Reserving C224_122_119 for postprocessing.

Reserving C192_1577431459_23 please.

C226_141_59 is done.

[CODE]p84 factor: 362717407573062759649737199143733658562292627766699815889194128031404204438544404439
p142 factor: 5584640606072561151802930019243122240833798331945858851893157042850138505313340336371766706494184014505008264594637551042137666886143607864541[/CODE]

Reserving 141^62+64^141 on 15e.

c226_143_57 results
 

Log at [url]https://pastebin.com/Dw1swigP[/url]
[code]prp96 factor: 897094747754482045770531544477700088352397640594837413588145052113208015535658806042142533635811
prp130 factor: 5402116304783573647710016304889406303241500724198159102155379461705248829675304254503761226405413342784878208865325882006231555611[/code]
400 hours on 6 threads of a busy i7-5820 to solve a 23.5M matrix that filtering marks as density 84, and LA notes sparse part has density 71. In hindsight, I should have reduced the relations available to filtering until I got a matrix the matched the target-density setting. "top" listed msieve as using 9GB for this matrix.
This was my first 14e/33 job, and 590M unique relations (of roughly 720M raw) were far too many. Future 14/33 jobs should target 650-680M raw relations.

Taking C169_2158316902961_17 next.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;470459]In hindsight, I should have reduced the relations available to filtering until I got a matrix the matched the target-density setting.[/quote]

I'm not quite sure why you suggest that, rather than increasing the target density (you were running with the default target density 70)

[QUOTE=fivemack;470462]I'm not quite sure why you suggest that, rather than increasing the target density (you were running with the default target density 70)[/QUOTE]

Two possible explanations:
1. After experimenting with a few filtering runs with varying relation counts (see [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=469386&postcount=1186[/url]), I accidentally forgot to set TD on the full set, saw the matrix was the same size I got from the first filtering run with TD set to 140, and let it run without realizing I hadn't set TD
2. I edit/cut the log to delete the filtering runs irrelevant to the actual job, and accidentally deleted the target-density line.

Based on the post linked above, I'm quite sure I had target_density set during my trials.

However, on my current LA job I tried what I suggested two posts up, and the ETA (after 1% of the job, about 4 hrs) for the smallest matrix I could build with density matching my target density (I used 134) was about 5% longer than the ETA of the matrix I got from the full relation set, even though that matrix is density 104 when much higher was requested.

More specifically, 360M unique 32LP relations built a 19.0M matrix with density 104, while 339M unique relations produced a 17.0M matrix with density 134. The former matrix has a shorter ETA, after letting both run about 4 hrs so the ETA estimate settled down.

Interesting tidbit: 340M unique rels and TD=134 built a 17.9M matrix at density 132, while 338M unique rels and TD = 132 built a 17.1M matrix.
Tidbit #2: 333M unique rels and TD = 140 failed, as did 337M rels and TD = 136.
On this dataset, TD over 134 was nearly impossible to build, and matrices were MUCH more sensitive to input # of rels than I expected. I'll be using TD = 132 as my default for a while, and also running similar experiments on future 14/32 jobs.

Reserving 3408:1671 from 15e.

C169_2158316902961_17 factored
 

84 hours to solve a 11.3M matrix using -t 4, TD=120. (TD=124 failed)

[CODE]p58 factor: 5021316583534880940885444734079370333361932652310779490947
p112 factor: 1214281023169276509053011690942441596344967221458926915648042712870516387083258213891473300070212158822642727987[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/68hDDQnp[/url]

[QUOTE=swellman;470382]Reserving 141^62+64^141 on 15e.[/QUOTE]

Someone pointed out to me the typo here - this should be listed as [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=469129&postcount=1180]
141^62+62^141[/url]. It’s listed as the above on the [url=https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching_e.php]15e status page[/url]. Don’t think it matters, just clarifying which number is being factored.