I assume a 31-bit job is the same for post-processing regardless which siever is used.

I'll take C208_124_107 (15e) next.

[QUOTE=RichD;467334]I assume a 31-bit job is the same for post-processing regardless which siever is used.

I'll take C208_124_107 (15e) next.[/QUOTE]

From the limited data I have, in the 165-to-175-digit GNFS range, a 15e job with the same number size, same large-primes size and same number of relations seems to be slightly *easier* than a 14e.

[QUOTE=RichD;467334]I assume a 31-bit job is the same for post-processing regardless which siever is used.[/QUOTE]

I think LA difficulty scales first with input difficulty (GNFS number size), second by amount under/oversieved, and third by large-prime size. 15e will produce fewer duplicate relations than 14e for the same job, so fewer raw relations are needed to build the matrix; alternately, the same number of raw relations in 15e will produce a smaller matrix because there are more unique relations.

I've done a bunch of comparing 31LP to 32LP on same-size inputs, and I have no reason to think the matrix produced by a 32LP job is more than 10% tougher than 31LP; these comparisons use roughly 70% more raw relations for 32LP, so perhaps I'm more oversieved when I do 32LP tests.

[QUOTE=RichD;467334]I assume a 31-bit job is the same for post-processing regardless which siever is used.

I'll take C208_124_107 (15e) next.[/QUOTE]

It is running now with ETA 145 hours which is normal on my Core-i5 2500K. (TD=136)

13_2_809m results:
[code]prp58 factor: 4082860107947641614003787242501076785144017239582809477061
prp71 factor: 17421459544425476591322790409496372492065432725092984389803340680830991
prp77 factor: 17430063671275549991173066967592970841657980645956180200734238456120063263019[/code]
99hr on 4 threads of a fully hyperloaded 6-core i7 to solve a 9.3M matrix with TD 128 (136 failed to build). 400M raw relations yielded 321M unique relations from 14e/32.
Log at [url]https://pastebin.com/5niMAL1m[/url]

C222_146_62 factored
 

101 hours to solve a 12.1M matrix using -t 4, w/ TD=124. (TD=128 failed)
[CODE]p68 factor: 87406053381623390785563382259713588491486015512966503910926391997841
p155 factor: 11056306745385549782756499458367558421181084613223800088930637221625226948872099154582757221014887883349636650858186644772159579973421078676974789011392269[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/mLUyBBDc[/url]

C163_147_83 Factored
 

[QUOTE=richs;466433]Reserving C163_147_83 please.[/QUOTE]

[CODE]p75 factor: 983673357267028174998389191008157895715008616380031952960478668237657726837
p88 factor: 6561399474210451336858658739131470382907601443773715082388392846346507015196901218632791[/CODE]

139.5 hours on 2 threads Core i3-2310M with 4 GB memory for a 6.3M matrix at TD = 130. Log attached and at [URL="https://pastebin.com/YWgM3z0i"]https://pastebin.com/YWgM3z0i[/URL] .

Factors added to Factordb.

C190_179743_47 Factored
 

[code]
prp93 factor: 663687931390608473919684605804461938395379677589196801413090255273660395245244500628188961929
prp97 factor: 3960360861427814113459630425365430902115567377048929392371004802744371480100360396590312733211167
[/code]

Log at [url]https://pastebin.com/hLW2fpD2[/url]

Taking C166_4590514719337_17.

F1847
 

Reserving F1847 for postprocessing though it will be early next week until I can start it.

HP2 4496 blocker
 

Reserving HP2(4496) step 313 cofactor when it completes.