[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485467]Taking [B]QUEUED AS C220_126xx371_13 [/B]
C220 from the OPN t600 file.
a.k.a. Phi_13(Phi_3(Phi_17(127)/527532101/115512048133057)/3/151)/3819325511[/QUOTE]

Done.

[url]https://pastebin.com/Bx2kZ7rq[/url]

[CODE]
Tue Apr 17 20:26:02 2018 p69 factor: 668174326378485000548803364519687427214115756672292917239687401398111
Tue Apr 17 20:26:02 2018 p151 factor: 6697950734620800596417379887058873992483554122240914688707279916049273205238530958987954514371206832801385385296764901807757083909102534289473125330913
[/CODE]

Can I request an opinion with regards to C184_91605427_29. Are the relations enough to run at TD=120 (31 bits job with 223Mq relations ) or do I have to trial several TD’s. I would like to reserve this composite.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485570]Can I request an opinion with regards to C184_91605427_29. Are the relations enough to run at TD=120 (31 bits job with 223Mq relations ) or do I have to trial several TD’s. I would like to reserve this composite.[/QUOTE]

It should run, if not at TD=120 then just a bit lower. Try it @TD=120, if it fails then drop TD by 2 and try again - repeat until a matrix builds. A 14/31 job will move quickly, so even if you have to iterate, it won’t take too long. Remdups is definitely recommended!

Lately VBCurtis has explored the issue of minimum required number of relations for a given job, he likely has keener insights.

[QUOTE=swellman;485599]Lately VBCurtis has explored the issue of minimum required number of relations for a given job, he likely has keener insights.[/QUOTE]

I have, but in the context of pointing out that just about every nfs@home job should be run 1LP larger, because only 60-65% additional relations are needed for the larger LP size. I haven't run a 31LP task larger than GNFS160 in a year or so.

To Carlos' question, I think we've learned from all these reps that matrix-building is not tightly predictable in the way he asked about. For jobs from the 14e queue, I usually try TD 130 first, then 124, then 120.

For example, 13*2^847-1 had 642M relations and built a matrix at TD 124, while 13*2^850-1 had 630M relations and failed to build a matrix at TD 112. I added 5M relations sieved locally to build a TD 108 matrix. This illustrates how much the results vary from job to job; the number of relations needed definitely scales with difficulty, but even these two jobs 1 digit apart in size have quite a difference in matrices.

C160_117xx351_3 done.

[CODE]
Wed Apr 18 13:50:05 2018 p77 factor: 12280163908117544085340029822292727289348358977245931888967144711875120828859
Wed Apr 18 13:50:05 2018 p84 factor: 175513178008506701704780810072708613188172533956602694073842299639656817077109893771
[/CODE]

[url]https://pastebin.com/PfF0ai18[/url]

For C184_91605427_29 what are the missing lines for the fb file?

[CODE]
N 7997085338078121978016624396860397836399506308737414796818923712658923013977062578840663872715006667776481505546502822535909762705845972859243606038648328426845384356522428671394177191
SKEW 21.232
A6 1
A0 -91605427
R1 -1
R0 6450687706606674009565167454064864055907
FRMAX 134000000
FAMAX 134000000
SRLPMAX 2147483648
SALPMAX 2147483648
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485635]For C184_91605427_29 what are the missing lines for the fb file?

[CODE]
N 7997085338078121978016624396860397836399506308737414796818923712658923013977062578840663872715006667776481505546502822535909762705845972859243606038648328426845384356522428671394177191
SKEW 21.232
A6 1
A0 -91605427
R1 -1
R0 6450687706606674009565167454064864055907
FRMAX 134000000
FAMAX 134000000
SRLPMAX 2147483648
SALPMAX 2147483648
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

Sorry,had a missing dll inside the folder.

As I was “expecting” it failed for td=110 so now running at 100.

Is there any information regarding SNFS vs bits v msieve td vs composite size vs unique relations?

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485649]
Is there any information regarding SNFS vs bits v msieve td vs composite size vs unique relations?[/QUOTE]

About 2000 posts' worth, right here in this thread, just waiting for someone to compile it in one big spreadsheet!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;485651]About 2000 posts' worth, right here in this thread, just waiting for someone to compile it in one big spreadsheet![/QUOTE]

That’s a lot of mining!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;485651]About 2000 posts' worth, right here in this thread, just waiting for someone to compile it in one big spreadsheet![/QUOTE]

I’ll start cracking on it. In the meantime I’m releasing the composite since it’s undersieve. With Td=100 it’s going to take at least 330 hours.

