[QUOTE=unconnected;430944]I presume it was a memory issue. I've successfully built the 18M matrix with TD=90. Will try another run with TD=120.

[CODE]Thu Apr 7 13:17:07 2016 commencing full merge
Thu Apr 7 13:36:10 2016 memory use: 4392.1 MB
Thu Apr 7 13:36:16 2016 found 18141937 cycles, need 18009791[/CODE]Msieve v. 1.52[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I've used this particular machine many times, and have since built another matrix for 11_236_plus_10_236 with no issue. But I can't argue with your success.

Unconnected, do you mind finishing the postprocessing for GC_12_230? I won't have another capable machine to finish LA on this number until late April.

Thanks for the feedback - was driving me crazy!

9_257_minus_8_257 factored
 

[code]
p53 factor: 98544716677960792886845691738273274044954894124023191
p169 factor: 9122179221937835100625349289770495411060046756177380621920473458259234731142871007361008418444311107179769742069235457962316099742837170275543758107033388297121465847231
[/code]

Reserving 9_257_plus_8_257.

Reserving 11_236_plus_8_236.

C171_142_35 ends in
[code]p83 factor: 11326649840165016249310962716474362205781332104613943225248810702951488902269723587
p89 factor: 11739546567559064250651915743676557891409444337785903694287862243837037617568535730366483[/code]

Reserving C206_117_106.

Noob question.. What does Cxxx_yyy_zzz mean?:confused:

[QUOTE=ramshanker;431112]Noob question.. What does Cxxx_yyy_zzz mean?:confused:[/QUOTE]See [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=19355[/url]

Does the C219 from 145^66+66^145 sieved on 15e have enough relations? I can't start that job for a couple more weeks but it appears to fall short of the usual 410-450M relations seen with a 32-bit job. Just asking. If the count is as intended I will be happy to work it until a matrix builds.

ramshanker, Andrey: most Cxxx_yyy_zzz numbers sieved by NFS@Home's 14e are indeed x^y+y^x numbers, but I also use the same naming convention for Aliquot composites, with the middle part being the sequence starting point and the last part being the index :smile:

Sean: yeah, I too noticed that it seemed to fall short of the usual number of relations for a 32-bit LPs task. However, 15e and 32-bit LPs are outside of my area of expertise, so I left that number alone.

C188_140_116 has a factor:
[code]p88 factor: 3578168986836321681420484494600207278026326846424690175266612786758797018615761223837089
[/code]