Queued to 14e:

C203_131_73
50009_239
98999_231

I hope we have plenty of post-processing firepower lined up

14e candidate
 

C198_144_122 has completed ECM to t55 courtesy of yoyo@Home, plus I ran a bit more @B1=3e8.

Suggest feeding it to the ever hungry 14e queue, but I will be happy to run the postprocessing regardless of where it's enqueued. Thank you.


[code]
n: 476788411789049981477769193279961082326181657067203278178923212550262738069128275146962918080786805082335128104517077158010385401609297918404550279321293302215813718327214032050105521014849992120289
# 144^122+122^144, difficulty: 257.09, anorm: 3.60e+037, rnorm: 4.35e+048
# scaled difficulty: 258.93, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.141e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.288e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 2.6207
c6: 1
c0: 324
Y1: -1752104244195325911739773219841769472
Y0: 7045568477354647704120453346932251277539041
rlim: 250000000
alim: 250000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;455007]C198_144_122 has completed ECM to t55 courtesy of yoyo@Home, plus I ran a bit more @B1=3e8.

Suggest feeding it to the ever hungry 14e queue, but I will be happy to run the postprocessing regardless of where it's enqueued. Thank you.
[/quote]

I've put it on 14e: it would have run faster on 15e, but there's enough lined up on 15e that it will have finished on 14e by the time it would have got to the front on 15e.

[code]
$ cat C198_144_122.14R
total yield: 14863, q=250010011 (0.33812 sec/rel)
$ cat C198_144_122.15R
total yield: 31052, q=250010011 (0.24761 sec/rel)
[/code]

Two more 14e candidates
 

Both have survived full t55 by yoyo@Home plus a bit more @B1=3e8 by me.

C196_127_95

[code]
n: 3054615487096049804682702332231146843842566473799183251060858277796086171112639251301724604722273623055054287592349236396826896760066474600528163861516652747757939937595159959371069074364627438267
# 127^95+95^127, difficulty: 251.17, anorm: 2.20e+038, rnorm: -7.45e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.76, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 9.324e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.145e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 4.7891
c6: 1
c0: 12065
Y1: -340561626288115122639539918422698974609375
Y0: 4579937329576774398276408998492161
rlim: 200000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


C203_125_96

[code]
n: 17666251036625154636956021033141637692629173062572993705390504943121852749220041920964224741481304243997572864242674890064016012124597534821052231104613267933557899840731549543940968249239803022296900111
# 125^96+96^125, difficulty: 249.77, anorm: 4.90e+036, rnorm: 2.05e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.54, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.127e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.714e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.0699
c6: 2
c0: 3
Y1: -3552713678800500929355621337890625
Y0: 212161168262115711215436997892723334709248
rlim: 100000000
alim: 100000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

Three of similar size from the p^19-1 OPNs in the t600 file.
[CODE]n: 111452549058377402264243992238358201439726785721759308534587880910541155508708969030272293154347168784550545909428382423088982476909843827256409987259435422868761802432887876868368740999
# 290770486991^19-1 (C186) sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.0123
c6: 290770486991
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 24583910800905930050986096665340271
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

[CODE]n: 2220220193836931582109070406249200807823383230393978461661763517271715306659217123007917854264916840321060717906343298606744674422185700815505955414479131938588097885882523215478497859
# 128493601339^19-1 (C183) sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.0141
c6: 128493601339
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 2121507171912919800072943817521219
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

[CODE]n: 1688811213159806296548924717594703107977199607032703598294355996437176476446007212379813429403155525325585423188839543204234776534691378603889075984115616771035076630210673846799
# 187039475551^19-1 (C178) sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.0132
c6: 187039475551
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6543345135907302614932598240709151
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

I have test-sieved those five candidates, and pushed to 14e.

14e Candidate
 

C203_132_83 has survived a full t55 by yoyo@Home and a bit more @B1=3e8.

[code]
n: 45664836076707326949799879925546822944438984749138868498077643889861249171121125608947564640862603200291544273806341153770195101086945023775971971026696856785466051964204031142570992814849264550405212823
# 132^83+83^132, difficulty: 253.32, anorm: 2.30e+037, rnorm: -2.49e+048
# scaled difficulty: 255.16, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.988e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.911e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 2.2565
c6: 1
c0: 132
Y1: -1658509762573818415340429240403156732495289
Y0: 487567823246881413521655988224
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

C203_132_83 pushed to 14e

For consideration, presumably on 16e:

I have a C207 blocking progress on HP2(4496). It has survived 19900+ curves at B1=2.9e9, sufficient to warrant starting NFS according to the Bayesian tool.

I have done polynomial searching via GPU and test sieved using YAFU. The best so far is:

[CODE]n: 183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687
Y0: -11745408433223050782080932895561571583039
Y1: 2433524106205299767
c0: -7668944838191204153747071831251033656420858660632800
c1: 68724916140885781979136020357469304420727260
c2: -10741463294346121539895727780440916
c3: -78176439213970987416623261
c4: 515945478020706
c5: 821916
skew: 2796538203.22
type: gnfs

rlim: 100000000
alim: 100000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

I know that parameter tweaking can improve the sieving speed an appreciable amount at this size of composite--recommendations are very much appreciated.

I would try:
[CODE]
rlim: 500000000
alim: 500000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7[/CODE]

I'd also try mfba 65 with alambda 2.7; a third try would be mfbr and mfba 66 rather than 65.
alim and rlim are generally chosen such that sieving fits mostly inside the bounds; but I'm not sure going a little above a power-of-two is efficient. That is, 524M is a bound (2^29) I would try to stay under if sieving is expected to finish by Q=600M or so.
I've not done a candidate nearly this big; I am summarizing what I've gathered from selections made by others, the better to be corrected when I'm mistaken. One of my "gatherings" is that 3LP is tested only on the side to be sieved; the rare times I've tried 3LP on both sides the results have been terribly slow. 96 & 3.7 are the settings to run 3LP.

This is tremendously helpful. Thanks. I'll try your suggestions and see if there's any improvement.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;455628]I would try:
[CODE]
rlim: 500000000
alim: 500000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7[/CODE]

I'd also try mfba 65 with alambda 2.7; a third try would be mfbr and mfba 66 rather than 65.
alim and rlim are generally chosen such that sieving fits mostly inside the bounds; but I'm not sure going a little above a power-of-two is efficient. That is, 524M is a bound (2^29) I would try to stay under if sieving is expected to finish by Q=600M or so.
I've not done a candidate nearly this big; I am summarizing what I've gathered from selections made by others, the better to be corrected when I'm mistaken. One of my "gatherings" is that 3LP is tested only on the side to be sieved; the rare times I've tried 3LP on both sides the results have been terribly slow. 96 & 3.7 are the settings to run 3LP.[/QUOTE]