14e job (GNFS)
 

C164_142_95 is ready for GNFS. Many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial.
[code]
n: 32890934938060467185470450398926412490830129646594398346495293383017930475501026742709484611654214989519366361761311053871763612843981840938794074662453187038378603
skew: 3661680.86
c0: -166556080295683410817374978857628274848
c1: 171385010700195577244425051033362
c2: 314976816131198926495787162
c3: 2263384440748507447
c4: -24200003644230
c5: 976140
Y0: -32026746486505785756256021923115
Y1: 3569661231148829
# norm 7.311075e-016 alpha -6.722439 e 8.426e-013 rroots 5
rlim: 120000000
alim: 120000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10k
[code]
Q=20M 29399
Q=60M 28761
Q=100M 27020
Q=140M 25386
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-110M

[QUOTE=wombatman;458450]The C207 has been fully ECM'd and (thanks to the users of this forum) has been extensively searched for an appropriate polynomial.
[/QUOTE]

Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p77 factor: 11608509273921563109439110259639414471356114110142975750976087040901350928229
Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p131 factor: 15826744797120361763521929615046796483162069831324813689483008801977696882321039305213712077547518040994592711420810039672478365003

[QUOTE=frmky;464860]Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p77 factor: 11608509273921563109439110259639414471356114110142975750976087040901350928229
Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p131 factor: 15826744797120361763521929615046796483162069831324813689483008801977696882321039305213712077547518040994592711420810039672478365003[/QUOTE]

Thanks again for running this number.

Now that I've seen firsthand what a monster the matrix is for GNFS-195 level, I'm even more grateful Greg ran this for us!

A C186 from the t550 file.
[CODE]n: 144268731931503810822450632838596288499605841877229332093679947911418336317330701200146117157855605920178793744186119321490765881776162797619751437592959430355786179955858471642334407153
# 63877469^29-1, difficulty: 234.16, skewness: 19.99, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 2.41916e+18, est. time: 1151.98 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 19.994
c6: 1
c0: -63877469
Y1: -1
Y0: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349
m: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349
type: snfs
rlim: 132000000
alim: 132000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
type: snfs[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10423
60M 7755
100M 6971
150M 5675
200M 5543[/CODE]

C163_147_83 (GNFS)
 

C163_147_83 is ready for GNFS. Thanks to wombatman for nailing the poly.

[code]
n: 6454273849166708118046701901574392361706520624684969973212143218220952481744668788864244347868227573742363743418340002935811680620892852804801238389092258088912067
# norm 7.790882e-016 alpha -6.994543 e 8.654e-013 rroots 5
skew: 1362798.39
c0: -62057357458060537836573440811415776288
c1: 145992050674316985734150671718757
c2: 164497155567398800607282616
c3: -292217561612679096802
c4: -132455034514438
c5: 29026260
Y0: -11733059187170585350839114142699
Y1: 1401760836584467
rlim: 60000000
alim: 60000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 10k
[code]
Q=20M 13179
Q=50M 13449
Q=100M 12240
Q=130M 11834[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-115M.

I am on vacation by the Baltic Sea until 22nd August, so someone else will have to take on the queue-stuffing duties. Though the queues don't look likely to drain that quickly.

Another for 14e
 

C222_146_62 is ready for NFS, having completed a full t55 from yoyo@home, plus a bit more @B1=3e8.

[code]
n: 966388137590772139485083165067803454256006438022474201146395997825155455256798780072921353545083044067468242672697091002242686144457578658732478368702292194784550010473334632534035306902598593756916310410524927387852091229
# 146^62+62^146, difficulty: 246.01, anorm: 4.53e+039, rnorm: 8.81e+045
# scaled difficulty: 247.06, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.779e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.886e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 246
skew: 1.3304
c6: 961
c0: 5329
Y1: -4297625829703557649
Y0: 10164841037259205643277114598574606270464
rlim: 120000000
alim: 120000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k
[code]
Q=20M 7599 rels
Q=60M 5881 rels
Q=120M 5074 rels
Q=200M 4222 rels[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M

GNFS (14e)
 

C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.

[code]
n: 16432623607473574219758563585400708524378818125206904056185988551457839250312821323878324356918801650702586763199236947949550568517635374514910417505008392250111636215513873
# norm 8.440626e-017 alpha -7.132528 e 2.296e-013 rroots 3
skew: 5870867.97
c0: 25419121017344360577864617013788268281760
c1: 28857530855456147761173668461688476
c2: 631397788691506677770489927
c3: -2664694777806407733134
c4: 223010337756792
c5: 14302440
Y0: -1028156805787591556952709321595503
Y1: 7449870672504553
rlim: 120000000
alim: 120000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

Test sieving on the -a side, with Q in blocks of 10k
[code]
Q=20M 11058
Q=60M 10562
Q=100M 10791
Q=150M 10918
Q=200M 9900
Q=250M 8316
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M

[QUOTE=swellman;465498]C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M[/QUOTE]
How did you get 50% longer sieve time with 14e/32?
I did a quick test-sieve at Q=60M:
14e/31 yield 1.03 sec/rel 0.2276
14e/32 yield 1.93 sec/rel 0.1139
14e/33 yield 3.37 sec/rel 0.0606
15e/32 yield 4.29 sec/rel 0.1163
(15e included to show the 14e queue isn't foolish for this job)

Using your test-sieve data, looks like you plan to get 260-270M relations from Q=20M-280M. A 32LP job will take no more than 70% add'l relations; I would target 420M myself, but even using 440M as target I think Q=20-250M will work with 32LP, with about 15% less sieving time (assuming the sec/rel ratio of 31LP to 32LP remains nearly constant throughout Q range).
For 14e/33, I would target 640M rels, which ought to require Q=20-210M. I don't have much experience with 33LP yet, so 640M may not be very accurate (I intend to find out this Fall!).
All of my target relations numbers are intended to build a matrix with TD = 120 to 130.
Also, I suggest changing alim and rlim to 134M; I don't know if it's worth staying under 2^27, but I do know yield drops off pretty badly near double alim, and changing alim from 120M to 134M means the sieving should use only Q's below alim x 2 without adding much to sec/rel. I was too lazy to test-sieve alim = 134M vs alim = 230M (chosen to roughly match expected maximum Q used).

tl;dr version: Let's go with 14e/32, Q = 20-250M, and alim = rlim = 134M. If so, I'll do the LA.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;465511]How did you get 50% longer sieve time with 14e/32?[/QUOTE]

Simple answer - I used alim=240M when I jumped to 32 LP. Speed was slower and total ETA went up over 50%, which did seem odd. Usually when one jumps from 31 to 32 LP, the speed about doubles, as does the required number of relations, yielding a total estimated time on par with the lower LP. Didn't seem to happen in this case. Your analysis seems sound, with only alim being different between us if I'm reading you correctly. Submitting this as a 14/32 job is fine with me, though we probably need to increase alim to 240M (or perhaps 268M).