Oh, I guess I missed your "All done" above...

1973^61-1 = 1972 * p48 * p151 is no ECM miss, but the p48 could have been found by ECM, with a bit of luck... the joys of ECM :smile:
Seeing that 27-bit LPs was acceptable for several other SNFS tasks of difficulty 201-203, I didn't expect this one to have a fairly low yield and a high redundancy.

Yeah, the verbose mode I contributed to remdups4 yesterday will prove educational for me :smile:

I've run 1303_73_minus1 and 59999_224 (29-bit LPs tasks) through the modified remdups4. In both cases, there are ~45M unique relations and ~12M duplicate relations... maybe a bit borderline, but I hope the filtering can succeed :smile:
The remdups4 output is on the RSALS server, alongside the remdups'ed files.

Please reserve 607_83_minus1 for me.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;296348]Please reserve 607_83_minus1 for me.[/QUOTE]

607_83_minus1 is running and will take 6 days.

Newbie/ignorant question about the following numbers...

[B]1753_71_minus1: SNFS difficulty of 233, 228-digit input.[/B]

[code]
R0: -842137473638064866529797429172280993441
R1: 1
A0: -1753
A1: 0
A2: 0
A3: 0
A4: 0
A5: 0
A6: 1
skew 3.47, size 1.244e-011, alpha 0.895, combined = 7.558e-013 rroots = 2
[/code][code]
Thu Apr 12 00:39:53 2012 begin with 94312363 relations and 78805957 unique ideals
Thu Apr 12 01:00:26 2012 commencing linear algebra
Thu Apr 12 01:00:27 2012 read 8046341 cycles
Thu Apr 12 01:00:38 2012 cycles contain 21817134 unique relations
Thu Apr 12 01:03:40 2012 read 21817134 relations
Thu Apr 12 01:04:09 2012 using 20 quadratic characters above 1073741330
Thu Apr 12 01:05:39 2012 building initial matrix
Thu Apr 12 01:09:20 2012 memory use: 2877.4 MB
Thu Apr 12 01:09:30 2012 read 8046341 cycles
Thu Apr 12 01:09:33 2012 matrix is 8046163 x 8046341 (2410.2 MB) with weight 712652238 (88.57/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:09:33 2012 sparse part has weight 543317732 (67.52/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:10:52 2012 filtering completed in 2 passes
Thu Apr 12 01:10:55 2012 matrix is 8045308 x 8045486 (2410.2 MB) with weight 712629031 (88.58/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:10:55 2012 sparse part has weight 543311774 (67.53/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:31 2012 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:33 2012 matrix is 8045308 x 8045486 (2410.2 MB) with weight 712629031 (88.58/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:33 2012 sparse part has weight 543311774 (67.53/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:33 2012 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Thu Apr 12 01:11:35 2012 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Thu Apr 12 01:11:36 2012 matrix is 8045260 x 8045486 (2305.4 MB) with weight 566927403 (70.47/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:36 2012 sparse part has weight 523898289 (65.12/col)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:36 2012 using block size 262144 for processor cache size 8192 kB
Thu Apr 12 01:11:49 2012 commencing Lanczos iteration (4 threads)
Thu Apr 12 01:11:49 2012 memory use: 2841.6 MB
Thu Apr 12 01:12:57 2012 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 97h 8m
Thu Apr 12 01:13:19 2012 checkpointing every 90000 dimensions
[/code][B]607_83_minus1: SNFS difficulty of 234, 196-digit input.[/B]

