C173_139_59
[code]34479138122685128727918503603464263580050510974306334975729059375543710498426986220146818798036297021014916935193033172364267380987223293686993196656448672279611520337389721[/code]

Thanks in advance :)

I'll run C173_139_59 through CADO's full polyselect phase. ETA ~2 days.

Is there a good way to sort the optimized roots output by msieve to the .p file? My current run looks to have a couple of good polynomials, but I'm hoping I won't have to go digging through the .p file to find polys that aren't the "best" by e-score.

[QUOTE=wombatman;434095]Is there a good way to sort the optimized roots output by msieve to the .p file?[/QUOTE]

On Linux: [code] grep alpha msieve.dat.p | sort -g -k 7 | tail
[/code] will get the best 10 scores (or tail -20 for the best 20 etc). Then [code] grep -A 9 8.349e-09 msieve.dat.p
[/code] for each score (8.349e-09 above) will get the poly for that score (replace -A 9 with -A 10 if you are creating sextics).

Chris

Thanks very much!

GW_4_424
 

For the C165:

Best:
[CODE]expecting poly E from 7.15e-013 to > 8.23e-013
R0: -18501216759147940907566438431336
R1: 310889683329527
A0: -244538593936315670244006535150142290375
A1: -104961390854368280791726556309896
A2: 249303157764270728264644015
A3: -234959794554141918452
A4: 33303098790468
A5: 48725040
skew 1834679.80, size 6.584e-016, alpha -8.423, [B]combined = 8.956e-013[/B] rroots = 3[/CODE]

4 others that also fell in the expected E range:
[CODE]# norm 6.387581e-016 alpha -7.945035 e 7.787e-013 rroots 3
skew: 19694169.03
c0: -94150349733298768589216580366479523599864
c1: 6932485644850450503947410493206181
c2: 620411484096805424417627253
c3: -171277681769170053341
c4: 160397020136
c5: 188700
Y0: -56181890915510328202545396702213
Y1: 1437139919714719

# norm 6.095134e-016 alpha -6.833837 e 7.503e-013 rroots 5
skew: 8965292.60
c0: 304072707986022432422564443598606812251
c1: 1755431229943558060522571273475981
c2: -122990835297584071621920747
c3: -166304690853238806181
c4: 1540044047636
c5: 188700
Y0: -56181890913408848797843753123678
Y1: 1437139919714719

# norm 5.678878e-016 alpha -7.719373 e 7.183e-013 rroots 5
skew: 2344641.41
c0: 232141936819381380873307868100123002299
c1: 1549369138542319412996710966340618
c2: -503401322792822515009686837
c3: -969604934067811874312
c4: 101801290691084
c5: 41081040
Y0: -19143548648846981506165015026546
Y1: 943859578994221

# norm 5.643528e-016 alpha -7.001131 e 7.167e-013 rroots 5
skew: 15383886.76
c0: 29265308953953929596949889774837373022016
c1: 13579754341672337664716174805076986
c2: 45487258929410961727758198
c3: -168160227689950826461
c4: 1223268640136
c5: 188700
Y0: -56181890913891361340188371454333
Y1: 1437139919714719[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;434071]I'll run C173_139_59 through CADO's full polyselect phase. ETA ~2 days.[/QUOTE]

Is it worth also running this number through gpu msieve and comparing results? No doubt CADO will produce a very usable poly, just wondering where the msieve vs CADO line is in terms of poly efficiency, i.e. at what GNFS level is CADO "better" than msieve?

Yes, it's worth doing with msieve also. I haven't seen CADO produce a degree-5 poly better than msieve yet, given similar computrons of effort for each. CADO's are comparable, but often score 5-10% lower; say, similar to a 3rd-best msieve poly from a typical run.

Can someone with gpu msieve run a poly search for C173_139_59? I do not currently have the capability or I would help. Thank you in advance.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;434194]Yes, it's worth doing with msieve also. I haven't seen CADO produce a degree-5 poly better than msieve yet, given similar computrons of effort for each. CADO's are comparable, but often score 5-10% lower; say, similar to a 3rd-best msieve poly from a typical run.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but you're comparing GPU-msieve to CPU-cado. At least on the most recent one I did with wombatman, cado was competitive and possibly marginally better than msieve, and I'm only using a HT SandyBridge quad core (I have no idea what GPU wombatman is using, though I do assume it's a GPU).

I'm using a GTX 980Ti. I think VBCurtis is arguing that msieve's polynomials test-sieve at a better rate than CADO's do, even if CADO's murphy score is higher or similar.