I stand by my remark.

In it, "[I]this difference[/I]" referred to the 5 or even 10-fold larger running time. See the original post. "Wow, what a difference, you go from 30bit to 31bit and the running time is 10 times longer!" This is not the case. Tom Womack ran some factorizations twice with the similar one-bit different LPBs and found minimal differences in running time (and matrix sizes). [I]With a simple condition[/I]: both have to be [I]comparably[/I] well-sieved (relative to the estimated minimum of relations which will be roughly 2x more, but the sieving can be 2x faster -- if all is done right and the conditions are not grossly contrived, like sieving with totally inappropriate LBPs).

Here's the real reason for 10-fold larger running time. One project was likely well-sieved and the other barely enough sieved (only enough for the proverbial "cusp of filtering convergence"). The 30-bit project may have also been much simpler, too; that would be another reason.

TL;DR version: if you would take a 30-bit project with SNFS-difficulty of 249, and then another project with SNFS-difficulty of 251 for which you would select 31-bit LPBs (or even the same project, once again*), _[I]and[/I]_ sieve them both comparably, the wall clock time will not be very different (but apparently somewhat larger for the more difficult project. [I]Somewhat[/I] larger, [U]not[/U] 10 times larger).

_________
*but your name has to be Tom for that.

[QUOTE=Batalov;358391]I stand by my remark.

In it, "[I]this difference[/I]" referred to the 5 or even 10-fold larger running time. See the original post. "Wow, what a difference, you go from 30bit to 31bit and the running time is 10 times longer!"
[/QUOTE]

Ah. I missed that (i.e. the part about "10-fold"). I would normally expect a
matrix that is 20 to 25% larger in going from 30 to 31 bits.

Right. Tom could probably quantify that. (I haven't dug up his post, but it exists somewhere here on the forum. It was an interesting report. Could have been 6-7 years ago, now.)

There are quite a few differences between this run and the two runs I did before:
SNFS(225) vs. GNFS(168)
30 bits vs. 31 bits
Relations: 110M+ vs. 220M+
Matrix size: ~1.5GB vs. 3.7GB

So I guess they all contribute to a longer LA phase?

Yes.

I would like to reverse GW_4_369.

[QUOTE=RichD;358483]I would like to reverse GW_4_369.[/QUOTE]

Oops, I am almost done downloading [B]GC[/B]_4_369.
Please adjust my assignment.

GC_4_369 splits as:
[CODE]prp51 factor: 833216020977010133611098079725963902150797467457397
prp118 factor: 1540723616026788250128258003100454105963168284173198740572019759032558763687534559921149354430092646605553304218219221[/CODE]

I'll take a whack at C168_130_119.

Reserving GC_5_318
 

I'll grab it when it is ready for download.

Thanks.

ETA on the C168 is ~108 hours. And that's with the target density of the matrix at 100!