691_73_minus1
 

For 691_73_minus1 use the following 691_73_minus1.fb:

[code]N 6318061475641716282944573810566199941713386121117560133053964379563127244148403221167908648974588740417883355008526888465655888762417471810602286981147304100747149864437139610811687198685362392500467287
SKEW 0.336320747
A6 691
A5
A4
A3
A2
A1
A0 -1
R1 1
R0 -11850497104030975984667318617160881[/code]

691_73_minus1.ini

[code]6318061475641716282944573810566199941713386121117560133053964379563127244148403221167908648974588740417883355008526888465655888762417471810602286981147304100747149864437139610811687198685362392500467287[/code]

[QUOTE=RichD;300045]I'll take 60001_223 as soon as a .fb file is posted.
It appears the latest numbers are missing the .fb file.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if Lionel used this poly: [url]http://hpcgi2.nifty.com/m_kamada/f/c.cgi?q=60001_223[/url]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;299697]I'm amazed by the fact that an Intel core i7 2630QM at 2.0 GHz with 8 threads clearly beats an Intel core i5 750@3.6 GHz with 4 cores and consumes a lot less when running msieve. I can't imagine how fast are the new IB processors. I think it's time to retire my core i5...:no:[/QUOTE]

So using the hyperthreaded "cores" gives you a significant boost over just using the 4 physical ones for the LA phase? Have you measured how much?

[QUOTE=Jeff Gilchrist;300131]So using the hyperthreaded "cores" gives you a significant boost over just using the 4 physical ones for the LA phase? Have you measured how much?[/QUOTE]

Question 1: I didn't do that test, I ran msieve with 8 threads so I can't tell you that 4 physical cores are quicker than 8 threads.
Question 2: The laptop during LA phase was, by estimated time, 2 hours quicker. The filtering phase ( 1 core/1 thread) was 200 seconds faster on the core i5.

I did not finish the LA phase.
The laptop cpu has a TDP of 45 W and the core i5 with default frequency has a TDP of 95 W.

[QUOTE=RichD;300045]I'll take 60001_223 as soon as a .fb file is posted.[/QUOTE]

This must not be my number. After the fourth attempt, I finally downloaded the data file in its entirety.

With a poly of:
[CODE]N 1427789543821240749113580658210979701591985341360683435261642433905242367275063655617162030316731313804345239511695976013135663803155414891844942055541013254646265140518287604407110391928229778930585631677890678913928087
SKEW 0.51
A6 60
A5
A4
A3
A2
A1
A0 1
R1 1
R0 -10000000000000000000000000000000000000
FAMAX 38000000
FRMAX 38000000
SALPMAX 536870912
SRLPMAX 536870912[/CODE]I get the following message:

[CODE]-[FONT=Courier New][COLOR=black]> ___________________________________________________________
-> | This is the factMsieve.pl script for GGNFS. |
-> | This program is copyright 2004, Chris Monico, and subject|
-> | to the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2.|
-> |__________________________________________________________|
-> Starting Wed May 23 19:03:04 2012
-> Working with NAME=60001_223...
-> This is client 1 of 1
-> Using 3 threads
-> Error: poly coefficients have a common factor 0. Please divide it out.[/COLOR][/FONT][/CODE]

You have to re-edit .fb file into a .poly file.

Here's my 60001_223.poly:
[code]n: 1427789543821240749113580658210979701591985341360683435261642433905242367275063655617162030316731313804345239511695976013135663803155414891844942055541013254646265140518287604407110391928229778930585631677890678913928087
m: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000
deg: 6
c6: 60
c0: 1
skew: 0.51
type: snfs
lss: 1
rlim: 38000000
alim: 38000000
lpbr: 29
lpba: 29
mfbr: 58
mfba: 58
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/code]

And I like the
[quote]Error: poly coefficients have a common factor 0. Please divide it out.[/quote]
error message :grin:

[QUOTE=RichD;300045]I'll take 60001_223 ...[/QUOTE]

Splits as:
[CODE](prp58) = 2048279561630094413940242246970488263454250075107126516663
(prp67) = 4487087514500719652610502868943979821190063207053724258161633999469
(prp96) = 155349702434172729239694378089117934482361267066359337694151534312046853369486165859085416527621[/CODE]

Has 3281533_37_minus1 been assigned yet? I have some spare time on my relatively large computer ...

[QUOTE=fivemack;300261]Has 3281533_37_minus1 been assigned yet? I have some spare time on my relatively large computer ...[/QUOTE]

Pace Nielsen is doing it but 2063_71_minus1 is free.

OK, collecting and running 2063,71- now