[QUOTE=debrouxl;286039]Boo, a p55 remaining after, according to the near-repdigit site, 20710 curves at B1=11e7 and 4826 curves at B1=26e7 ? That was fairly unlikely.[/QUOTE]

That was about 60% of the expected-effort-to-find-a-p55-at-26e7 plus about 115% of the expected effort at 11e7; on a platform I have, that's 125 days for the 26e7 plus 225 days for the 11e7, versus a bit under one year for the sieving. So I think [b]too much[/b] ECM effort was put in.

[QUOTE]Not that cutting this factor would have made the number easier to factor by GNFS than by SNFS, but sieving would have been faster...[/QUOTE]

I think I used to believe that factoring a smaller cofactor by SNFS was faster, but I don't think that's true.

Yeah, ECM work on that number was pushed quite a bit beyond 2/9 of SNFS difficulty, months before I chose this number (the only "55" in [url]http://homepage2.nifty.com/m_kamada/math/wanted.htm#largecomposite[/url] ) for the purposes of throwing it at RSALS upon computing power surges :smile:

[QUOTE=Mathew;285975]I would like to reserve 917087137_23_minus1[/QUOTE]

Complete
[CODE]prp57 factor: 122367516316857502089579163163556668520747965952041844149
prp134 factor: 24837296031680514205186718252644391867678148825240712341160664670106023376549947968780335450471135555124301362192085604338471293013709[/CODE]

[QUOTE=debrouxl;286389]Well, RSALS is currently on a low activity period...

[/QUOTE]

So nothing ready next Wednesday for post-processing, right?

269_101_minus1
[CODE]prp96 factor: 636298909984315235741389620791315459539911848795576372215442600004386026243179976663092292925711
prp120 factor: 132024630623753482657531562379708705572313856352300202562247096409430723187885225849168345384670654569160232073826915613
[/CODE]

Thanks Greg :smile:

Thanks to the combination of everyone's help, especially Greg's for the most difficult tasks, a rather difficult number, and a period of relatively low activity, the queue of numbers ready for post-processing is currently... empty :smile:
10303_61_minus1 isn't ready, and the C150 in Aliquot sequence 4788 is currently being post-processed by unconnected.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;286878]The 32-bit Windows siever and the 32-bit Linux siever should be equivalent, but the 64-bit Linux siever is more than 50% faster than the 32-bit siever, AFAICT.[/QUOTE]

Lionel, are you using the 64-bit linux version on RSALS?

No, RSALS uses only 32-bit sievers. NFS@Home uses the 64-bit Linux siever.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;287040]No, RSALS uses only 32-bit sievers. NFS@Home uses the 64-bit Linux siever.[/QUOTE]

14e is not available for 64-but linux?

14e is available for 64-bit Linux. I've recently used it on one of my computers to finish sieving 479_79_minus1 locally, I wasn't going to make that lengthy sieving (due to my screwup in number of bits for large primes) go on for about four days when it could be done in a bit more than two.

It's just that:
* for one thing, Linux users are a minority;
* RSALS is usually managed in an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" fashion :smile:
The upgrade of the server software, several months ago, was an infrequent event.