[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]

Here is a [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=453643&postcount=952]nice post by Fivemack with a worked example[/url] which I bookmarked a while back for future reference. Might be helpful.

[QUOTE=swellman;455654]Here is a [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=453643&postcount=952]nice post by Fivemack with a worked example[/url] which I bookmarked a while back for future reference. Might be helpful.[/QUOTE]

Also very helpful. Thanks!

Two more from the Most Wanted Road Blocks file. These are essentially the same size as the previous p^59-1. On the last number I did trial sieving and modified the lambda to 2.7 and 2.8. It produced the exact same yield (at the low end Q) but the time per rel slightly increased. I’m not sure when it is beneficial to adjust lambda values.

[CODE]n: 847723934416465493580272554892025373599007092570627195956498222363745656989708622154204752294161815812225418255421119129594611560479912098356746948456292420295531238045291708101479001652143055178245176897285838111612431466354707316652219
# 12161^59-1, difficulty: 245.10, skewness: 6.56, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 5.69852e+18, est. time: 2713.58 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 6.561
c5: 1
c0: -12161
Y1: -1
Y0: 10462403413179934189087975464111709024319498795521
m: 10462403413179934189087975464111709024319498795521
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

[CODE]n: 1646567655210039000288095767644921118295743082919258060516520401092306844415757601694422313656162831139089237128683705211190457179971017452768733076015656496624625029005054302685465734055828748899565753384816826747043000743982635149655359
# 12301^59-1, difficulty: 245.40, skewness: 6.58, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 5.83134e+18, est. time: 2776.83 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 6.576
c5: 1
c0: -12301
Y1: -1
Y0: 12002867777697010537813175139358373530690225287601
m: 12002867777697010537813175139358373530690225287601
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Lambda determines which entries in the sieve array get looked at; I think alambda=2.5 means 'look at anything where the estimate for the part on the algebraic side remaining after small factors are removed is alim^2.5 or less'. So increasing lambda will slow down the sieving slightly, and it's interesting that it didn't reveal a single extra factor.

If you have done trial sieving and got some yield measurements, please put them at the bottom of the post, otherwise I end up repeating the trial sieving to get the estimate for the initial range to submit.

C237_12161_19 and C238_12301_19 jobs queued to 14e

It looks as if we can sit back for a few days, the queues are reasonably full.

For the C207 blocking progress on HP2(4496) I'd try something like [code]
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 66
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]
since the algebraic norms for a GNFS job are much larger than the rational norms. It should need about 3/4 as many relations as 33/33 to build a matrix. So if it doesn't reduce yield too much you should save more time on LA than it will add to sieving.

Or even: [code]
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7
[/code]
But I've never done a job this large so let test sieving guide you.

Chris

[QUOTE=chris2be8;455737]For the C207 blocking progress on HP2(4496) I'd try something like [code]
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 66
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]
since the algebraic norms for a GNFS job are much larger than the rational norms. It should need about 3/4 as many relations as 33/33 to build a matrix. So if it doesn't reduce yield too much you should save more time on LA than it will add to sieving.

Or even: [code]
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7
[/code]
But I've never done a job this large so let test sieving guide you.

Chris[/QUOTE]

Duly noted. Once I get all the candidate polynomials from the request thread in, I'm going to use YAFU to narrow down the best one and then try all these suggested tweaks to maximize output. Again, I really appreciate all of you providing these tips. :smile:

Another 14e candidate
 

Another 14e candidate with good yield. It has survived t55 by yoyo@Home. plus another 2000 curves @B1=3e8 by me.

C207_128_91

[code]
n: 802320890217478042163831208585260808818112468994562646062921218163624296944397084983306680966607349361160236150639896586413248097648688106047528225560026228558455487639033157834143057744927653178053197649963
# 128^91+91^128, difficulty: 251.06, anorm: 2.57e+38, rnorm: -2.76e+47
# scaled difficulty: 252.56, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.360e-12, alpha = 0.179, combined = 1.511e-13, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 4.0072
c6: 2
c0: 8281
Y1: -137996870875659993023030601717979081222891
Y0: 81129638414606681695789005144064
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Anybody got more candidates for 14e? That queue has almost run dry.

I should have another one to propose tomorrow.

Queued C207_128_91

(if you've done the trial sieving, please post something like

[code]
total yield: 1830, q=240001001 (0.30546 sec/rel)
[/code]

or suggest an initial Q-range, otherwise I'll do the trial sieving again to get the initial Q-range)

Ok, I always do trial sieving to verify that the performance of a poly is appropriate for 14e (or 15e). Always just assumed the gatekeepers did some kind of prep behind the curtain but I'll be happy to post test sieving results and suggested sieving range from now on if it helps.

I learned from this forum that for an individual effort, the best starting Q is half of r/alim for SNFS, a third if GNFS. But this rule of thumb does not seem to be best practice for BOINC.

What value of Q0 is preferred? I'll be sure the test 2-3 Q values for estimating the sieving range.

And thank you for enqueining C207_128_91.

[QUOTE=swellman;456227]I learned from this forum that for an individual effort, the best starting Q is half of r/alim for SNFS, a third if GNFS. But this rule of thumb does not seem to be best practice for BOINC.
[/QUOTE]

I use alim/4 for GNFS and alim/6 for SNFS, subject to a minimum starting value of 5M and maximum starting value of 25M. For small (say, a core-week or less) projects, I use alim/3 for GNFS and alim/4 for SNFS.

