[QUOTE=debrouxl;322661]...expanded the range for 853_83_minus1 from 30M-220M to 30M-250M. If you kept a copy of the original .dat.gz file, you can resume the download :smile:[/QUOTE]
wget -c indeed works like a charm.
Could we throw in another 30M: to 30M-280M? The redundancy is quite bad for this project. I retrieved +21M rels, which translated into +15M unique rels (184M in total) - this is barely enough.
[CODE]Tue Dec 25 22:09:20 2012 weight of 14394234 cycles is about 1007938515 (70.02/cycle)
...
Thu Dec 27 20:46:16 2012 weight of 12219169 cycles is about 1100061354 (90.03/cycle)

[/CODE]A number of this size deserves at least a 10M or even a 9M matrix.

[QUOTE=Batalov;322893]
Could we throw in another 30M: to 30M-280M? [/QUOTE]
Sounds like you're growing lazy! :smile: I extended it to 280M.

A real scientist [I]must[/I] be lazy! :razz:
Laziness is the mother of all inventions!

[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=311931&postcount=236"]One time, at band camp…[/URL]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;322897][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=311931&postcount=236"]One time, at band camp…[/URL][/QUOTE]
Dude, we have done month-long [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=204746&postcount=190"]15-16M-sized BLs[/URL], too, -- but they were worth the effort (gnfs-180, snfs-268, whatever). Not an undersieved snfs-246. :razz:

Believe it or not, but [I]we[/I] have standards! :paul::rakes:

C242_119_109
 

[CODE]prp55 factor: 2422342873736741008277286332331743782852879358447145691
prp187 factor: 9779944561110139304641888170111000154102995861992152158711611759933751534622333958041613866607821778370432749502109525717224919058317549539144319776231458867342357828320633704789525883879[/CODE]

:ermm:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;322967]:ermm:[/QUOTE]

Sieve.

Oh horror! A 17M matrix for a snfs-242? :davieddy:
_____________________________

[COLOR=green]P.S. I mean... it was huge. I would have stopped and asked for more sieving. Too many filterings is also a waste, so I'd ask for a bit more (than I asked myself): so, say you had [B]171M[/B] unique relations (it is in the log after duplicates are removed), and for a 31/31 job you'd really want 200M (maybe 210M... See, when Tom gets 248M - he can run around you in circles with so many: you will run BL for 20 days, Tom would run 7; that he has a monster comp is another story; on that comp, he can be done in 1-2 days), so you'd like [B]29M[/B] more unique rels - which when it is already on top of other relations will be 20-25% redundant relations, so multiply by 1.25 and make a proportion raw relations you already have and write here to Greg/Lionel: "I would really like 25% more relations". And it's a done deal. They are rea-a-a-ally nice folks! [/COLOR]
[COLOR=#008000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#008000]Bottom line: you could have run three numbers - instead of one. That's what's important. Good luck![/COLOR]

I'll claim 997_67_minus1 please

[QUOTE=Batalov;322974]
[COLOR=#008000]Bottom line: you could have run three numbers - instead of one. That's what's important. Good luck![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

But there aren't three numbers ready to run. Plus it's a LOT more efficient in computer time to let the LA run than to do the extra sieving. Again I say you are spoiled by oversieving. :rolleyes: