I just double-checked that there's an external path (goes to my 64-bit ecm), and I tried 11e6 for my B1, so it shouldn't be that either. There's no error message at all--it just increments in intervals of 1 instead of 8.

[QUOTE=wombatman;356598]I just double-checked that there's an external path (goes to my 64-bit ecm), and I tried 11e6 for my B1, so it shouldn't be that either. There's no error message at all--it just increments in intervals of 1 instead of 8.[/QUOTE]

If there's no error message then maybe it's not reading the path at all. apologies for checking this dumb stuff, but the yafu.ini file is in the same directory as the .exe, right? and it's really named yafu.ini and not yafu.txt.ini or something, right?

If there's a path to the ecm.exe and yafu sees it, I don't know why it wouldn't run multi-threaded.

Yeah, it's good to check all the small things. I've no doubt at all I'm forgetting something. I checked and made sure there's a yafu.ini (and that's it is actually .ini). I also double-checked the path to the ecm.exe file. Is it possible that with larger numbers requiring more memory for each stage that that could cause it? I ask because the multi-threading seems to work fine when it's on a C98, for instance.

Maybe I can test that tomorrow with different numbers of threads and different sizes of composites.

Edit: Just check, and it's definitely running multi-threaded (B1=250k) with a C98.

Just a couple more thoughts:

Have you tried ecm.py to see if it will multithread that number?

Have you tried less threads?

Is there a way to pass maxmem to ecm.exe (maybe adding it to the entry in yafu.ini)?

Maybe play with -ext_ecm <num>

Just tried ecm.py, and it does in fact produce 8 threads for a C202, meaning that I can see 8 ecm.exe processes start up in Task Manager. I did finally get it working--I think I had the path slightly off or something. Regardless, thanks to both of you for the help!

In which universe is the following true? :confused: :smile:

[CODE]
11484 11097774810851 1274028410403001159524711
11484 7108471253783 1274028410468200648240180
hashtable: 4096 entries, 0.06 MB
elapsed time of [COLOR=red]6364.6750 seconds exceeds 6776 second[/COLOR] deadline; poly select done
nfs: commencing algebraic side lattice sieving over range: 3530000 - 3540000
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Antonio;358113]In which universe is the following true? :confused: :smile:

[CODE]
11484 11097774810851 1274028410403001159524711
11484 7108471253783 1274028410468200648240180
hashtable: 4096 entries, 0.06 MB
elapsed time of [COLOR=red]6364.6750 seconds exceeds 6776 second[/COLOR] deadline; poly select done
nfs: commencing algebraic side lattice sieving over range: 3530000 - 3540000
[/CODE][/QUOTE]
Just a thought: wall time value vs. CPU time value?

[QUOTE=EdH;358127]Just a thought: wall time value vs. CPU time value?[/QUOTE]

So, what you are saying is, the software performs the following:-

IF [COLOR=red]a[/COLOR]>b then print [COLOR=red]c[/COLOR] "exceeds" b

So it is still nonsense, unless [COLOR=red]a is identical to c[/COLOR] which is obviously not the case here!

It must be using some measure of elapsed time that exceeds the designated deadline, it's just not printing the measured value.

I was merely suggesting that perhaps that is why, not that it is correct...

[QUOTE=EdH;358165]I was merely suggesting that perhaps that is why, not that it is correct...[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come back quite so strongly.
Your suggestion was exactly how I had dismissed previous examples.
Obviously my spell checker also needs a [STRIKE]mood[/STRIKE]tone checker...:smile:

[QUOTE=Antonio;358177]Sorry, I didn't mean to come back quite so strongly.
Your suggestion was exactly how I had dismissed previous examples.
Obviously my spell checker also needs a [STRIKE]mood[/STRIKE]tone checker...:smile:[/QUOTE]
No problem - I have "high" shoulders...([STRIKE]pile it on[/STRIKE]:smile:) That's not sounding right, either! Anyway, all is well...