BOINC seems to start at 20M pretty regularly, and I don't think it matters a whole lot whether one chooses 15M or 20M or 25M to start when alim/rlim are 100M+, so 20M has become a sort of de facto standard for all but the largest projects.

In the past, it was believed that the faster sec/rel times at small Q were illusions because of higher duplicate rates, but I think that has been debunked in the alim/5 to alim/2 region.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;456229]I use alim/4 for GNFS and alim/6 for SNFS, subject to a minimum starting value of 5M and maximum starting value of 25M. For small (say, a core-week or less) projects, I use alim/3 for GNFS and alim/4 for SNFS.

BOINC seems to start at 20M pretty regularly, and I don't think it matters a whole lot whether one chooses 15M or 20M or 25M to start when alim/rlim are 100M+, so 20M has become a sort of de facto standard for all but the largest projects.

In the past, it was believed that the faster sec/rel times at small Q were illusions because of higher duplicate rates, but I think that has been debunked in the alim/5 to alim/2 region.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the information. Yes, the higher duplicate rate at low Q was one of the warnings I'd read, but if it's a myth then so be it.

I'm curious - is there a quick rule of thumb for modeling the decreasing yield curve over a large range of Q for an accurate estimate of the sieving range? Or is that more art? I'm good at modeling such things but it can be time consuming, so if there's a quick-but-good-enough method then I'm all ears!

P21.14943_13M.C206 is ready.
[CODE]n: 89565020195209009565467987087523777190165220963732300333632805305657311963519775871355884908105015698333537785557847431074271876592471825692366680584078161538467475749662494429667299122846947799699591673579
# 149431854123332538041^13-1, difficulty: 242.09, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 4.51385e+18, est. time: 2149.45 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -149431854123332538041
Y0: 22329879026736935651195230967634712117682
m: 23565865290286569388823858250238266971263782880320796060116123560770899985421941989827510445870492077635584653040018904191599893740867088229038460402604998044704586084004555217759935764696304299260298567603
type: snfs
rlim: 120000000
alim: 120000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieve 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 12416
50M 10525
80M 8962[/CODE]

Another 14e
 

C209_122_107 is nearing completion of t55 by yoyo@Home.


[code]
n: 45593358642996478364538112111174968061772662806395817785620327515809295803708534368841966179066170869564093890043051507627396767585413436241604695929929618429387862507149811619032959373562170721399964592363601
# 122^107+107^122, difficulty: 247.58, anorm: 2.36e+039, rnorm: -1.26e+047
# scaled difficulty: 248.87, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 8.302e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.075e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 247
skew: 10.5727
c6: 1
c0: 1396778
Y1: -38696844624861790832365403138487376998001
Y0: 35848992283832616457430560986334756864
rlim: 250000000
alim: 250000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving gives the following yields
[code]
1.90 @Q=40M
1.64 @Q=100M
1.21 @Q=180M
1.22 @Q=250M
1.01 @Q=370M
[/code]

Which leads me to believe the sieving range is 40-450M.

13*2^793-1:
[code]# 13*2^793-1 difficulty: 240
n: 245459994333326919443410901346097158174068960121046154069468560261450530982369518932964157573944452706561200577507849282111043339664498382619421553516587020088145546714743668816094603954681579
m: 5444517870735015415413993718908291383296
type: snfs
skew: 1.72
c6: 26
c0: -1
rlim: 110000000
alim: 110000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
ECM'ed to half a t55.
Q of 20M to 120M should be sufficient for me to run the LA, same range as was run on 13*2^792-1. Avg yield is near 3.4, and 340M rels is enough to build a matrix for these numbers.
I'm not yet fully certain I have skew calculations correct; I did 26^(1/6) for this skew. Is that right, or should skew be the reciprocal of that?

[quote]I'm not yet fully certain I have skew calculations correct; I did 26^(1/6) for this skew. Is that right, or should skew be the reciprocal of that?[/QUOTE]

Skew should be the reciprocal of that - to remember that, remember that GNFS polynomials have large skew, and have the constant term much larger than the leading coefficient.

Skew inverted, polynomial queued

Queued C209_122_107, 13_2_793m and C206_149xx041_13

[QUOTE=fivemack;456403]Skew should be the reciprocal of that - to remember that, remember that GNFS polynomials have large skew, and have the constant term much larger than the leading coefficient.

Skew inverted, polynomial queued[/QUOTE]

Thanks! Looks like inverting skew improved yield by 25%. Good thing I didn't even edit skew from 1.0x for the first couple years I factored these numbers; I would have edited it the wrong direction!

Downloading relations now.

@VBCurtis @fivemack
You can get a bit higher E score if you set skew=0.75 instead of skew=0.58:
[code]
Msieve v. 1.53 (SVN unknown)
random seeds: 2db15a70 021c94d2
factoring 245459994333326919443410901346097158174068960121046154069468560261450530982369518932964157573944452706561200577507849282111043339664498382619421553516587020088145546714743668816094603954681579 (192 digits)
no P-1/P+1/ECM available, skipping
commencing number field sieve (192-digit input)
R0: -5444517870735015415413993718908291383296
R1: 1
A0: -1
A1: 0
A2: 0
A3: 0
A4: 0
A5: 0
A6: 26
skew 0.75, size 8.995e-012, alpha 0.805, combined = 5.873e-013 rroots = 2
[/code]Obtained from [URL]http://myfactors.mooo.com/[/URL] (Optimal Skew)

Any more candidates for 14e? The queue is once again running dry.

I should have one posted later today but more are needed.

