[QUOTE=mdettweiler;237891]Mostly [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=82"]No Prime Left Behind[/URL] (searching for general primes of the form k*2^n-1) and [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=81"]Conjectures 'R Us[/URL] (proving Sierpinski/Riesel conjectures for bases <=1030). I have two machines, a quad and a dualcore; the quad is not as readily accessible, so on it I do strictly primality-testing work via PRPnet (currently for CRUS). The dualcore is my personal machine, so I do "special" jobs on it--currently one core is doing sieving for the [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=65"]Twin Prime Search[/URL] and the other is running BOINC for [URL="http://www.primegrid.com/"]PrimeGrid[/URL] attempting to collect a full set of score badges. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Ah. Okay. Loaded with work..

[QUOTE=bsquared;237888] I'll have a look.[/QUOTE]

Worked fine, at least on a linux system. I'm running it on a windows 64 bit box too, just to check.

[CODE]==== sieving in progress (16 threads): 140064 relations needed ====
==== Press ctrl-c to abort and save state ====
141839 rels found: 33087 full + 108752 from 2125998 partial, (475.46 rels/sec)

trial division touched 1042298291 sieve locations out of 433495233003520
QS elapsed time = 4541.0364 seconds.

==== post processing stage (msieve-1.38) ====
begin with 2159085 relations
reduce to 379304 relations in 11 passes
attempting to read 379304 relations
failed to read relation 159902
failed to read relation 192757
recovered 379302 relations
recovered 356864 polynomials
attempting to build 141837 cycles
found 141837 cycles in 7 passes
distribution of cycle lengths:
length 1 : 33087
length 2 : 23115
length 3 : 23382
length 4 : 19500
length 5 : 15071
length 6 : 10531
length 7 : 6991
length 9+: 10160
largest cycle: 20 relations
matrix is 140000 x 141837 (46.5 MB) with weight 11067761 (78.03/col)
sparse part has weight 11067761 (78.03/col)
filtering completed in 3 passes
matrix is 134331 x 134395 (43.7 MB) with weight 10377051 (77.21/col)
sparse part has weight 10377051 (77.21/col)
saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
matrix is 134283 x 134395 (38.0 MB) with weight 9181311 (68.32/col)
sparse part has weight 8606295 (64.04/col)
matrix includes 64 packed rows
using block size 53758 for processor cache size 8192 kB
commencing Lanczos iteration
memory use: 29.1 MB
lanczos halted after 2125 iterations (dim = 134279)
recovered 16 nontrivial dependencies
Lanczos elapsed time = 107.1400 seconds.
Sqrt elapsed time = 2.0400 seconds.
SIQS elapsed time = 4650.2196 seconds.


***factors found***

PRP52 = 9469803592767274090918886597728739135915666061785411
PRP52 = 5726219189104085425290749098395506427807046278383839

ans = 1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=bsquared;237897]Worked fine, at least on a linux system. I'm running it on a windows 64 bit box too, just to check.

[CODE]==== sieving in progress (16 threads): 140064 relations needed ====
==== Press ctrl-c to abort and save state ====
141839 rels found: 33087 full + 108752 from 2125998 partial, (475.46 rels/sec)

trial division touched 1042298291 sieve locations out of 433495233003520
QS elapsed time = 4541.0364 seconds.

==== post processing stage (msieve-1.38) ====
begin with 2159085 relations
reduce to 379304 relations in 11 passes
attempting to read 379304 relations
failed to read relation 159902
failed to read relation 192757
recovered 379302 relations
recovered 356864 polynomials
attempting to build 141837 cycles
found 141837 cycles in 7 passes
distribution of cycle lengths:
length 1 : 33087
length 2 : 23115
length 3 : 23382
length 4 : 19500
length 5 : 15071
length 6 : 10531
length 7 : 6991
length 9+: 10160
largest cycle: 20 relations
matrix is 140000 x 141837 (46.5 MB) with weight 11067761 (78.03/col)
sparse part has weight 11067761 (78.03/col)
filtering completed in 3 passes
matrix is 134331 x 134395 (43.7 MB) with weight 10377051 (77.21/col)
sparse part has weight 10377051 (77.21/col)
saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
matrix is 134283 x 134395 (38.0 MB) with weight 9181311 (68.32/col)
sparse part has weight 8606295 (64.04/col)
matrix includes 64 packed rows
using block size 53758 for processor cache size 8192 kB
commencing Lanczos iteration
memory use: 29.1 MB
lanczos halted after 2125 iterations (dim = 134279)
recovered 16 nontrivial dependencies
Lanczos elapsed time = 107.1400 seconds.
Sqrt elapsed time = 2.0400 seconds.
SIQS elapsed time = 4650.2196 seconds.


