Yeah, no worries. Maybe I'll be back to actually reserve some soon :)

[CODE]prp82 factor: 2367069010249749756202950199336297834697656975559789823918748878225580686502451017
prp94 factor: 5688144505323782595359654845242738480490660117647767962000395693032263780864603405995511439521
elapsed time 31:44:02[/CODE]

Linear algebra took 29 hours on four cores i5-4670K for 7.1M matrix. Factors reported to [URL="http://www.factordb.com/index.php?query=383*4%5E383-1"]the factorDB[/URL].

[QUOTE=XYYXF;365070]There are two C168's pushed up to 18000 curves at B1 = 110M:
[code]C168_130_71 = 293577856524534308556608110931494014404182621098756377812259533965962071178386204940945650625875365752664844816196696488552291293374296950182835664858833152967071700503
C168_134_94 = 451591044633621500700127843125932943919387601290262860485200418433795934760393784972054631775554879954085888690144804817796633480540639229986141076270921955279078568333[/code]Are there any spare cycles for them? :)[/QUOTE]Still hope :)

And one much simpler task (SNFS):

C208_133_43

43*(43^22)^6 + 133*(133^7)^6 = 16248239480 * C208

[QUOTE=XYYXF;373225]Still hope :)[/QUOTE]

They're only C168. The sieving time would be about 1000 real-time hours running eight threads on a quad-core Haswell, which is comparable to the amount of time the 18000 ECM curves took. Run them locally.

The SNFS difficulty 220 would take less than two weeks on a quad-core Haswell.

These jobs are too small to be worth distributing.

W_2_764 done
 

Log at [url]http://pastebin.com/ryqa3zqQ[/url]

[code]
Sun May 11 02:47:32 2014 prp68 factor: 10055781505951793654016418999323054759254958157126510019627046729491
Sun May 11 02:47:32 2014 prp118 factor: 3512583141417267682156243556979508449312589572259828245488829977286251678213277818227160339575805098249851444534110791
[/code]

6.7M matrix, 38.2 hours on 3 threads i7/2600

Well, 130^71+71^130 is a C241. Even by SNFS, which would be easier than GNFS difficulty 168, it's harder than the current GCW SNFS difficulty 235 tasks sieved by NFS@Home's 14e :smile:
But it's a fact that the continuous increase in computing power reduces the space for NFS@Home's 14e over time.

Sean Wellman sent me a reminder about two XYYXF GNFS difficulty 169 targets. I've test-sieved one of them at q0=alim/2 and q0=150M with 14e, it produced acceptable yields. But at that difficulty, they'd be a better fit for 15e.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;373242]Well, 130^71+71^130 is a C241. Even by SNFS, which would be easier than GNFS difficulty 168[/QUOTE]I guess a quintic SNFS-241 would be too hard, while sextic is C243 with large coefficient, so it seems GNFS-168 is better anyway.

GW_3_483 done
 

[code]
Mon May 12 17:04:43 2014 prp76 factor: 4496697198385902121230806527510086937402513872280792962466952585344516136473
Mon May 12 17:04:43 2014 prp132 factor: 182246806783205781399873415756123179127064073886531355791919383550118892474919086412280547883536635852119479019085806020448818107529
[/code]

38 hours for 6.5M matrix on i7/2600 -t3

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

L1252 done
 

[code]
Wed May 14 23:27:37 2014 prp85 factor: 4806328748697876132742310372219363961512977408710933355457849138401337666250479485463
Wed May 14 23:27:37 2014 prp100 factor: 8295466063420495773602447201851718519124690419933415939514147557294058804378491922821766044036684407
[/code]

131 hours for 15.7M matrix on i7/4930K -t6 target_density=112

Log at [url]http://pastebin.com/075t7A7P[/url]

I'll take GC_2_765.