[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472790]There's no doubt in my mind that you want 33LP over 32; I'm pretty confident 34LP would be faster, and I would test 35 if I were running this factorization myself. LP bounds above 33 require non-standard sievers, either 16f, or the special 16e compilation floating around the forum that has the 33-bit LP bound removed.

16e is limited by 96 for mfbr/a in any case, so 3 large primes is limited to 33/96 on any 16e siever. For the 2LP side, 34/67 and 34/68 would be interesting to test; maybe I'll try that on your composite tonight, as I have some free time.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good. I'll be interested to see how that goes.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C246_143_58 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 202234776336417710261405650689553937354003752024559559819720848415479775339953852271735016014830768330201249099498810443191526804931744370369043836242022676379833111285928285371688174040550889129206034422099044852193382687944629320767783463076199
# 143^58+58^143, difficulty: 257.46, anorm: 1.51e+036, rnorm: 1.81e+055
# scaled difficulty: 260.64, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.911e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.190e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 1.7185
c5: 195112
c0: 2924207
Y1: -511324276025564512546607
Y0: 23767517358231570773047645414309870043308402671616
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K.
[code]
30M 2908
80M 2678
150M 3017
250M 3066
350M 2801
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-350M with target # rels=460M.

[b]QUEUED AS C175_11040_10071[/b] C175 from 11040:10071 (thx for excellent poly was found by VBCurtis)
[CODE]n: 6484689970303129020517057103365894793216912303102493240993925500641398178923457820535718262847740804273820043327446358642419268046237801717129218758317768624690555974293740733
# norm 6.007105e-17 alpha -6.096724 e 1.935e-13 rroots 1
skew: 23869212.60
c0: 215515253399468621655935634084010628842875
c1: 18221026257270678573040535301222710
c2: 810840940444709291461562333
c3: -92370495278835169378
c4: -2376612213148
c5: 147408
Y0: -8485425654983521960650346075265192
Y1: 20565115814604599
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
type: gnfs
[/CODE]Suggesting sieving range 20M-140M with 15e siever.
I'll do LA for it.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472754]This!
<snip>
Hope this helps![/QUOTE]
:goodposting: :tu: It helped me too, to understand few things that were unclear for me.

Reposting the final parameters and timings for the C208 blocker:
[CODE]n: 8095101662371927421703337019465587498085337648622133688278589711654019359923503887978141510461468343349838217540569173400647791769725685803537804186347867144149599002247585690859122186539724272741806859085719
skew: 771127364.56
Y0: -17068243492239505219994785346910834818341
Y1: 1873940548553722757
c0: 165792391853474935561243616954647727516748946250496
c1: 2160239644350504494844955872920952825447896
c2: -21514458180493538566295548810659238
c3: -5887571126475837688637761
c4: 35919796435243602
c5: 5588280
type: gnfs

rlim: 800000000
alim: 800000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6

Final Q-block timings:

50M: total yield: 1888, q=50002009 (2.61830 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 3060, q=100002011 (2.20105 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 2736, q=200002007 (2.31068 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 3433, q=300002029 (2.45759 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 2929, q=400002011 (2.65905 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 2690, q=500002003 (2.87627 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 2548, q=600002003 (2.86426 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 2231, q=700002011 (3.56041 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 2877, q=800002003 (3.12972 sec/rel)[/CODE]

As noted previously, the C207 used ~950M relations. I estimated a q-range of about 635M being needed before, and I think that holds decently well. So recommending sieving the q=100M-800M range at the least, and one could search a bit lower and a bit higher as well, as 900M sieved decently before.

[QUOTE=wombatman;472800]Sounds good. I'll be interested to see how that goes.[/QUOTE]

Well, I tried 7 different parameter settings before realizing that sieving the rational side is the less-efficient side. I'm repeating some of the choices on the -a side now; I should have data tomorrow.
Data for the best 3 choices:
65/96 -r 2067 rels, 3.67 sec/rel (33LP)
67/96 -r 4025 rels, 1.87 sec/rel (34LP) #looks best of -r options
69/96 -r 4970 rels, 1.66 sec/rel (35/34)

Data on the -a sieving side for the C208:
69/96 -a: 7134 rels, 1.05 sec/rel (35/34)
67/96 -a: 5418 rels, 1.43 sec/rel (34LP)
65-96 -a: 2736 rels, 2.77 sec/rel (33LP)

going to 34LP on both sides, even though mfbr is capped at 96, doubles yield and nearly cuts sec/rel in half. Since only 70% more relations are needed, this would result in project length 1.70/1.94 (ratio of extra rels needed to sec/rel ratio), which is around 86%. So, going to 34LP would save 14% of total sieving time. I would aim for 1600-1700M raw relations.