14e
 

C209_127_91 has nearly completed a full t55 (85.6% complete at the time of this posting) by yoyo@Home.

[code]
n: 26940995360358453137720369146025885289223140375197877977981639330991363717529250240230037034188430266450967981323191907750900799884059432559083059910290611501303668882237162459786057340251559518931079556646633
# 127^91+91^127, difficulty: 250.76, anorm: 2.15e+038, rnorm: 1.34e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.22, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.141e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.346e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 1.0571
c6: 91
c0: 127
Y1: -36062498658084837781704007862143
Y0: 137996870875659993023030601717979081222891
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Some test sieving on blocks of 1000 Q, hope this is in a more user friendly form
[code]
yield: 2836, q=20001001 (0.49325 sec/rel)
yield: 1602, q=140001013 (0.65194 sec/rel)
yield: 1465, q=260001013 (0.88608 sec/rel)
[/code]

86353_47M.C185 is ready.
[CODE]n: 28448940404495058815836669391775762163760283231206204352120421742419083638829799923679271303255141623796529822942824468873818526386945481411116502483777554312314040915730295977513616383
# 86353^47-1, difficulty: 236.94, skewness: 6.65, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 3.01467e+18, est. time: 1435.56 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 6.648
c6: 1
c0: -86353
Y1: -1
Y0: 3091857291722705477037327063091586156161
m: 3091857291722705477037327063091586156161
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Test sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 29018
60M 21919
100M 20312[/CODE]

Another composite ready for 14e. C209_125_122 has survived a full t55 by yoyo@Home and a few thousand more curves @B1=3e8 by me, with no factors found.

[code]
n: 27365418530407784409149457734678145942421565154918349069416779248441859303354412278473612336441552673499736719637468141998274557145007503297364086365784811478821747785405259009052821315703944637780030717006553
# 125^122+122^125, difficulty: 262.90, anorm: 2.21e+037, rnorm: 3.71e+049
# scaled difficulty: 264.93, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.983e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.808e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 262
skew: 2.2270
c6: 1
c0: 122
Y1: -4336808689942017736029811203479766845703125
Y0: 65096320940612888928992369305913995581980672
rlim: 200000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Some test sieving in blocks of 5000 Q:

[code]
Q=20M total yield: 9032, q=20005003 (0.46331 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7807, q=100005001 (0.59778 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 6545, q=200005007 (0.82368 sec/rel)
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;456755]Some test sieving in blocks of 5000 Q:

[code]
Q=20M total yield: 9032, q=20005003 (0.46331 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7807, q=100005001 (0.59778 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 6545, q=200005007 (0.82368 sec/rel)
[/code][/QUOTE]

I tested your settings (though I goofed and set lambdas to 2.7 rather than 2.8, so not quite precisely the same; then I tested mfbr = 93 and rlambda = 3.7 to compare 3 large primes:
[code]
2R2A: Q=20M total yield: 9024, q=20005003 (0.14645 sec/rel)
3R2A: Q=20M total yield: 14978, q=20005003 (0.11966 sec/rel) [/code]
50% better yield, nice improvement in sec/rel. Sorry, didn't have time to test higher Q values to make sure the sec/rel improvement is across the board, but the large yield improvement means fewer of the big Q to sieve anyway.

@VBCurtis thank you so very much. I didn't think to check for 3LP with what seemed (to me at least) a somewhat generic poly. Was there something that made you investigate 3LPs or was it just good practice?

Either way you've made this composite much easier to sieve.

Not to be a pest, but can one of the gatekeepers feed 14e? Queue is almost empty.

[QUOTE=swellman;456767]@VBCurtis thank you so very much. I didn't think to check for 3LP with what seemed (to me at least) a somewhat generic poly. Was there something that made you investigate 3LPs or was it just good practice?
[/QUOTE]

Two things: SNFS-260 seemed way too big for 14e, and yield even with 32LP was below 2. I was worried this was going to be much easier on 15e, but we need 14e food; so I thought I'd try 3LP or 33LP to see if either one made the stretch into the 260s palatable for 14e. It has never before occurred to me to try 3LP on a 14e task, so I can't claim "good practice".
I did not try 33LP, but I would not be surprised to find a case in this size range where 14e/33 was likely to be quicker than 14e/32 (though I imagine such a case would be yet easier with 15e/31 or 15e/32). There's good fun in "how far can we stretch the 14e siever?". :boxer:

C209_125_122, C209_127_91, C185_86353_47 fed to the queue.

Thanks everyone for the more usable format of presenting trial sieving results; I have done the integrations in Excel and picked parameters I-hope-appropriately.

I am a much happier gatekeeper once I realise I should use Firefox rather than Safari for fettling the queue page from my Mac at home - Safari really slows down on a page with ten thousand editable text boxes.

There are two more composites available to feed 14e - see posts 1000-1001 of this thread. Sorry - I see you've found them.

Good to know about Safari vs Firefox performance. Of course, if you had a Windows box it wouldn't be an issue [ducks, runs away in a serpentine manner...];-)

Another OPN from the t600 file.
[CODE]n: 352118671977091369297589999783927719255273432509208039367661933290917550037863164371471854669554332817359372845763627978778660919700801877630593402798278084179981920891755570883480907
# 705670360649^19-1, difficulty 225.12
# sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.0106
c6: 705670360649
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 351403133751847046579328315380439449
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Test sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10120
60M 7578
100M 7988[/CODE]

705670360649^19-1
 

Add the following test sieve results to the above.
[CODE]140M 7874[/CODE]

Does anyone have any advice on how to resume a download of the relations datafile? I was about a day and a half into downloading C237_12161_59 (10.5 Gb out of 12.4 Gb) when the download stopped due to a network error. I am using Chrome on Windows 10.

