Intel X5570 @2.93 GHz
[CODE]GMP-ECM 6.3 [configured with GMP 5.0.1 and --enable-asm-redc] [ECM]
Input number is (3^607-1)/2 (290 digits)
Using B1=260000000, B2=3178559884516, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=4175656254
Step 1 took 2577000ms
Step 2 took 497196ms
[/CODE]

There are many such cores available... but they are highly utilized. I'll try to put away a few curves in off hours.

224 curves done.

[quote=R.D.Silverman;225839] I disagree that it helps the tail-chasing for OddPerfect since I think that
project is pointless. Raising the bound on the minimal size for an odd perfect
number does nothing toward proving that none exist. All the wasted CPU
time for this project would be much better spent on (say) Seventeen or Bust
which has a definitive END.

BTW: Didn't your mother ever tell you "finish what you start before doing
something new"? [/quote]

I approve with 3,607- rather. My perspective is not from odd perfect numbers increasing lower bound. But it is a number with no known non-primitive factors (similar to that of M1061), and that it is only a bit beyond the official table limits for base 3. Anyway, it is after all going to be added up to that official base 3 tables someday. In my opinion, base 3 table limits of 600 are much lesser than when compared up with that other base Cunningham tables.
Only the trivial factor of 2 is known, and that it is going to be done by using SNFS only after that it receives up with a sufficient amount of ECM.

By the way, I think of doing some numbers from that base 2 LM tables (quartics) after finishing off with sieving for 5,415+. 2,2226L 2,2238L 2,1870L 2,1870M 2,1910M. Say what you want to do, the rest I will do so with, before 2,2334M, 2,985-.

[QUOTE=Raman;226135]I approve with 3,607- rather. My perspective is not from odd perfect numbers increasing lower bound. But it is a number with no known non-primitive factors (similar to that of M1061), and that it is only a bit beyond the official table limits for base 3. Anyway, it is after all going to be added up to that official base 3 tables someday. In my opinion, base 3 table limits of 600 are much lesser than when compared up with that other base Cunningham tables.
Only the trivial factor of 2 is known, and that it is going to be done by using SNFS only after that it receives up with a sufficient amount of ECM.

By the way, I think of doing some numbers from that base 2 LM tables (quartics) after finishing off with sieving for 5,415+. 2,2226L 2,2238L 2,1870L 2,1870M 2,1910M. Say what you want to do, the rest I will do so with, before 2,2334M, 2,985-.[/QUOTE]

I will take 2,1870L,M. Take the rest.

[QUOTE=bsquared;226130]224 curves done.[/QUOTE]

I'm at 3100 curves, but would prefer to keep my count separately
from the OP ecm server count. I'm just finishing sieving 2,1043+
but won't have diskspace for postprocessing or starting sieving on
our next sieving target (that c161 gnfs that was making the rounds,
until Serge steped in). So I may have the quadcore cluster available
for ecm on 3,607- for a few days until 2, 919- finishes (we hope!).

-Bruce

[quote=R.D. Silverman;226138]I will take 2,1870L,M. Take the rest.[/quote]

Ok. It is too early to reserve for now, rather I will reserve that up when time comes...

PS: Other compatible sized numbers are 10,550M 5,815L 10,530M (other than 5,785M of course)

I don't have the privileges necessary to keep a count of the curves done in the first post. Batalov or fivemack, would you mind? Thanks!

Me neither (I am a local greenfingers). Need Jasonp.

Bruce: I will email small details about possible gzipping. -- I do like to stand under built bridges.

Anyway, M919 will vacate the premises on Monday (if all goes well), if there's no time for experiments then no need to change your plans.

~320 curves done.

[quote=Batalov;226199]I do like to stand under built bridges.[/quote]You mean you're a troll?

Paul

Do trolls build bridges?


[COLOR=lemonchiffon]Yeah. I know that these days engineers don't stand under the bridges they built. That's so old fashioned. But I do.[/COLOR]