***factors found***

PRP52 = 9469803592767274090918886597728739135915666061785411
PRP52 = 5726219189104085425290749098395506427807046278383839

ans = 1
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

That's what I wanted to find..

Well, nice split..

I'll try another 104-digit number;

A slightly larger one; 56697489666723510791004886538373132330293426696343775288632713593821301055783186424906728020724813008339.

I think my computer's too weak to handle a c104. :no:

[QUOTE=3.14159;237898]That's what I wanted to find..

Well, nice split..

I'll try another 104-digit number;

A slightly larger one; 56697489666723510791004886538373132330293426696343775288632713593821301055783186424906728020724813008339.

I think the amount of threads I'm using is insufficient.[/QUOTE]

The general rule is to not use more threads than you have cores. Unless you have hyperthreads, which may give you a slight boost. The computer I ran this on is a dual hyperthreaded quad core, so 8 real cores and 8 hyperthreads.

Also, I just transferred the relations from the linux run to a windows machine, and resolved. everything worked fine there too, but I did notice that it took over 1 GB of ram... so maybe memory allocation is the problem you're seeing. Before you spend a bunch more time with a new number, see if you can free up some memory and retry the previous one, if you still have the relations.

[QUOTE=3.14159;237898]

I think my computer's too weak to handle a c104. :no:[/QUOTE]

Simply depends on how long you're willing to wait ;)

[QUOTE=bsquared;237901]Simply depends on how long you're willing to wait ;)[/QUOTE]

The relations only take 5 hours, so I can leave it running overnight. It crashes when it comes to the post-processing of the number.

[QUOTE=bsquared]so maybe memory allocation is the problem you're seeing. Before you spend a bunch more time with a new number, see if you can free up some memory and retry the previous one, if you still have the relations.[/QUOTE]

In the case of the number I showed you, yes, the relations are still there. The memory taken by the siqs.dat file is 168 MB. Should I get rid of that? Now that you've already done what I intended to do; I think I'll get rid of the stored relations.

I'll try factoring the number 56697489666723510791004886538373132330293426696343775288632713593821301055783186424906728020724813008339.

[QUOTE=3.14159;237903]The relations only take 5 hours, so I can leave it running overnight. It crashes when it comes to the post-processing of the number.



In the case of the number I showed you, yes, the relations are still there. The memory taken by the siqs.dat file is 168 MB. Should I get rid of that? Now that you've already done what I intended to do; I think I'll get rid of the stored relations.

I'll try factoring the number 56697489666723510791004886538373132330293426696343775288632713593821301055783186424906728020724813008339.[/QUOTE]

I meant free up RAM - if you are running a bunch of other stuff yafu could be unable to allocate the memory it needs to run the post-processing. I noticed it using over a gig of RAM for the C104, and more may be allocated (but not used).

[QUOTE=bsquared;237907]I meant free up RAM - if you are running a bunch of other stuff yafu could be unable to allocate the memory it needs to run the post-processing. I noticed it using over a gig of RAM for the C104, and more may be allocated (but not used).[/QUOTE]

Ah, okay. I don't have enough RAM to complete it.

I tried the number I posted, but failed yet again. My computer is indeed too weak to handle a 104-digit number. (Unless said 104-digit number is prime.)

Based on reading the beginner's guide; Indeed, 100-102 digits is as far as I can go. It would take 2-4 hours to factor a 100-digit RSA-type number, and a 155-digit number would take me ≈3.7 years to factor. (Unless I knew the factors beforehand.)

[CODE]c=[0];for(i=1,#mersenne,concat(c,(i/(i/log(mersenne[i])))))[/CODE]

I'm trying to get this working to try something based on a comment about [url]http://oeis.org/A000043[/url]. I can calculate the terms but I can't remember how to get them into the vector apparently, But I see that the items increase and I'd like to do something like findrec on them. Can anyone help ?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;237945][CODE]c=[0];for(i=1,#mersenne,concat(c,(i/(i/log(mersenne[i])))))[/CODE]

I'm trying to get this working to try something based on a comment about [url]http://oeis.org/A000043[/url]. I can calculate the terms but I can't remember how to get them into the vector apparently, But I see that the items increase and I'd like to do something like findrec on them. Can anyone help ?[/QUOTE]

Which comment?

In the meantime, I'll have to try setting up the bastard software..