Paul,

What's the ecmnet server address for the GCW?

Best regards,

Carlos

[QUOTE=em99010pepe;252664]Paul,

What's the ecmnet server address for the GCW?

Best regards,

Carlos[/QUOTE]83.217.167.177:8194

If you connect, please do so at most only a few times a day per client. Too many clients connecting too often can really screw my ADSL line. I speak from bitter experience when someone screwed up their ecmclient.cfg and configured dozens of clients to connect every five minutes. :sad:

Thanks for the implied offer of assistance with these numbers.

Paul

Last time I tested the client crashed several times depending on the size of the number. Tomorrow I'll point a few cores to it.

Carlos

Simple c/s for NFS
 

I've just grabbed another 2M range of special-q and updated the sticky 1st post to match.

This time I'll be using the cabald/cabalc harness to control the sievers on my home LAN. The complete source code is in the attached tarball, as is the directory structure and config files suitable for a 6-core machine running Linux. Nothing restricts it to Linux systems, however, and it has been used on sundry versions of Windows, various Unix-alikes such as DEC OSF/1 and its successors, Sloaris, FreeBSD and MacOS.

The cabald/cabalc structure has served me well for around ten years now, most recently for the RSA-768 project. As it says in the README:[quote]This software may be used for any purpose and the source code may be freely redistributed and re-used in other code, in part or as a whole. There is no warranty whatsoever. If it breaks anything, you get to keep the pieces.[/quote]Paul

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;252467]I have another 5 million relations to send. Let me know when
you want me to send you my data. I am gathering about 5M relations/week.[/QUOTE]

I am having shoulder surgery on 2/24 to remove some bone spurs
and repair my rotator cuff.

I will stop sieving next Tuesday 2/22 and send all the data collected.
It will have about another 10 million relations.

I will not yet be ready to switch to ECM, so I will set up to do
one of the homogeneous first holes.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;252603]Note that Bruce just found a factor of 2,932+ that is 3 digits shorter than
his previous factor (of the same number, natch)![/QUOTE]

With Serge's gnfs polyn the c144 factors p60*p85; so that was
p56*p59*p60*p85 on this Most Wanted first hole.

On ECM applied to 2LM's, I count fewer than 20 numbers unreserved
below C200. I'm targeting these with t55 to start (that would be the
second t55, since they're below c233), maybe a 3rd to 3t55. About
half of these are 2LM's, so you might want to start above C199, or else
target p60-p65. Hope the surgery goes well. -Bruce

(Two primes this morning, a Proth and a SophieGermain, the latter just over
2M digits; both top5000.)

[QUOTE=bdodson;252691]
(SophieGermain, the latter just over
2[B]M[/B] digits; both top5000.)[/QUOTE]

Considering that the current SG record is just under 80[B]K[/B] digits, I'm assuming there's something amiss in that statement :shock:

EDIT:- You're talking about this: [url]http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=98494[/url]?

[QUOTE=axn;252694]Considering that the current SG record is just under 80[B]K[/B] digits, I'm assuming there's something amiss in that statement :shock:

EDIT:- You're talking about this: [url]http://primes.utm.edu/primes/page.php?id=98494[/url]?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm having trouble counting digits. That's 200K? Still too large;
just under 80K is correct. Too large for twin prime either; looks like
this was a "twin prime candidate" --- checking k*2^n -1 for which
the four numbers k*2^n-1, k*2^n+1, k*2^(n-1)-1 and k*2^(n+1)-1
have no small factors. Hmm. A top5000 prime that failed to give a
huge twin _and_ two chances at a SG. Software appears to be
David Underbakke, with page [url]http://www.underbakke.com/primes/[/url].

MMmmph. PrimeGrid ran the quadsieve, with 34M candidates left
to check, with probability of one or more SG 66.7% and prob of one
or more twin 42.3%. Just to be clear, the largest Twin is just over
100K (loc. cit.). So a top5000 prime with 2.5* the number of digits
of the largest SG and twice as many digits as the largest Twin. Called
a SG prime search since the primes found are somewhat more likely to
be SG than they are to be Twins.

Thanks for the clairfication (much needed, clearly) I just switched a few
32-bit machines from Proth searching to "SG" searching, without reading
the fine print. -Bruce

I'll take 104-110. Should be able to get a good chunk of that done this coming weekend.


_______
[COLOR=green]94-99 lookin' good! Thanks <S>[/COLOR]

The last two test filterings are getting close to the 'cusp of convergence':

[FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1]Thu Feb 17 00:00:08 2011 begin with 97388326 relations and 112987209 unique ideals[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 00:06:53 2011 reduce to 34234805 relations and 38590875 ideals in 30 passes[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 00:06:53 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 101[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]...[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1]Thu Feb 17 15:19:13 2011 start with 105704669 relations and 116950376 ideals[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:21:06 2011 pass 1: found 41677055 singletons[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:22:25 2011 pruned dataset has 64027614 relations and 66597695 large ideals[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:22:25 2011 reading all ideals from disk[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:22:58 2011 memory use: 2492.2 MB[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:23:24 2011 keeping 66365826 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 347864[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:23:49 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:24:13 2011 begin with 64027614 relations and 66365826 unique ideals[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:29:47 2011 reduce to 46064462 relations and 47326729 ideals in 19 passes[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]Thu Feb 17 15:29:47 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 168[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT=Arial Narrow]...[/FONT][/SIZE]
so maybe with Ben[SUP]2[/SUP]'s after-weekend ~20-26M relations we'll converge, so let's target next mid-week for gathering the stones?

__________
[SIZE=1][COLOR=navy]Ecc 3:5: A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Batalov;252904]The last two test filterings are getting close to the 'cusp of convergence':

[FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1]Thu Feb 17 00:00:08 2011 begin with 97388326 relations and 112987209 unique ideals
Thu Feb 17 00:06:53 2011 reduce to 34234805 relations and 38590875 ideals in 30 passes
Thu Feb 17 00:06:53 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 101
...[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=1]Thu Feb 17 15:19:13 2011 start with 105704669 relations and 116950376 ideals
Thu Feb 17 15:21:06 2011 pass 1: found 41677055 singletons
Thu Feb 17 15:22:25 2011 pruned dataset has 64027614 relations and 66597695 large ideals
Thu Feb 17 15:22:25 2011 reading all ideals from disk
Thu Feb 17 15:22:58 2011 memory use: 2492.2 MB
Thu Feb 17 15:23:24 2011 keeping 66365826 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 347864
Thu Feb 17 15:23:49 2011 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Thu Feb 17 15:24:13 2011 begin with 64027614 relations and 66365826 unique ideals
Thu Feb 17 15:29:47 2011 reduce to 46064462 relations and 47326729 ideals in 19 passes
Thu Feb 17 15:29:47 2011 max relations containing the same ideal: 168
...[/SIZE][/FONT]
so maybe with Ben[SUP]2[/SUP]'s after-weekend ~20-26M relations we'll converge, so let's target next mid-week for gathering the stones?

__________
[SIZE=1][COLOR=navy]Ecc 3:5: A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

I'll send another ~10M early next week (via snail mail)