a range of ~90-100 digits[/quote]

Is it faster than QS even at 90 digits?!?

Also, does it use degree 4 automatically depending on input size or does it need a flag? And would I need a new factMsieve.pl?

(I guess this should be moved to the msieve discussion thread...)

bsquared 2009-07-15 17:35

I tried again with msieve-1.42 beta 3 and the filtering caused a segfault. I'll post it over in the msieve discussion thread.


All times are UTC. The time now is 09:55.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.