Taking C207_103xx849_11.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485658]Taking C207_103xx849_11.[/QUOTE]

Nice to see you on here again Carlos.

Taking C210_14073559_31 please

[QUOTE=Speedy51;485670]Nice to see you on here again Carlos.

Taking C210_14073559_31 please[/QUOTE]

Cheers Jarod but not for long.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485674]Cheers Jarod but not for long.[/QUOTE]
In that case enjoy yourself while you are here. Hopefully you will be back

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;485655]I’ll start cracking on it. In the meantime I’m releasing the composite since it’s undersieve. With Td=100 it’s going to take at least 330 hours.[/QUOTE]

The catch with this is that SNFS difficulty is not obvious, as it scales with the size of the coeffs in the poly, in a way I'm not aware of a clear formula for. If you really do tackle this, please include the largest SNFS poly coeff as one column in the data. Perhaps we can group them by coeff size (say, under 100/100-10k, 10k-1M, etc) to try to draw some conclusions.

For me, the bigger difficulty is that the polys are in one thread, while the matrix stats are in another. If you do tackle this, even for a subset of the data (say, GNFS on 15e), the data set should help us more tightly predict req'd relations.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;485679]The catch with this is that SNFS difficulty is not obvious, as it scales with the size of the coeffs in the poly, in a way I'm not aware of a clear formula for. If you really do tackle this, please include the largest SNFS poly coeff as one column in the data. Perhaps we can group them by coeff size (say, under 100/100-10k, 10k-1M, etc) to try to draw some conclusions.

For me, the bigger difficulty is that the polys are in one thread, while the matrix stats are in another. If you do tackle this, even for a subset of the data (say, GNFS on 15e), the data set should help us more tightly predict req'd relations.[/QUOTE]

I would suggest that the Murphy E-value reported by msieve is quite a good metric for the difficulty of an SNFS polynomial; and fortunately that shows up in all the msieve log files.

C207_103xx849_11 done.

[CODE]
Thu Apr 19 20:20:59 2018 p55 factor: 4385701910982243445748053671553196903045671888640475391
Thu Apr 19 20:20:59 2018 p69 factor: 241616641062841768092055658091560761410611519688085701304353922761899
Thu Apr 19 20:20:59 2018 p84 factor: 128597668999542368610789545460494496653346003032071849959844631548891311127900241741

[/CODE]

[url]https://pastebin.com/RL00yB8v[/url]

Taking C184_91605427_29.

134^73+73^134 C177 cofactor (corrected run) factored

[code]
prp76 factor: 2383458983078941039108335285610074143703958845222726611972037485537612641639
prp101 factor: 75600103640208057105914290035659904254989498252237849586813581131726051804470711641509238102720936589
[/code]

263.7M raw / 209.2M unique

Taking C214_249541_43

Taking C200_862xx811_5.

C192_2311333_37 factored
 

[CODE]p52: 8312616703060557982316942155690658976611707971350081
p140: 18506189554292540281156311270143964375901530327654953776182063245334427954178858277246880252805873271292428405715588430053780253326866681059[/CODE]
After this job completed I posted the factors to FDB. Then I ran an OS update which required a system reboot. To make a long story short, I ended up formatting the data partition because of a fatal directory error which lost all the logs.

I had a power outage/surge about a week or two ago. This box has been a little flakey and this, I believe, is the first time I rebooted the system since.

C214_249541_43 done
 

[code]
Tue Apr 24 10:33:04 2018 p105 factor: 549896975840275142196835640883485671240216233853861824021033522448817059376696132948766542198571182442007
Tue Apr 24 10:33:04 2018 p109 factor: 2813635979518436427946545872294646971599692321252817865770805192178648229017571540442723665620748644972123761
[/code]

11.8 hours on 2x4 MPI grid of E5-2650 CPUs for an 8.53M density-132 matrix.

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/Qxnc9TEa[/url]

C210_14073559_31 requires more relations please
 

[QUOTE=Speedy51;485670]

Taking C210_14073559_31 please[/QUOTE]

Can somebody please add 100,000 relations to this number? Pending relations were at 0 when I download TD was 110. I have included the log for those that are interested
[CODE]filtering wants 1000000 more relations[/CODE]

Adding this is the 1st time I have struck this scenario

Jarod, reduce td to 100 and try again.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;486347]Jarod, reduce td to 100 and try again.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Carlos. I tried that and they got the exact same outcome with the same run-time 29 and a bit minutes.

