If it's got the same sieving speed as SNFS difficulty 250, I think it's a GNFS number.

[QUOTE=debrouxl;410134]I tried to sum up the (potential) reservations for NFS@Home's 14e in the latest several dozens of posts:

...
[U]t55 in progress by Sean Wellman:[/U]
C172_122_101 (ETA September 17th)
C178_147_44 (ETA by September 24th)

[U]Need another t50 because of SNFS difficulty 232:[/U] (I'll contribute some curves)
C196_129_62
C186_124_73
C189_139_46
...
[/QUOTE]

C172_122_101 got a very lucky [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=410268&postcount=177]ECM hit[/url]. It is fully factored and results posted to factordb.

Continuing ECM with C178_147_44 to t55. I can help with the other ECM efforts discussed above after that.

Tom: hmm, GNFS 175 ? That's usually not in the league of 14e, unlike SNFS ~250 with normal sieving rate.
Regardless, the computer has run a bit over 3000 curves at B1=43e6 on C175_142_39, without finding a factor.

Sean: good ECM hit, yeah :smile:
C196_129_62 is now over 90% sieved by NFS@Home, I don't know why I put it in the list...

[QUOTE=debrouxl;410275]Tom: hmm, GNFS 175 ? That's usually not in the league of 14e, unlike SNFS ~250 with normal sieving rate.
Regardless, the computer has run a bit over 3000 curves at B1=43e6 on C175_142_39, without finding a factor.[/quote]

Would it help to run a few thousand curves towards t55? 6000 curves @B1=110M is almost an additional 2t50 and .33t55.

[Quote]
Sean: good ECM hit, yeah :smile:
C196_129_62 is now over 90% sieved by NFS@Home, I don't know why I put it in the list...[/QUOTE]

To feed the ever hungry grid of course.:grin:

[QUOTE=debrouxl;410275]Tom: hmm, GNFS 175 ? That's usually not in the league of 14e, unlike SNFS ~250 with normal sieving rate.[/quote]

I think it's entirely in the league of 14e; I agree it would be more efficient to use 15e, but the 15e queue has months of work left in it and 14e has drained. I'm pretty sure it's also more efficient to use 15e on 250-difficulty SNFS.

[QUOTE=fivemack;410290]I think it's entirely in the league of 14e; I agree it would be more efficient to use 15e, but the 15e queue has months of work left in it and 14e has drained. I'm pretty sure it's also more efficient to use 15e on 250-difficulty SNFS.[/QUOTE]
I agree, we need some breathing room on the 14e.

1x8 cores have now run over 5600 curves at B1=43e6 on C175_142_39. I have just attached 4x4 other cores of similar or higher power to the local ECMNet server after copying + setting up ECMNet clients.
EDIT: the throughput of 24 cores looks around 400 curves at B1=43e6 per hour, which means that both C186_124_73 and C189_139_46 could receive a second t50 by two days, and that I need to remove 4000-5000 curves from the total count on the server twice a day, because the quad-core computers have a low amount of RAM, and can't run 4 curves at B1=11e7 in parallel...

4000 ECM curves at B1=11e7 on C175_142_39 would help, indeed.
I have started the second t50 on C186_124_73, should be mostly done by tomorrow morning.

The C217 residual from 1097^79-1 is ready for SNFS. ECM was done by Oscar, aka Lorgix.

Thanks William. As C186_124_73 is not ready yet ("only" ~4500 curves since yesterday evening), I guess I'll prepend that one :smile:

[QUOTE=debrouxl;410357]1x8 cores have now run over 5600 curves at B1=43e6 on C175_142_39. I have just attached 4x4 other cores of similar or higher power to the local ECMNet server after copying + setting up ECMNet clients.
EDIT: the throughput of 24 cores looks around 400 curves at B1=43e6 per hour, which means that both C186_124_73 and C189_139_46 could receive a second t50 by two days, and that I need to remove 4000-5000 curves from the total count on the server twice a day, because the quad-core computers have a low amount of RAM, and can't run 4 curves at B1=11e7 in parallel...

4000 ECM curves at B1=11e7 on C175_142_39 would help, indeed.
I have started the second t50 on C186_124_73, should be mostly done by tomorrow morning.[/QUOTE]

I will begin running the 4000 curves @B1=110M on C175_142_39. Should be done by the weekend.

[QUOTE=fivemack;410290]I think it's entirely in the league of 14e; I agree it would be more efficient to use 15e, but the [B]15e queue has months of work left in it[/B] and 14e has drained. I'm pretty sure it's also more efficient to use 15e on 250-difficulty SNFS.[/QUOTE]

Convince Greg to increase the points per wu on 15e tasks and you will see an increase of CPU power.