[QUOTE=richs;457041]Does anyone have any advice on how to resume a download of the relations datafile? I was about a day and a half into downloading C237_12161_59 (10.5 Gb out of 12.4 Gb) when the download stopped due to a network error. I am using Chrome on Windows 10.[/QUOTE]

I figured it out. I used wget64 with the following command line:

[CODE]wget64.exe --continue --no-check-certificate --user ******** --password ******** http://escatter11.fullerton.edu/********/C237_12161_59/C237_12161_59.dat.gz[/CODE]

127^121+121^127 is already factored, please remove it from 15e queue

[QUOTE=unconnected;457087]127^121+121^127 is already factored, please remove it from 15e queue[/QUOTE]

Yes, that was my error. I've alerted Fivemack and Greg via PM. Apologies to all.

C206_149xx041_13 relations trashed
 

The .fb file has two sets of R1/R0 which appears to have caused havoc on the relations. They all come up as error -11. It looks like it needs to be corrected and re-sieved.

C206_149xx041_13 relations may be good
 

[QUOTE=RichD;457274]The .fb file has two sets of R1/R0 which appears to have caused havoc on the relations. They all come up as error -11. It looks like it needs to be corrected and re-sieved.[/QUOTE]

All is not lost. The .poly file appears to be correct. I removed the incorrect values from the .fb file and post-processing is running normally.

14e queue candidate
 

C210_135_71 is ready for NFS.

[code]
n: 143501384198318986886663039044684117375853979636492885338998204720083530793694394805941734692384211366767789862250219304164683988747914046806816467409506216097095259210870734008350839916388350658744145199009981
# 135^71+71^135, difficulty: 249.92, anorm: 2.32e+031, rnorm: 5.90e+055
# scaled difficulty: 253.99, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.213e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.212e-013, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 2.6673
c5: 1
c0: 135
Y1: -667840509835890864312744140625
Y0: 96377446463956887067806264968072481014221181496791
rlim: 200000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Some test sieving with Q in blocks of 1000

[code]
Q=20M total yield: 1751, q=20001001 (0.63440 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 1867, q=100001029 (0.58995 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 1958, q=200001001 (0.69447 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 1667, q=300001001 (0.75160 sec/rel)
[/code]

There is also the candidate composite proposed by RichD in posts 1008-1009 of this thread.

Another 14e
 

C211_134_116 survived a full t55 by yoyo@Home.

[code]
n: 3114838196474848401017534969278136946153919548388919037455862029215826205663291191713338072012752224860495020719132978042251134209328679199490935084320168132879686971760719106955915811907681949463853146413963049
# 134^116+116^134, difficulty: 243.18, anorm: 1.76e+032, rnorm: 1.77e+054
# scaled difficulty: 246.85, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.013e-016, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.264e-013, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 243
skew: 3.4457
c5: 4
c0: 1943
Y1: -999356547346805156075552524294177648535563
Y0: 3278278256307802865247951091628947592180469334016
rlim: 100000000
alim: 100000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

Some test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 6146, q=20005003 (0.43123 sec/rel)
Q=80M total yield: 6633, q=80005021 (0.45020 sec/rel)
Q=140M total yield: 6235, q=140005049 (0.48165 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 5892, q=200005007 (0.52987 sec/rel)
[/code]

which suggests a sieving range of 20M-230M

Queued up C210_135_71, C183_705670360649_19, C211_134_116 on 14e

Many thanks to everyone who has posted yield numbers to save me the fuss of trial sieving :)

Do we have more candidates to feed the 14e and 15e grid? Just wondering due to the upcoming BOINC Pentathlon, disciplines will be soon known.

Two more for 14e
 

C196_122_115 and C195_148_98 are ready for NFS using 14e, having survived a full t55 from yoyo@Home, plus a few thousand more curves @B1=3e8 by me.


[code]
n: 6852288701618600345969619562571687929032950211626596150672177334012970217439719156125493333953429213295383018417594190806580026816603324429988192528804542027372695002550320426197948829731445122869
# 122^115+115^122, difficulty: 253.49, anorm: 2.54e+039, rnorm: -2.39e+047
# scaled difficulty: 254.82, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.032e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.503e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 2.1836
c6: 122
c0: 13225
Y1: -163665373929461130421056289768218994140625
Y0: 4373577058627579207806528440332840337408
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 9460, q=20005003 (0.67941 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7588, q=100005001 (0.90356 sec/rel)
Q=180M total yield: 5949, q=180005017 (0.95597 sec/rel)
Q=240M total yield: 5702, q=240005009 (1.08920 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 5510, q=300005039 (1.19604 sec/rel)
Q=400M total yield: 4843, q=400005013 (1.30232 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range of 20M-440M for Q



[code]
n: 776245573223165125234671202275937728717557826704662472754359217422050241286058002485155677284685961240255000795269414894629580851638917137099960043543015220595384592711551904360116712652160630921
# 148^98+98^148, difficulty: 253.53, anorm: 5.18e+038, rnorm: 1.95e+047
# scaled difficulty: 254.96, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 8.604e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.098e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 1.7419
c6: 49
c0: 1369
Y1: -3158403050039594588742205696
Y0: 256923577521058878088611477224235621321607
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 10102, q=20005003 (0.45858 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7988, q=100005001 (0.63515 sec/rel)
Q=250M total yield: 5818, q=250005001 (0.92640 sec/rel)
Q=350M total yield: 5479, q=350005001 (1.01060 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range of 20M-400M for Q

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;457826]Do we have more candidates to feed the 14e and 15e grid? Just wondering due to the upcoming BOINC Pentathlon, disciplines will be soon known.[/QUOTE]

What's the timeframe? I have several more candidates for 14e and 15e but they do need more ECM before SNFS so I will need to repoint assets to prepare.

