The sextic difficulty 242 has basically the same ~1 relation per q value yield at q0=45M, but it's slower than the sextic posted by Sean.
The quintic difficulty 240 has pretty much the same yield as the others in the same range, faster than your sextic but slightly slower than the sextic posted by Sean.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;367314]Sean: I tried your yafu-generated poly for the XYYXF C176_118_93 number

[I]snip[/I]

but it doesn't sieve much better than the polys generated by snfspoly: ~1 relation per q value at q0=45M (rlim /2 = alim / 2) using 31-bit LPs.

That number proves surprisingly hard for a SNFS difficulty 23x (depending on the polynomial) number. Even though 14e could probably do it with a lengthy sieving, 15e would probably be more efficient.[/QUOTE]

Yes, my test sieving used 15e. Also, I ran it on the algebraic side FWIW.

Really appreciate you guys taking the time to even look at this composite. I've likely got tunnel vision on it, as I have spent a lot of effort trying to factor it.

C160_3408_1385 splits as:

[CODE]prp68 factor: 17880278619984695184050502790206873556361981045516886688928661227471
prp93 factor: 228502311121984348922806887427415202001523194440641388076613271354581292876973003527160307423[/CODE]

GW_3_494 done
 

[code]
Wed Feb 19 22:53:55 2014 prp79 factor: 6544139735540280558492681564220189691920039926567620314258950958984293109132781
Wed Feb 19 22:53:55 2014 prp141 factor: 356041230470821300547265003988221353676049541264454212033019140637311164592494814068768166474884500439741810418568259479009834952510802545219
[/code]

Log at [url]http://pastebin.com/wcG0pwQG[/url]

7.4M matrix, 57 hours on i7/2600

Taking GC_4_391, eta Monday morning

Also, ETA for 2340_723 is Friday morning - I suppose I could have asked for slightly less sieving.

Data Point
 

The C160_3408_1385 built a 6.0M matrix using target_density=124 and took just over 22 hrs (in BL) on a Core-i5 (-t 4).

2340_723 done
 

[code]
Fri Feb 21 04:01:00 2014 prp68 factor: 33764306304594609841151385700590125608455755423072146929348187732319
Fri Feb 21 04:01:00 2014 prp101 factor: 34171287558191566663884446485221802740049394413628828438507905979286574134540823657330555119715424329
[/code]

19.5 hours on i7/4770 for a 5.9M matrix

GC_5_338 done
 

[code]
Fri Feb 21 06:55:18 2014 prp56 factor: 34470240407647113273727147928606646498352887484685412491
Fri Feb 21 06:55:18 2014 prp118 factor: 2146601110002558873853257238895849150974507931390059443029499513822227376252498348631767281157367204096404394646303011
[/code]

93 hours on i5/750 -t4 for 8.7M matrix

C_2_784 splits

[code]
prp95 factor: 62989812257204905134330822366504114809484465259945825102840522386263274321822248099151904049177
prp110 factor: 22394703467804797846381410780003403139074909488534959121267242416187245444804045804712301688742956615022179337
[/code]

[URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000041882572"]GC_6_302[/URL]'s c160 = p68*p93. It took my i5-750 about 240 calendar hours for the 12.9M matrix, but even with -t 4 the CPU usage averaged around 69% (~2.76 cores, so ~662 CPU hours for the LA). All of the logs from my harrowing experience are attached, in case anyone is silly enough to want to pore through them. :smile:
[CODE]prp68 factor: 10922077385007413926959844864921688969621938072657126375168970438021
prp93 factor: 396325903304263476304132664503070294343931044028469032434386038612698624514895837180351478017[/CODE]

Oddly enough, my other NFS@Home post-proc, [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000636572825"]C161_4788_5193, also split as p68*p93[/URL]. I had to double-take, and for a brief moment thought I had somehow rerun the sqrt of that Aliquot number instead of GC_6_302.

Taking GW_5_337 (eta Friday morning)