If Frmky were interested in running as 34, a couple other Q values should be tested to make sure 34 is always faster.

Going to 35LP on the r side should require 30% more relations, 2100-2200M raw relations. Yield on this test is over 30% higher, and sec/rel is improved by more than 30% also. 35/34 happens to be what CADO would choose for a C210 (they have default settings for every 5 digits, 208 is closest to 210). I'm not convinced this is improved enough to bother trying 35, which is a stretch, but I'd do 34 on both sides for sure!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;473018]Data on the -a sieving side for the C208:
69/96 -a: 7134 rels, 1.05 sec/rel (35/34)
67/96 -a: 5418 rels, 1.43 sec/rel (34LP)
65-96 -a: 2736 rels, 2.77 sec/rel (33LP)

going to 34LP on both sides, even though mfbr is capped at 96, doubles yield and nearly cuts sec/rel in half. Since only 70% more relations are needed, this would result in project length 1.70/1.94 (ratio of extra rels needed to sec/rel ratio), which is around 86%. So, going to 34LP would save 14% of total sieving time. I would aim for 1600-1700M raw relations.

If Frmky were interested in running as 34, a couple other Q values should be tested to make sure 34 is always faster.

Going to 35LP on the r side should require 30% more relations, 2100-2200M raw relations. Yield on this test is over 30% higher, and sec/rel is improved by more than 30% also. 35/34 happens to be what CADO would choose for a C210 (they have default settings for every 5 digits, 208 is closest to 210). I'm not convinced this is improved enough to bother trying 35, which is a stretch, but I'd do 34 on both sides for sure![/QUOTE]

Wow! Definitely an improvement. I'll point frmky to your posts and he can decide if he wants to up it to 34 or not. Thanks for checking it.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_134_79 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 676870440131162186790205260284115103229905992405944474763786965158347196908998606158829512914913741518518550185426278771154202748468786511992582732124649322376550585259441177832426707359430632204475614844271700714398827407169704953
# 134^79+79^134, difficulty: 256.41, anorm: 1.83e+039, rnorm: -7.71e+047
# scaled difficulty: 257.85, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.549e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.926e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 1.8968
c6: 134
c0: 6241
Y1: -559494740587480879172162808385362976196641
Y0: 4491199828872408503792328704
rlim: 268000000
alim: 450000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
20M 4127
80M 2874
150M 2670
250M 2280
350M 1843
400M 1704
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-410M with target number rels = 480M

[b]QUEUED[/b] C164 from the OPN t600 file.
(I know I still have one pending but I want to get this listed before it gets lost.)
[CODE]n: 15234712737586721103604550217827103691335722219884678818626646892020804317203046936508614696882879218044394957722290829737523608324657357271792501492916421106461453
# 32607907713428723311^13-1, difficulty: 234.16, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 2.41905e+18, est. time: 1151.93 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -32607907713428723311
Y0: 1063275645447484430688183399163394802722
m: 4116174886578875451779080385257530068405655593255906669725778805326054390667175153667115574583829554496487666898231298223666826336036741546049998074154098460522073
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9035
50M 7416
80M 5811
110M 5749[/CODE]

Another for 14e
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_135_73 is ready for SNFS on 14e
[code]
n: 405135366248403070014579145301092752429522305796020528619581222136619775733509794280594340666699024601709500245913945891233607180762122241552729694445771745966668715497199198907646172156978215320283919057062908487389773580323648327
# 135^73+73^135, difficulty: 251.55, anorm: 2.01e+032, rnorm: 8.11e+055
# scaled difficulty: 255.48, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.418e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.791e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 6.3253
c5: 1
c0: 10125
Y1: -2003521529507672592938232421875
Y0: 204040896602218382792418993938046358519102576817497
rlim: 268000000
alim: 450000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
Q=20M 2679
Q=80M 2827
Q=150M 2943
Q=250M 3334
Q=350M 2963
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-340M with a target # rels = 480M.