[QUOTE]Available you have 1886503_37_minus1 and F1761.[/QUOTE]We would like to reserve these if that is okay.

:smile:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;309120]L1378, 8 threads on an i7 3770, ETA ~90 hours - sounds right?[/QUOTE]
Did you try 4 threads as well? That might be faster than 8 threads. Otherwise, this looks reasonable to me.

[QUOTE=Batalov;309122]Mike's number may have been (relatively) undersieved. With a bit of deliberate effort, it is possible to construct an enormously hideous matrix for even the easiest of the projects. In other words, on the same number, you can build matrices with runtimes differing as much as 3x. Or more.

Also don't assume that the shear amount of relations will automatically translate into something being easier or harder. There's a correlation; and there are outliers.
[/QUOTE]

Ok. I need to study more and more about that correlation and on the subject.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;309126]We would like to reserve these if that is okay.

:smile:[/QUOTE]

Lionel is The Boss.

[QUOTE]What are your guys matrix sizes and densities?[/QUOTE]We have no idea!

:max:

[QUOTE]Did you try 4 threads as well? That might be faster than 8 threads.[/QUOTE]Is it safe to stop the program and run it again with a different amount of cores? Or does it start from scratch if it is stopped?


[COLOR=green]--> Don't do sudden movements, Mike. This is (just slightly) dangerous.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]1. It is sort of safe to kill the running process. We assume that you have the latest binaries (earlier binaries sometimes produced the unrestartable savefiles).[/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]2. Copy the whole folder for a backup.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]3. [/COLOR][COLOR=darkred]Do not run -nc2 again! (Happened to almost everyone. Never a pleasant experience.)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]4. change [B]-t 8 -nc2[/B] into [B]-t 4 -ncr[/B], reexamine the commandline and then press Enter.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#008000][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#008000]5. of course there's an option to do nothing and simply wait for 90 hours.[/COLOR]

Maybe Mike has some el cheapo memory! (just kidding)
Maybe more threads is not always better than less threads.
Also maybe he is using MPI where he would better without.

...There are very many variables. It is advanced microwave cookery, that's what it is.

[QUOTE][B][COLOR=#0066cc]Rev. Lovejoy[/COLOR][/B]: Coping with senility?
[B][COLOR=#0066cc]Jasper[/COLOR][/B]: No. I'm here for Microwave Cookery. No, wait.
[[I]pause[/I]]
[B][COLOR=#0066cc]Jasper[/COLOR][/B]: [somberly] Coping with senility.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Batalov;309122]Mike's number may have been (relatively) undersieved. [/QUOTE]

So is it worth to sieve more, something like ~10 %, to get a smaller matrix? Probably the time to sieve more 10 % is higher than processing the matrix with less 10 % of unique relations, right? Or wrong?
Can we prove mathematically what is the optimal number of unique relations to build a matrix for a certain number in function of G/SNFS difficulty without spending too much of effort on sieving?

Mike's number:

found 186853 duplicates and 89571509 unique relations
8241565 x 8241790 (2395.7 MB) with weight 614375248 (74.54/col)

That explains the 90 hours for linear algebra.

My number has more unique relations for a ~7M^2 matrix.

[QUOTE=Batalov;309132]

...There are very many variables. It is advanced microwave cookery, that's what it is.[/QUOTE]


Most of the times I don't understand your jokes (the dialogues) and I get furious...
Tomorrow I'll see you answers, just passed my bed time (my girlfriend is pointing me a gun!).

[QUOTE][COLOR=green]We assume that you have the latest binaries (earlier binaries sometimes produced the unrestartable savefiles).[/COLOR][/QUOTE]Msieve v. 1.51 (SVN 755)

[quote][COLOR=darkred]Do not run -nc2 again! (Happened to almost everyone. Never a pleasant experience.)[/COLOR][/quote]We ran:

[FONT="Courier New"]nice -19 ./msieve -s L1378.dat -l L1378.log -i L1378.ini -nf L1378.fb -nc -t 8 -v[/FONT]

[QUOTE][COLOR=green]Of course there's an option to do nothing and simply wait for 90 hours.[/COLOR][/quote]90 hours works for us!