[QUOTE=swellman;457828]What's the timeframe? I have several more candidates for 14e and 15e but they do need more ECM before SNFS so I will need to repoint assets to prepare.[/QUOTE]

Where and when are the projects announced?
5 days (Marathon, Swimming, City Run, Cross Country) or 3 days (Sprint) before the start of each discipline on the main page, via Blog, RSS feed, Twitter, and Facebook. While the Marathon project is announced exactly five days in advance at 0.00 UTC, the announcement of the other projects are possible at 0.00 UTC, 6.00 UTC, 12.00 UTC, or 18:00 UTC to compensate for geographical advantages. Regardless of the time of the announcement, all disciplines start and end at 0.00 UTC.

From here: [url]https://www.seti-germany.de/boinc_pentathlon/27_en_FAQ.html[/url]

Well the 15e queue seems loaded with work, and I doubt even the BOINC Pentathlon will drain it.

I'll try to prepare several (4-5?) more 14e candidates for consideration.

I have a ton of near-cunningham stuff ECM'ed to just over a t50; less than half of optimal, but enough to feed the queue in an emergency. I'll aim a dozen cores at ECM until the announcement, just in case.

Another OPN from the t600 file.

[CODE]n: 12504721975844856110697241554601196703762091371396736793144009607857269420234994875741440690988236657796360320862503133792893914145486370015708570016126408503686973395098094257
# 104281^47-1, difficulty: 240.87, skewness: 6.86, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 4.10446e+18, est. time: 1954.50 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 6.861
c6: 1
c0: -104281
Y1: -1
Y0: 13984324640414081187623635661438587861441
m: 13984324640414081187623635661438587861441
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9452
60M 7246
100M 6707
140M 5625[/CODE]

15e candidate
 

C193_131_102 is ready for SNFS, to be sieved with 15e. I do not plan on suggesting any additional 15e candidates until that queue is considerably shorter.

[code]
n: 2740563180589160391621707648679867528583953126646972986009531107420925652080867961217598253167050281390162411820901451715308217666066971599869189147473353913754138736753526703892829478004132617
# 131^102+102^131, difficulty: 265.14, anorm: 2.02e+037, rnorm: 1.05e+050
# scaled difficulty: 267.25, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.437e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.296e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 265
skew: 2.1616
c6: 1
c0: 102
Y1: -985398793384554108247251712700460611
Y0: 154597967077587985745381119925836646348488704
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

Test sieving, Q in blocks of 5000:
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 6795, q=20005003 (1.06367 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 5735, q=100005001 (1.39100 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 4616, q=200005007 (1.76671 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 3803, q=300005039 (2.12377 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a range of 20M-270M for Q.

OPN from the t600 file is ready.
[CODE]n: 3582123724009125350979135532253668176917146315309069102903598732280603715909936623363796377970580002623282837233544467878001808051279400221966150804199215087404769081158554191159143409953966039
# 25125200742702138527^13-1, difficulty: 232.80, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 2.17123e+18, est. time: 1033.92 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -25125200742702138527
Y0: 631275712361080093443627372579097729730
m: 2942309812454780857174959580625797121082650591780520548459155615893205344204950445727368887008237009235463040328040082883725470745346026159304591613666306253853561846670793772820592220799691604
type: snfs
rlim: 80000000
alim: 80000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 19,036
60M 14,468
100M 12,859[/CODE]

Quick question: what's an appropriate alim/rlim for the C207? I want to make sure I test-sieve appropriate Q-ranges before posting it up.

I would try 536M on both sides first (power-of-two, rounded), and then something larger like 800M. I don't think we want to expect to use Q larger than 1.5 * rlim, which is why I fear 536M may not be enough (we may need Q above 1e9). The choice depends on how yields look, really- if sieving 100M to 800M is going to be enough, 536M would be quicker.

Don't forget to check 3LPs on your best candidate(s). See [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=453643&postcount=952[/url] for a refresher if you need it.

A rule of thumb I've come across on this forum is that a/rlim < 2^(lpb-4), which in this case is ~536M as VBCurtis points out. I do not know what happens if you increase a/rlim above this threshold.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;458017]I would try 536M on both sides first (power-of-two, rounded), and then something larger like 800M. I don't think we want to expect to use Q larger than 1.5 * rlim, which is why I fear 536M may not be enough (we may need Q above 1e9). The choice depends on how yields look, really- if sieving 100M to 800M is going to be enough, 536M would be quicker.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. YAFU chose 100M, which I guessed was far too low, but I didn't know how much higher I would need to travel.

[QUOTE=swellman;458023]Don't forget to check 3LPs on your best candidate(s). See [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=453643&postcount=952[/url] for a refresher if you need it.

A rule of thumb I've come across on this forum is that a/rlim < 2^(lpb-4), which in this case is ~536M as VBCurtis points out. I do not know what happens if you increase a/rlim above this threshold.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Yeah, I've tried 3LPs and increasing the large prime bound to 33 (for algebraic only, thus far). Both 3LPs and increasing the bound led to increases in both yield and speed. Now that I have a proper limit, I can do better yield/speed checks on the two best polynomials, which are pretty close in terms of viability.

