I use 0.21 for SNFS and 0.31 for GNFS. I also rounded down, as 230*0.21 is 48.3.
One of RDS' tirades was wasted effort on too much ECM, including a challenge to consider the expected number of factors one would find during the second half of the 2/9ths ECM run compared to the time spent on that second half.

Running a t51 vs a t48 should find roughly 3/50 factors, or a factor 6% of the time. If I followed his suggestion correctly, if the time to run from t48 to t51 is more than 6% of the SNFS time one should just jump to SNFS and skip the t48 to t51 curves.

I used to run ECM for 20-25% of the time I expected SNFS to take; now I run for ~15% of the time. I imagine it's not a whole lot more efficient overall, but I enjoy trying to eke out percentage-points of efficiency.

I agree that running a lot of extra ECM seems to be the norm, myself included. Many seem to fear the dreaded "ECM miss". Fivemack discusses his [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=416442&postcount=2370]philosophy on the issue here[/url].

[quote=Fivemack]
I have my own rule of thumb for estimating.

A 175-digit number will take about 20,000 thread-hours to sieve.

Once you've done a t55, the probability of finding anything by doing a t60 is about (60-55)/55, so one in eleven or so.

So it's not worth doing more than 2,000 thread-hours of ECM.

The 17700@11e7 is already about 2,000 thread-hours of ECM (one curve at that level takes about ten minutes).

So I would say you've done enough ECM, and start polynomial selection now.[/quote]

I'm a hobbyist, so my opinion is unimportant but I like this approach. If one estimates sieving of a number will take say 16 weeks, why spend 9 weeks performing ECM to t55 with only a small chance of finding a factor? At an assumed chance of getting a hit of 10%, one should stop ECM after 1.6 weeks. In other words, read RDS' paper.:razz:

11119^61-1
 

Nice split

[code]
prp114 factor: 347465404642111419190929084225284009368912210169089255954683658838468291976138075959889956129218858290508491165827
prp130 factor: 1671365001528609652619239678423862909748470021652718667395482160027770270390209697006988658244653691454863777261043290054058325963
[/code]


128^95+95^128 should finish on Feb 7.

C175_127_66
 

[CODE]p75 factor: 276732322901760807490821515624819447404789382450767782997296862812222450299
p101 factor: 35226442252520220836091533003767704920725300996778426791647330489565330439241141377295887822892752357[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;424183]We wonder how far "iceweasel" will "grow" over time?

There is only one way to find out!

[CODE]top - 15:25:14 up 16 days, 17:59, 6 users, load average: 1.68, 1.41, 1.29
Tasks: 171 total, 2 running, 169 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu0 : 1.4 us, 0.2 sy, 79.8 ni, 18.5 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu1 : 1.2 us, 0.3 sy, 79.4 ni, 19.0 id, 0.0 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu2 : 5.6 us, 1.1 sy, 7.2 ni, 85.8 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu3 : 5.1 us, 1.0 sy, 11.5 ni, 82.2 id, 0.1 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
MiB Mem: 16010.64+total, 12386.28+used, 3624.359 free, 54.762 buffers
MiB Swap: 0.000 total, 0.000 used, 0.000 free. 7141.863 cached Mem

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ nTH P COMMAND
15228 m 39 19 2755.7m 2.679g 1.9m R 100.0 17.1 5308:46 1 2 ./msieve -v -nc target_density=112 -t 1
5235 m 20 0 6698.2m 1.690g 53.2m S 6.4 10.8 2344:49 480 1 iceweasel[/CODE]:max:[/QUOTE]Today "iceweasel" refused to create new tabs, so we had to kill it.

[CODE]top - 10:24:21 up 21 days, 13:03, 6 users, load average: 2.71, 2.31, 2.17
Tasks: 173 total, 2 running, 171 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
%Cpu0 : 2.1 us, 0.3 sy, 65.3 ni, 32.2 id, 0.1 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu1 : 1.6 us, 0.3 sy, 65.8 ni, 32.3 id, 0.1 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu2 : 5.3 us, 1.0 sy, 9.7 ni, 83.8 id, 0.2 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
%Cpu3 : 4.4 us, 0.9 sy, 25.2 ni, 69.5 id, 0.1 wa, 0.0 hi, 0.0 si, 0.0 st
MiB Mem: 16010.64+total, 15802.32+used, 208.324 free, 117.777 buffers
MiB Swap: 0.000 total, 0.000 used, 0.000 free. 9995.824 cached Mem