I will follow further suggestions tomorrow as it is getting close to my bed time.

I have added some extra sieving, wait for pending relations to drop to 0 again and redownload the file

Reserving C209_701xx141_5 from the 14e queue.

Taking C210_500xx567_5.
a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_19(17971)/141934268680411/6688305084541471/3926176001243013937)/3/7)/11/61/71/20681

[QUOTE=fivemack;486350]I have added some extra sieving, wait for pending relations to drop to 0 again and redownload the file[/QUOTE]

Thanks Greg much appreciated.

[QUOTE=Speedy51;486418]Thanks Greg much appreciated.[/QUOTE]
Greg != fivemack.
Greg = frmky.

frmky is the faculty member at CSU Fullerton who hosts nfs@home. He also controls the queue for 16e/16f sievers. He delegates queue management for the lesser queues to others, such as fivemack (aka T. Womack).

L1394 complete
 

[code]
Sat Apr 28 04:38:45 2018 p67 factor: 8606623084702423845876885977672631511832897901500134060667853269561
Sat Apr 28 04:38:45 2018 p119 factor: 12608929766321466410799228071983724664524113139686499797696273973187011124331512269242611413562436186943585803029352169
[/code]

174.4 hours for 19.62M matrix at density 158 (160 didn't work) on 10 cores (1 socket) Xeon Silver 4114. Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/7cqyFhYq[/url]

Taking C216_370xx131_5

C200_862xx811_5 factored
 

233M total relations - 183M unique relations built a 10.7M matrix using TD=104. (TD=108 failed)
Total solve time was 78 hours.
[CODE]p69 factor: 625969781280790486551607366421651776737456761897230822847984866445531
p131 factor: 28206679435095971882916636395002566017950253302393029550889218681741563068655910140161801495602313102833713020780432803280135674801[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/mNxVdfMn[/url]

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;486423]Greg != fivemack.
Greg = frmky.

frmky is the faculty member at CSU Fullerton who hosts nfs@home. He also controls the queue for 16e/16f sievers. He delegates queue management for the lesser queues to others, such as fivemack (aka T. Womack).[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the clarification I will use fourm names in future on here

[QUOTE=Dubslow;484840]C220_148xx049_19[/QUOTE]

Took rather longer than I had been supposing...


[code]matrix includes 64 packed rows
matrix is 16048910 x 16049135 (6212.5 MB) with weight 1582549957 (98.61/col)
sparse part has weight 1468070909 (91.47/col)
using block size 8192 and superblock size 589824 for processor cache size 6144 kB
commencing Lanczos iteration (4 threads)
memory use: 5305.6 MB
linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 296h 0m049135 dimensions (0.0%, ETA 296h 0m)
checkpointing every 60000 dimensions49135 dimensions (0.0%, ETA 298h46m)
linear algebra completed 14067234 of 16049135 dimensions (8
linear algebra completed 14067486 of 16049135 dimensions (87.7%, ETA 35hlinear algebra completed 14067736 of 16049135 dimensions (87.7%, ETA 35h16m)linear algebra completed 14067987 of 16049135 d

linear algebra completed 16048736 of 16049135 dimensions (100.0%, ETA 0h 0m)
lanczos halted after 253784 iterations (dim = 16048907)
recovered 32 nontrivial dependencies
BLanczosTime: 1031126

commencing square root phase
handling dependencies 1 to 64
reading relations for dependency 1
read 8023911 cycles
cycles contain 26489428 unique relations
read 26489428 relations
multiplying 26489428 relations
multiply complete, coefficients have about 1649.51 million bits
initial square root is modulo 25074457
GCD is N, no factor found
reading relations for dependency 2
read 8024566 cycles
cycles contain 26489466 unique relations
read 26489466 relations
multiplying 26489466 relations
multiply complete, coefficients have about 1649.51 million bits
initial square root is modulo 25075333
sqrtTime: 15373
p96 factor: 794452990085112563242771940096691581535020594480620618713774837649210044879601411269042247176761
p124 factor: 1584345237486085647507751229089642987382316610802055743220417542416792724841226024046851664356785128780171331017082042377891
elapsed time 292:12:08[/code]

[url]https://pastebin.com/HYc8xYGe[/url]

I'll follow that with C223_152407_43. Which, by the way, just glancing at the status page, has this number been sufficiently sieved?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;486635]
I'll follow that with C223_152407_43. Which, by the way, just glancing at the status page, has this number been sufficiently sieved?[/QUOTE]

Doesn't seem to have been: I've queued an extra 17MQ

I have added some more relations to F1369 because at the moment it makes a 50+M matrix at density 70 - I can handle such matrices, but my machines of appropriate size are all busy at the moment so there's time for more sieving.