C208_147_50 and C198_149_50 are ready for NFS. Both can be run on 14e, though the second (C198_149_50) may be better suited for 15e/31.

[code]
n: 1202488500242124574094685588829895536874010314117513572280895082444267256993786380990563199163017709568011379910135080421260357568548724831255581892733119854780946936542079537679417901789297803205092709289361
# 147^50+50^147, difficulty: 254.44, anorm: 1.19e+038, rnorm: 5.77e+047
# scaled difficulty: 256.05, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.111e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.300e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 1.0662
c6: 49
c0: 72
Y1: -1526288802270065127
Y0: 596046447753906250000000000000000000000000
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 12538, q=20005003 (0.41425 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 10140, q=100005001 (0.54565 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 8314, q=200005007 (0.75086 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 7636, q=300005039 (0.85505 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a range of 20-300M for Q




[code]
n: 355865490586785959066984347712728983905427858154327229480903647077634391948558871491545608798250431936333826364100726589278827574595392064971455099743504501738466786994504247194028826825300041338041
# 149^50+50^149, difficulty: 254.85, anorm: 2.11e+039, rnorm: 9.34e+047
# scaled difficulty: 256.29, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.334e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 6.651e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 10.1755
c6: 1
c0: 1110050
Y1: -242935032749128801
Y0: 2980232238769531250000000000000000000000000
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 8015, q=20005003 (0.59273 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 6700, q=100005001 (0.77428 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 5468, q=200005007 (1.11010 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 4908, q=300005039 (1.29205 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a range of 20-510M for Q - perhaps run as 15e?

C208_147_50 queued on 14e. C198_149_50 queued on 15e

(some timings for C198_149_50 on the two sievers)
[code]
14e
total yield: 13740, q=50010001 (0.28664 sec/rel)
total yield: 13114, q=100010017 (0.34573 sec/rel)
total yield: 11497, q=150010001 (0.41877 sec/rel)
total yield: 10762, q=200010011 (0.49476 sec/rel)
total yield: 9613, q=250010011 (0.57307 sec/rel)

15e
total yield: 28944, q=50010001 (0.24353 sec/rel)
total yield: 27219, q=100010017 (0.28596 sec/rel)
total yield: 24011, q=150010001 (0.33472 sec/rel)
total yield: 22313, q=200010011 (0.37820 sec/rel)
total yield: 20062, q=250010011 (0.42392 sec/rel)
[/code]

C213_142_74 is ready for NFS. Sieve using 14e.

[code]
n: 164301310715231570211687638819270453919811804856418781178265316562254413712075720905065881225107134715664949546263235080480716365263042915251485594025158238272607526746828387151574098692873919436153635237018303741
# 142^74+74^142, difficulty: 242.85, anorm: 1.76e+033, rnorm: -2.58e+054
# scaled difficulty: 246.38, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.236e-017, alpha = 0.021, combined = 1.178e-013, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 242
skew: 15.0713
c5: 1
c0: 777592
Y1: -665331702192301904671965482114744277708773138432
Y0: 5873205959385493353867330551
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 6865, q=20005003 (1.07902 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 8128, q=100005001 (0.99405 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 8018, q=200005007 (1.22869 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 7196, q=300005039 (1.41274 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-360M

C207_127_103 and C206_129_95 are ready for NFS. Sieve using 14e.


[code]
n: 381704906927879421312056510857538053155858776390310032847439225786233948892834352085403252680665987643131289809797419808316399164669416257559643814360462067141085658599143558692095693670328817277329724173799
# 127^103+103^127, difficulty: 257.64, anorm: 2.29e+038, rnorm: 1.83e+048
# scaled difficulty: 259.29, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 5.559e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.870e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 1.0355
c6: 103
c0: 127
Y1: -581652040856250348581103942808504447
Y0: 1860294571709496226110032706809177658295303
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 8232, q=20005003 (0.76654 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 6732, q=100005001 (1.00778 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 5528, q=200005007 (1.40776 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 5141, q=300005039 (1.57456 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-480M


[code]
n: 82739763050618261459944062822029481086261568048108928042758674940753725990266316561602510605437377120986715580704445181098385778578492897916317459273643266219727394445877980087458027748876345097839851375273
# 129^95+95^129, difficulty: 255.13, anorm: 2.10e+040, rnorm: -1.59e+048
# scaled difficulty: 256.44, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.515e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 6.806e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 255
skew: 21.9092
c6: 1
c0: 110601375
Y1: -340561626288115122639539918422698974609375
Y0: 5880785850256519209198206471505921
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 8734, q=20005003 (0.72242 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7096, q=100005001 (0.96160 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 6103, q=200005007 (1.28523 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 5248, q=300005039 (1.54877 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-460M

HP2(4496) index 310
 

The C207 has been fully ECM'd and (thanks to the users of this forum) has been extensively searched for an appropriate polynomial.
There were two polynomials that test-sieved fairly closely (within ~3-5%) when tested with YAFU. I ran my own test-sieving on each for a range of parameters (rational and algebraic sides, 3LPs vs 2LPs, etc) and minimized the time per relation.
All test sieving was done with the 16e GGNFS siever. I'm fairly certain this will need to be in the 16e queue, and I think it will require some heavyweight computing power for the linear algebra, which I am not able to provide.
It would be greatly appreciated if this number could be queued. Full details plus polynomial follows:

C207:
[CODE]183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687[/CODE]

Polynomial with best parameters:
[CODE]n: 183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687
# norm 2.865842e-020 alpha -7.774942 e 1.627e-015 rroots 3
skew: 340123234.89
c0: 571991564598637896614710101239020638310733930025
c1: 167700052788587220002691890175305892882498
c2: 6476627046873628489030255421467789
c3: -13678387964207629928614248
c4: 17897969236909044
c5: 22320144
Y0: 6068679638793281991245086507839408878726
Y1: -39500688790939641031
type: gnfs

rlim: 800000000
alim: 800000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 4.6[/CODE]

Timings (on a machine with half the cores in use) on block of 1000Q at 25M:
[CODE]22A: total yield: 248, q=25001029 (6.40776 sec/rel)
22R: total yield: 309, q=25001029 (6.44973 sec/rel)
32A: total yield: 508, q=25001029 (3.22992 sec/rel)
32A_LPBA33: total yield: 660, q=25001029 (2.48489 sec/rel)
32A_LPBA33_alambda4.6: total yield: 881, q=25001029 (2.14951 sec/rel)[/CODE]

Test-sieving (blocks of 1000Q):
[CODE]25M: total yield: 881, q=25001029 (2.14951 sec/rel)
50M: total yield: 1388, q=50001037 (2.65706 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 1215, q=100001029 (2.56781 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 1621, q=200001001 (2.86097 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 1126, q=300001001 (3.06091 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 1061, q=400001009 (3.33016 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 1413, q=500001001 (3.48125 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 1121, q=600001021 (3.78163 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 1049, q=700001011 (3.87128 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 1086, q=800001071 (4.23842 sec/rel)
[/CODE]

I don't know how many relations are expected to be needed, but I test-sieved from 25M up to 800M so that there's plenty of space to choose from. No idea why the yield goes up and down, but they're generally greater than 1 at 50M+.
I hope this is all sufficient for consideration. If there's anything I missed and should include, please let me know.
Thanks again to everyone who helped with both the polynomial search and advised on how best to go about testing parameters and test-sieving.

C207
 

@wombatman
Thank you for pulling all the test-sieving through! The polyselect was another example of a productive collaboration of Msieve & CADO. We should learn to always use them together, both are available, and projects are not getting any easier either.

C205_125_117 and C208_138_73 are ready for NFS. Sieve using 14e.

[code]
n: 1281391649236418351602951600256058919882810571399099834538395547428107884746687254512839657624121302691713820093300981087247076423566422509243255544515194093681083657095913190158948865741118224336595703241
# 125^117+117^125, difficulty: 260.59, anorm: 2.42e+038, rnorm: 1.21e+049
# scaled difficulty: 262.37, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.926e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.048e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 4.9452
c6: 1
c0: 14625
Y1: -34694469519536141888238489627838134765625
Y0: 27033551021470087806679878288841875415489317
rlim: 260000000
alim: 260000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 8416, q=20005003 (0.78020 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7246, q=100005001 (0.97638 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 6057, q=200005007 (1.33968 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 5407, q=300005039 (1.60261 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-450M


[code]
n: 9682172549759977817280440817745192373346520333807918948384967474684409321103942149950106448794418488886498766692493973661509359455402281867346856560850545412691940736896899559425920586209802807009228826852567
# 138^73+73^138, difficulty: 257.14, anorm: 2.35e+037, rnorm: 4.77e+048
# scaled difficulty: 259.02, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.035e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.202e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 2.2732
c6: 1
c0: 138
Y1: -47703367363695867545849856
Y0: 7184983626352716099297100617536359330111417
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 11104, q=20005003 (0.48071 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 9535, q=100005001 (0.60287 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 8031, q=200005007 (0.82748 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 7105, q=300005039 (0.97495 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-320M

Please queue C165 from 11040:i10029. Here is the fastest poly:

[CODE]
n: 548053161872286094263546390942532925280484495878287628018996658359830769025595729605632079717852442811109714651767256348336257841788345910368127498252314702339291049
# norm 4.589867e-16 alpha -6.706725 e 6.261e-13 rroots 5
skew: 9216896.39
c0: 8592717878299972283339126425141474811280
c1: 3041053898941390683885715314090252
c2: -740005961644725299986648110
c3: -208386829472386131734
c4: 12368070595697
c5: 229680
Y0: -75082701001833231044422797434639
Y1: 228408202789936501
type: gnfs
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/CODE]

Siever 14e, range 20M-120M (or 40M-140M) aiming for 200M+ relations.

C211_125_112 and C212_142_108 are ready for NFS. Sieve using 14e.


Note the first poly (C211_125_112) is best sieved on the -a side.


[code]
n: 1689507061605102889217543282905214634102582281131872983829885401870656891759881658183519703945629754132695708201544163632070863778419050545756623099343361881219961368278598736405423549981323295341551169130715323
# 125^112+112^125, difficulty: 258.50, anorm: 1.06e+037, rnorm: 5.15e+048
# scaled difficulty: 260.45, suggest sieving [b]algebraic side[/b]
# size = 9.957e-013, alpha = 1.534, combined = 1.168e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 258
skew: 1.0978
c6: 4
c0: 7
Y1: -1387778780781445675529539585113525390625
Y0: 5401924132233963086793068268357579079417856
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 11928, q=20005003 (0.52655 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 8366, q=100005001 (0.74236 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 8283, q=200005007 (1.08382 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 6086, q=300005039 (1.26756 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-340M




