[QUOTE=chris2be8;478441]A C199 quartic will be harder on the rational side, so I would expect [code]
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code] to work better. At least try trial sieving it.

Chris[/QUOTE]

I only got to this point before I noticed the above post. All times on a C2D laptop. (5K blocks)
[CODE] mfba=92 mfba=91
Yield sec/rel Yield sec/rel
20M 6624 0.399 6623 0.450
60M 9439 0.366 9439 0.375[/CODE]
I wasn't sure if I should stay on the rational side or not. Since I normally put the 3LP on the non-sieving side I tried -a side first. After a few hundred Q I abandoned that approach. Yield < 1.0 and the times doubled.

So I went back to the -r side. Times increased a bit but now getting yield close to 3.0. I will repost the full poly when I complete all the trial sieving. Thank you for the insider information. :smile:

Repost C199 (p54^5-1)
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] Thanks to the help from [B]chris2be8[/B] we have better parameters for the original poly from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=478263&postcount=1314] this post[/url].
[CODE]n: 5262199667347704370383382573882546842844132668115527189076062581874638943044817276421916975296385935474146837843853199024201903372763704218014620151293853622962990584469731632691969324944794952060901
# 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221^5-1, difficulty: 214.58, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 4.90392e+17, est. time: 233.52 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
m: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks. (C2D timings.)
[CODE] Q Yield sec/rel
20M 13040 0.309
60M 14466 0.486
100M 14234 0.521
120M 13701 0.487[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C197 from the OPN t1600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_2(Phi_3(Phi_7(Phi_11(2801)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small) )
or P55.76454_5M.C197
[CODE]n: 15420106394864175646956697460687018537255496896008096522537550268413863999071964128123246880858150236150236618717851768444792711346084264069707278037651651645100472752767291966576474365987720132361
# 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099^5-1, difficulty: 219.53, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.40309e+17, est. time: 352.53 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 8235
60M 9540
100M 10126
140M 9152
180M 8438[/CODE]

Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?

[b]QUEUED[/b] C180_144_55 is the composite cofactor remaining after yoyo@Home found a p54. At first I assumed this would be best factored using GNFS (there have been a few examples from the xyyx project in the last few weeks) but test sieving shows that factoring this composite using SNFS is still the best strategy.

Use 14e.

[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


[code]
Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 5K:
Q=20M 16680
Q=70M 14081
Q=110 13510
Q=180 10870
Q=230 10943
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with target # relations = 490M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C233_144_53 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 5K:
[code]
Q=20M 8626
Q=60M 7097
Q=110M 6800
Q=170M 5293
Q=220M 4861
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with a target # rels = 240M

[QUOTE=fivemack;478778]Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?[/QUOTE]

Use 14e unless 15e is explicitly stated.

[QUOTE=swellman;478787]
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]
[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, how does it compare against
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
[B]skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808[/B]
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;478788]
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]
[/QUOTE]

Similarly
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
[B]skew: 1
c6: 9
c0: 4
Y1: -13311666640442621952[/B]
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

[QUOTE=axn;478800]Out of curiosity, how does it compare against
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
[B]skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808[/B]
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code][/QUOTE]

That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.

[QUOTE=swellman;478803]That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.[/QUOTE]

Cool :smile: Good to know