Taking C199_303xx547_5

C240_127_111 complete
 

[code]
p76 factor: 2919311923316944258784631444279046731006150950030489137938830880117652089121
p165 factor: 123195658410708468925977582633250333917619782109824634540408463432611555571814840021470451169835098863927185215699306766467761756533993460029947503888394181753104493
[/code]

Density 112 (123 didn't work); 286.7 hours for 22.05M matrix on 7 cores E5-2650v2. Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/619c8W2k[/url]

Taking C166_527xx019_5.

C210_500xx567_5 factored
 

a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_19(17971)/141934268680411/6688305084541471/3926176001243013937)/3/7)/11/61/71/20681
243 total relations - 192 unique relations built a 9.5M matrix using TD=108. (TD=112 failed)
Total solve time was 62 hours.
[CODE]p98 factor: 12837117435988105305352692480970872514588067417738268709928791841780650804503772190920826269922231
p113 factor: 49741007140624445803855264673930250246712417281218356899611032127466837537362048709147008862353911178319651899591[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/w1XWy2r0[/url]

C199_970xx011_13
 

Reserving C199_970xx_011_13 after having been away on holiday in Italy.

L2705B done
 

[code]
Tue May 1 15:47:29 2018 p65 factor: 15732208650512622414699689541454105191817853564282616907714971631
Tue May 1 15:47:29 2018 p71 factor: 36945871902006760180971685842144148838926771759167175730681909114765581
Tue May 1 15:47:29 2018 p91 factor: 2083907547204462221790492123690800124022843720551226412715569767697940027724322015359609091
[/code]

67.3 hours for 11.46M density-124 (not 126) matrix on 6 threads i7-5820K.

Result reported to Marin and factordb; log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/gCXXa0W1[/url]

Taking C209_114xx263_17

C199_303xx547_5 done
 

[code]
Thu May 3 07:21:55 2018 p81 factor: 101252992436768896780909948443652892926540439957419746467854720147431750066128741
Thu May 3 07:21:55 2018 p119 factor: 18788249862677343366048790622780594688512590322476327325319020823240703458244295831386366145474425231940166400657637981
[/code]

44.2 hours for 8.85M density-116 (not 118) matrix on 7 cores E5-2650v2

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/23CyBgG7[/url]

Taking C209_639xx223_5

13*2^850-1 is factored:
[code]prp57 factor: 320144528716288047455355878669817061915795882512695332963
prp143 factor: 19031395346777455419791830184171103849203294825894063437513802686955302896631340422524032657259572653854814967209283371701438215980075493199733[/code]
630M raw 33LP relations yielded ~516M unique, which were not enough to build a TD 100 matrix. I sieved a bit myself with 16f siever, and 519M unique relations gave me a 20.0M matrix at TD 108. Solving the matrix took roughly 9 days using 6 threads on an idle 5820k.

Log of the last failed filtering run and the successful run at [url]https://pastebin.com/86mmgkUV[/url]

C211_112xx307_13
 

Also reserving C211_112xx307_13

Slightly embarrassed face
 

M31_C23 is done

[code]
p22 factor: 2476363315760296607893
p33 factor: 525435349751786867693675066811697
p42 factor: 981837273061848593364978172320737104860391
p91 factor: 3440781771197002299203508060084665118254362958353613892296460316185452235397587206400281609
[/code]

This is a spectacular ECM miss, to the point that I probably forgot to run any ECM at all.

30.2 hours on 6 threads i7-5820K for the linear algebra

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/0PQKFjg8[/url]

To few cycles, matrix probably cannot build
 

[QUOTE=fivemack;486350]I have added some extra sieving, wait for pending relations to drop to 0 again and redownload the file[/QUOTE]

I I have re-download C210_14073559_31 compressed file is 5.8 gig I am now getting the following message [CODE]too few cycles, matrix probably cannot build
[/CODE]. I have tried TD of 120 and 100 I get the same outcome. Thank you for assistance

[QUOTE=Speedy51;486916]I I have re-download C210_14073559_31 compressed file is 5.8 gig I am now getting the following message [CODE]too few cycles, matrix probably cannot build
[/CODE]. I have tried TD of 120 and 100 I get the same outcome. Thank you for assistance[/QUOTE]

That's odd; it does look as if it needs even more relations. I've added more sieving.