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ nTH P COMMAND
5235 m 20 0 7920.1m 1.932g 59.9m S 24.7 12.4 3107:08 607 2 iceweasel
28675 m 39 19 2820.7m 2.672g 2.0m R 172.8 17.1 2917:11 2 0 ./msieve -v -nc target_density=124 -t 2[/CODE]:mike:

[QUOTE=swellman;423989]Reserving C178_149_35.[/QUOTE]

[code]
prp81 factor: 145741348464954811277944598989536993974825906039681318872935013904739051062333203
prp98 factor: 17470146436308210690850836799475529833777583094451053278828373089719561867487272819402774127013327
[/code]

C183_125_69
 

[CODE]p87 factor: 163973299401013821937972360705685684560159584251985578961493966656541070584091698955807
p97 factor: 4331338347805912174992013703582393901274763393517556040001510362053544628969416669400405928078457[/CODE]

We have run into a problem with 12269_61_minus1.

No matter what target density we ask it to work with it fails with the same error. It even fails with no target density assignment.

[CODE]Mon Feb 1 22:12:51 2016 Msieve v. 1.53 (SVN 991)
Mon Feb 1 22:12:51 2016 random seeds: 3df29c83 8a0e2986
Mon Feb 1 22:12:51 2016 factoring 213100950507038902323424992988338306706137172668512676217767551268467441188182705072231889035199625853826867350764930484042586708996940146726901352417099130307985502480978489510231192438490927623416476902553155595412922322827511674649043799356901 (246 digits)
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 no P-1/P+1/ECM available, skipping
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 commencing number field sieve (246-digit input)
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 R0: -77284368857697826790963712513825284497801
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 R1: 1
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A0: -1
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A1: 0
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A2: 0
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A3: 0
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A4: 0
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A5: 0
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 A6: 12269
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 skew 1.00, size 1.037e-12, alpha 2.123, combined = 1.145e-13 rroots = 2
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 commencing relation filtering
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 estimated available RAM is 16010.6 MB
Mon Feb 1 22:12:53 2016 commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
Mon Feb 1 22:26:28 2016 error -11 reading relation 59038814
Mon Feb 1 22:38:04 2016 error -15 reading relation 110815505
Mon Feb 1 22:47:22 2016 skipped 1211 relations with b > 2^32
Mon Feb 1 22:47:22 2016 skipped 1 relations with composite factors
Mon Feb 1 22:47:22 2016 found 9320901 hash collisions in 147973299 relations
Mon Feb 1 22:47:48 2016 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Mon Feb 1 22:49:21 2016 found 0 duplicates and 147973299 unique relations
Mon Feb 1 22:49:21 2016 memory use: 394.4 MB
Mon Feb 1 22:49:21 2016 reading ideals above 100728832
Mon Feb 1 22:49:21 2016 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Feb 1 23:15:35 2016 memory use: 3012.0 MB
Mon Feb 1 23:15:36 2016 reading all ideals from disk
Mon Feb 1 23:15:41 2016 memory use: 3079.3 MB
Mon Feb 1 23:15:57 2016 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Feb 1 23:16:13 2016 begin with 147973299 relations and 152497506 unique ideals
Mon Feb 1 23:19:06 2016 reduce to 64353012 relations and 56043611 ideals in 21 passes
Mon Feb 1 23:19:06 2016 max relations containing the same ideal: 26
Mon Feb 1 23:19:15 2016 reading ideals above 720000
Mon Feb 1 23:19:16 2016 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Feb 1 23:33:37 2016 memory use: 1506.0 MB
Mon Feb 1 23:33:37 2016 reading all ideals from disk
Mon Feb 1 23:33:41 2016 memory use: 2590.8 MB
Mon Feb 1 23:33:56 2016 keeping 67306010 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 335210
Mon Feb 1 23:34:09 2016 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Feb 1 23:34:22 2016 begin with 64353012 relations and 67306010 unique ideals
Mon Feb 1 23:36:49 2016 reduce to 64347395 relations and 67300393 ideals in 13 passes
Mon Feb 1 23:36:49 2016 max relations containing the same ideal: 200
[B]Mon Feb 1 23:37:00 2016 filtering wants 1000000 more relations[/B]
Mon Feb 1 23:37:00 2016 elapsed time 01:24:09[/CODE]:help:

Mike, too soon to download data from server, more relations are needed.

That's fine, it just needs a bit more sieving. I have given it 40MQ more and put it back into the queue.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;424798]Today "iceweasel" refused to create new tabs, so we had to kill it.
:mike:[/QUOTE]
Browsers are resource hogs, Firefox sometimes uses more than 1GB on my machine. After a restart it usually goes down significantly.