[code]R0: -921810551684610145342342224266647251649
R1: 1
A0: -607
A1: 0
A2: 0
A3: 0
A4: 0
A5: 0
A6: 1
skew 2.69, size 9.507e-012, alpha 2.187, combined = 6.236e-013 rroots = 2[/code][code]
Mon Apr 16 07:21:56 2012 begin with 88203615 relations and 78987379 unique ideals
Mon Apr 16 07:40:27 2012 commencing linear algebra
Mon Apr 16 07:40:29 2012 read 9621165 cycles
Mon Apr 16 07:40:41 2012 cycles contain 26788867 unique relations
Mon Apr 16 07:43:35 2012 read 26788867 relations
Mon Apr 16 07:44:10 2012 using 20 quadratic characters above 1073741238
Mon Apr 16 07:45:59 2012 building initial matrix
Mon Apr 16 07:50:28 2012 memory use: 3458.7 MB
Mon Apr 16 07:50:42 2012 read 9621165 cycles
Mon Apr 16 07:50:45 2012 matrix is 9620988 x 9621165 (2888.4 MB) with weight 841821139 (87.50/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:50:45 2012 sparse part has weight 651350650 (67.70/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:07 2012 filtering completed in 2 passes
Mon Apr 16 07:52:09 2012 matrix is 9619465 x 9619642 (2888.3 MB) with weight 841782013 (87.51/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:09 2012 sparse part has weight 651340585 (67.71/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:49 2012 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:51 2012 matrix is 9619465 x 9619642 (2888.3 MB) with weight 841782013 (87.51/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:51 2012 sparse part has weight 651340585 (67.71/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:51 2012 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Mon Apr 16 07:52:54 2012 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Mon Apr 16 07:52:55 2012 matrix is 9619417 x 9619642 (2755.5 MB) with weight 672943093 (69.96/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:55 2012 sparse part has weight 626142355 (65.09/col)
Mon Apr 16 07:52:55 2012 using block size 262144 for processor cache size 8192 kB
Mon Apr 16 07:53:10 2012 commencing Lanczos iteration (4 threads)
Mon Apr 16 07:53:10 2012 memory use: 3398.3 MB
Mon Apr 16 07:54:36 2012 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 144h24m
Mon Apr 16 07:55:03 2012 checkpointing every 70000 dimensions[/code]Can someone explain me why the LA phase for the latter number (607_83_minus1) will take almost more two days to complete? SNFS difficulty for the two is almost the same, unique relations almost the same (78.8M) too, huge different in matrix size...what's the mathematical reason to justify that 607_83_minus1 LA will take longer than 1753_71_minus1 LA?

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;296495]unique relations almost the same (78.8M) too[/QUOTE]

No, they're not. First one is "begin with 94312363 relations", and second one is "begin with 88203615 relations". So the first one has appr. 7% more unique relations. That is the biggest contributor to the difference.

[QUOTE=axn;296503]No, they're not. First one is "begin with 94312363 relations", and second one is "begin with 88203615 relations". So the first one has appr. 7% more unique relations. That is the biggest contributor to the difference.[/QUOTE]

You're correct. Copy pasted the wrong line.
For 1753_71_minus1:

[code]Thu Apr 12 00:31:40 2012 found 23242228 duplicates and 94312363 unique relations[/code]

For 607_83_minus1:

[code]Mon Apr 16 07:14:21 2012 found 23674770 duplicates and 88203615 unique relations[/code]

Those 7% less unique relations give an increase of 48% on LA time processing, is this the only reason?!

[QUOTE=Mathew;295731]I would like to reserve:

2460029275585695241_13_minus1 and
84969569171_19_minus1[/QUOTE]

84969569171_19_minus1 Complete

[CODE]prp83 factor: 14711978957938240425716725970279132479701234825990788784717645749570275903468305751
prp115 factor: 3623017208269350873190509751167599262714654971067944873440164823344490586026515730412505549117041589290671294840939[/CODE]

I'll take 59999_224 for post-processing.

[QUOTE=RichD;296656]I'll take 59999_224 for post-processing.[/QUOTE]

26+ hours left in LA on this one (with 3 cores).

I'll take 1303_73_minus1 next which just built a good matrix. It's in the LA queue after the above.

Post about the 200th Bernoulli number moved to [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=16737"]here[/URL], since it probably won't be an RSALS project.

Taking 797_79_minus1.