Apologies but I’ll need to unreserve C216_370xx131_5.

[QUOTE=fivemack;486918]That's odd; it does look as if it needs even more relations. I've added more sieving.[/QUOTE]

It works for me with td=70, giving a 13.0M matrix; if you'd rather wait for the extra sieving and download again, that would also be fine.

[QUOTE=fivemack;486935]It works for me with td=70, giving a 13.0M matrix; if you'd rather wait for the extra sieving and download again, that would also be fine.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for adding more relations. I will wait for them to drop to 0 again. At a true density of 70 it's going to take around 87 hours. I am hoping if I re-download it will take a shorter amount of time. Out of interest when you tried it how long would it take to run on your machine? I am running on 8 cores

Taking:

C164_151_24
C180_151_22
C219_169xx649_11

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;486929]Apologies but I’ll need to unreserve C216_370xx131_5.[/QUOTE]

I’ll take C216_370xx131_5 if Carlos is dropping it.

C180_151_22 done.

[CODE]
Sun May 06 03:26:52 2018 p82 factor: 1718054934881054104245464431727702898341337686030137753459703206338366525610862239
Sun May 06 03:26:52 2018 p99 factor: 222643524398218984593013025570996519806070119679117885481524673182322427403674962042447224502025067
[/CODE]

[url]https://pastebin.com/m4p5ZxZT[/url]

[QUOTE=swellman;487049]I’ll take C216_370xx131_5 if Carlos is dropping it.[/QUOTE]

Please take it. Thank you.

At 403M relations, C209_701xx141_5 seems low for a 32-bit job. Can some additional sieving be run on it?

C219_169xx649_11 done

[CODE]
Sun May 06 13:39:54 2018 p93 factor: 152839375387188198610035639572602473193987989536380905352836909097782009166092514494506711431
Sun May 06 13:39:54 2018 p127 factor: 1684872778128837268802847232619231381107886152271817639217621178989938360656945651182194922111739533164434483057332165446132617
[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/d8BSiA1t[/url]

Taking C167_151_25.

C164_151_24 done.

[CODE]
Mon May 07 07:07:14 2018 p55 factor: 1560276261567878611339203847002099935766540048793401169
Mon May 07 07:07:14 2018 p110 factor: 17927296382225875781002449383709482054631258110525632282068613196344950692876194328068977114348644867710664761
[/CODE]

[url]https://pastebin.com/8FDrPWMH[/url]

3366.2180 done
 

[code]
Mon May 7 04:18:07 2018 p73 factor: 1349064329774390504574703782892944026913603669073012974841654502524680947
Mon May 7 04:18:07 2018 p123 factor: 200279783104039248853008565889412981094697655179284764631933869308435790684791748418317893392281743051976571954805502636683
[/code]

544.7 hours on 14 cores i9-7940X for a 37.08M density-138 matrix (140 didn't work)

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/a5fP3rUA[/url]

Msieve is crashing on C167_151_25 whilst on commencing full merge. Log attached but I don't know how to troubleshoot. Second time in a row this happens.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;487123]Msieve is crashing on C167_151_25 whilst on commencing full merge. Log attached but I don't know how to troubleshoot. Second time in a row this happens.[/QUOTE]

a) check that you have plenty of disc space
b) try doing the filtering on another computer - I had that kind of problem a lot on my machine with one broken bit in the memory.

[QUOTE=fivemack;487124]a) check that you have plenty of disc space
b) try doing the filtering on another computer - I had that kind of problem a lot on my machine with one broken bit in the memory.[/QUOTE]

a) have plenty of disc space on this machine

b) I don’t have another computer to try it again

c) I’ll try to reboot the machine and try it again whilst going to lidl for groceries

F1369 ETA 1 June

C149_M31_k54 has been factored therefore it can be removed from the queue.

[CODE]http://factordb.com/index.php?query=71616377109907864688008347908682359177816201466974857346197413741355050473949229228608329211063362973255861812104220291663736034427872242744908822221[/CODE]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;487125]a) have plenty of disc space on this machine

b) I don’t have another computer to try it again

c) I’ll try to reboot the machine and try it again whilst going to lidl for groceries[/QUOTE]

Msieve crashed again on C167_151_25 so trying once again with a new file. If it fails I'll try msieve on C202_15251867_29.

Who was the post-processer for C149_M31_k54 ?

[QUOTE=debrouxl;487130]Who was the post-processer for C149_M31_k54 ?[/QUOTE]

I don’t know Lionel. I was going to reserve it to troubleshoot my issue and before downloading any data I go to factordb to doublecheck if the integer is still a composite and to my surprise that one was factored.

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;487129]Msieve crashed again on C167_151_25 so trying once again with a new file. If it fails I'll try msieve on C202_15251867_29.[/QUOTE]

I’ve increased td from 120 to 122 and I’ve got too few cycles now running with td=110.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;487130]Who was the post-processer for C149_M31_k54 ?[/QUOTE]

I had nominated it for 14e but someone has since cracked on their own, presumably with GNFS. Coordination of [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=23255]a new project[/url] is still coalescing.

Welcome back!

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;487133]I’ve increased td from 120 to 122 and I’ve got too few cycles now running with td=110.[/QUOTE]

TD at 110 did the trick not sure why since there was no output from the msieve crash. LA underway.

C199_970xx_011_13 factored
 

[QUOTE=richs;486730]Reserving C199_970xx_011_13 after having been away on holiday in Italy.[/QUOTE]

[CODE]p70 factor: 3218060929553949541180818922915257722684676665008515204823805592100193
p129 factor: 682948707977456241367395341062758900668252961146598564906185010218255576788415915661860731870163478930421554152196356748861087517[/CODE]

Approximately 64.0 hours on 2 threads Core i3-2310M with 4 GB memory for a 6.37M matrix at TD = 70 (didn't bother to try any higher densities since my laptop takes a long time to read relations).
Log attached and log at [URL="https://pastebin.com/hFrf0cBk"]https://pastebin.com/hFrf0cBk[/URL]

Factors reported to factor database.

[QUOTE=swellman;487074]At 403M relations, C209_701xx141_5 seems low for a 32-bit job. Can some additional sieving be run on it?[/QUOTE]

Bump. Message was getting lost a few pages back.

Thank you.

[QUOTE=richs;486905]Also reserving C211_112xx307_13[/QUOTE]

Bump. Noting that I've started post-processing this number so no one else does it.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;486635]C223_152407_43[/QUOTE]

[code]building initial matrix
memory use: 2625.4 MB
read 6562950 cycles
matrix is 6562773 x 6562950 (2724.4 MB) with weight 778251180 (118.58/col)
sparse part has weight 648565416 (98.82/col)
filtering completed in 2 passes
matrix is 6562614 x 6562791 (2724.4 MB) with weight 778245728 (118.58/col)
sparse part has weight 648563415 (98.82/col)
matrix starts at (0, 0)
matrix is 6562614 x 6562791 (2724.4 MB) with weight 778245728 (118.58/col)
sparse part has weight 648563415 (98.82/col)
saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
matrix includes 64 packed rows
matrix is 6562566 x 6562791 (2612.3 MB) with weight 658616450 (100.36/col)
sparse part has weight 619167685 (94.35/col)
using block size 8192 and superblock size 589824 for processor cache size 6144 kB
commencing Lanczos iteration (4 threads)
memory use: 2193.4 MB
linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 38h19m562791 dimensions (0.0%, ETA 38h19m)
checkpointing every 170000 dimensions791 dimensions (0.0%, ETA 38h39m)
linear algebra completed 6562495 of 6562791 dimensions (100.0%, ETA 0h 0m)
lanczos halted after 103783 iterations (dim = 6562564)
recovered 32 nontrivial dependencies
BLanczosTime: 166494

commencing square root phase
handling dependencies 1 to 64
reading relations for dependency 1
read 3282008 cycles
cycles contain 10491456 unique relations
read 10491456 relations
multiplying 10491456 relations
multiply complete, coefficients have about 422.48 million bits
initial square root is modulo 38082487
GCD is 1, no factor found
reading relations for dependency 2
read 3281486 cycles
cycles contain 10484778 unique relations
read 10484778 relations
multiplying 10484778 relations
multiply complete, coefficients have about 422.22 million bits
initial square root is modulo 37666207
sqrtTime: 3344
p76 factor: 3908051282165011458583010207440299257016093229682469260817681280206370348649
p143 factor: 12423644129579305445181993227635584551903909559158498523467596780129436697084029813672631496263123275494249233770570335995026150036669191967393
elapsed time 47:49:02[/code]

[url]https://pastebin.com/NVmviz6v[/url]

C184_91605427_29 factored
 

223M total relations - 174 unique relations built an 18.6M matrix using TD=104. (TD=108 failed)
Solve time about 328 hours.
[CODE]p92 factor: 54483467463065630358551318091117239301170462674998254444305161654679311681906407265179278447
p93 factor: 146780036411951021634974321831431212016229531680026450525860286104307038602901026348020468553[/CODE][URL]https://pastebin.com/5TePUkKT[/URL]

Taking C170_169xx751_17.

C208_843xx513_5 looks unclaimed, I think. I'll take it.

C209_639xx223_5 done
 

[code]
Mon May 7 21:18:50 2018 p54 factor: 318509417378024715092877652423724689449309125115969211
Mon May 7 21:18:50 2018 p156 factor: 168629483463381397768365314965336366377950114639787242321651811021257003002876494028739949933912312898820709090850791394526136923482343219432147307215829071
[/code]

20.3 hours for 6.83M matrix at density 122 (not 124) on 7 cores E5-2650v2.

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/yR0UhMys[/url]

L2735B done
 

[code]
Mon May 7 05:11:23 2018 p56 factor: 12471539819580763776694293755708475097649033388822148141
Mon May 7 05:11:23 2018 p61 factor: 3053634866447033861102526839875925285122777156232979221670631
Mon May 7 05:11:23 2018 p72 factor: 202205460723665002350887649569385833223796795163409627863281871514537331
[/code]

About 76.5 hours for 12.99M density-114 (not 116) matrix on 7 cores E5-2650v2

Misleadingly-named log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/UfJhqbZy[/url]

Taking C175_772xx001_5

C167_151_25 done

[CODE]
Tue May 08 13:44:33 2018 p57 factor: 653923932938381937164160587514221541328813116363515938967
Tue May 08 13:44:33 2018 p110 factor: 26911402632846155349559955439359332026685308515012256144963755295340094122990417353792997956339948082671642983
[/CODE]

[url]https://pastebin.com/fBgYwhjb[/url]

Reserving C167_M31_k33 from 14e for postprocessing.

Taking C191_746xx861_5.

C166_527xx019_5 factored
 

239M total relations - 194M unique relations built a 9.7M matrix using TD=108. (TD=112 failed)
Solve time = 64 hours. (-t 4)
[CODE]p78 factor: 956026703967234010908682537445661713125433679416156695267457578531357247289041
p88 factor: 9445462308351523372868055940802659849566744561460675024203640018314889523244355873665671[/CODE]
[url]https://pastebin.com/fNSPLQXw[/url]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;487129]Msieve crashed again on C167_151_25 so trying once again with a new file. If it fails I'll try msieve on C202_15251867_29.[/QUOTE]

Hi Carlos, are you post-processing C202_15251867_29? If not, I will reserve it since the 30 bit jobs fit on my old laptop.

[QUOTE=richs;487243]Hi Carlos, are you post-processing C202_15251867_29? If not, I will reserve it since the 30 bit jobs fit on my old laptop.[/QUOTE]

Nope, you can have it. Thank you.

Taking C179_151_38.

C175_772xx001_5 done
 

[code]
Thu May 10 10:05:45 2018 p61 factor: 2316349540356462513681407612179354725750065745683139608714431
Thu May 10 10:05:45 2018 p114 factor: 709399581993775228213716486307869854721177021313983818796681206529054111896742685915002926450447348189275780813471
[/code]

23.7 hours on 7 threads E5-2650v2 for 7.24M density-118 (not 120) matrix.

Log attached and at [url]https://pastebin.com/EyqmqYSF[/url]

Taking C242_137_78

C237_131_86 factored
 

[code]
prp79 factor: 3576608379083932149785251281795164055762690040141082471146930648582159130251081
prp79 factor: 3957087972197623235187560586889441560144125279862137055086007440047116936156343
prp80 factor: 13718353280617550606439912367296448863293395722101207627467817511592926908574209
[/code]

470M raw / 358M unique

Wow! Darn near a trifecta. . .