[code]
n: 91126004014867590868461238416818426882727371388191556422498253862882787328598694224042703997985409713456644204584975765412626909572032335628860161594110434879526087880364839445510693095057648147229404318461288893
# 142^108+108^142, difficulty: 259.35, anorm: 8.00e+036, rnorm: 6.40e+048
# scaled difficulty: 261.33, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.028e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.191e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 259
skew: 1.5874
c6: 1
c0: 16
Y1: -2102085018129621311776010144838961
Y0: 8063228273061253034007789191829366377545728
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 10829, q=20005003 (0.47526 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 9337, q=100005001 (0.59239 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 7754, q=200005007 (0.82499 sec/rel)
Q=300M total yield: 7173, q=300005039 (0.93322 sec/rel)
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20-330M

I did attempt to sieve this second composite using c6=4, c0=1 but it would not sieve. Not sure if this is due to my setup, a siever bug or number theory in general.

13*2^798-1:
[code]# 13*2^798-1 difficulty: 241
n: 346247349907241163585308458757929567124659986167606695746616522331616952376380451008019260360292079973456363032432287677367375873009775610170148915959622326863279523899867843130802995834514334508157
m: 10889035741470030830827987437816582766592
type: snfs
skew: 0.70
c6: 13
c0: -1
rlim: 110000000
alim: 110000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
ECM'ed to half a t55.
Q of 20M to 110M should be sufficient for ~350M raw relations.
I'd like to do the post-processing when it's ready.

OPN (C197) from the t600 file which survived a full t55.
[CODE]n: 76168789033078306528545510523783851836825949741968982499279727789871412694249124010078841499570187735718916285158940989141405074631832098698287693088761942446767032814304058444846489745122492050123
# 128341^47-1, difficulty: 245.20, skewness: 7.10, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 5.74422e+18, est. time: 2735.34 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 7.102
c6: 1
c0: -128341
Y1: -1
Y0: 73607717520239639878892572595537274407521
m: 73607717520239639878892572595537274407521
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Test sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10076
60M 7768
100M 7364
140M 6359[/CODE]

Queued C197_128341_47
Queued 13_2_798m
Queued C211_125_112
Queued C212_142_108

25125200742702138527^13-1 Revisited
 

After reviewing this [URL=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=457984&postcount=1027]post[/URL] it appears we may be able to squeeze the number in as a 30 LPB job.
[CODE]n: 3582123724009125350979135532253668176917146315309069102903598732280603715909936623363796377970580002623282837233544467878001808051279400221966150804199215087404769081158554191159143409953966039
# 25125200742702138527^13-1, difficulty: 232.80, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 2.17123e+18, est. time: 1033.92 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -25125200742702138527
Y0: 631275712361080093443627372579097729730
m: 2942309812454780857174959580625797121082650591780520548459155615893205344204950445727368887008237009235463040328040082883725470745346026159304591613666306253853561846670793772820592220799691604
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Test sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9742
60M 7226
100M 6251[/CODE]

Much better poly for C165 from 11040:i10029 (thx to Max).

[CODE]n: 548053161872286094263546390942532925280484495878287628018996658359830769025595729605632079717852442811109714651767256348336257841788345910368127498252314702339291049
Y0: -66293314740471378847093879949751
Y1: 1631428933119792335581
c0: -6502334456108684229848773957534620127960
c1: 4137968742928655885127027704264398
c2: 1330621088475088099747541529
c3: -199123773602778674989
c4: -30080739151610
c5: 856800
skew: 7541903.96641
# lognorm 52.93, E 44.95, alpha -7.98 (proj -2.42), 5 real roots
# MurphyE = 7.53624407e-13
type: gnfs
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]

@unconnected
Once again, CADO rocks! Every time you need a better one, just throw a PM at me. Will try to help.

14e queue is running dry again. Here is a rollup of existing proposed/unqueued candidates from earlier in this thread, linked for convenience.

QUEUED C195_148_98 xyyx post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=457827&postcount=1020]1020[/url]

QUEUED C196_122_115 xyyx post 1020

QUEUED 104281^47m OPN post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=457953&postcount=1025]1025[/url]

QUEUED C193_131_102 (15e) xyyx post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=457964&postcount=1026]1026[/url]

QUEUED C213_142_74 xyyx post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=458275&postcount=1034]1034[/url]

QUEUED C206_129_95 xyyx post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=458299&postcount=1035]1035[/url]

QUEUED C207_127_103 xyyx post 1035

QUEUED C205_125_117 xyyx post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=458591&postcount=1038]1038[/url]

QUEUED C208_138_73 xyyx post 1038

QUEUED 25125200742702138527^13m OPN post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=459132&postcount=1044]1044[/url]

QUEUED C165_11040_10029 Aliquot post [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=459315&postcount=1045]1045[/url]

QUEUED 1/6 1335 13*2^799-1:
[code]# 13*2^799-1 difficulty: 241
n: 232389108699618321557459290694950351218738646825678975874486530700896401553189617686479734599832733812040057417227643521832109054078090754653623125431200337186463151290106481591370414553915983374424635623
m: 10889035741470030830827987437816582766592
type: snfs
skew: 0.61
c6: 26
c0: -1
rlim: 110000000
alim: 110000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
ECM'ed to half a t55.
Q of 15M to 110M should be sufficient for ~360M raw relations.
I'd like to do the post-processing when it's ready.

13*2^798 was slightly undersieved with q-range 20 to 110M; I sieved 10M relations locally to build a matrix at TD = 110. I attempted to extrapolate from previous factorizations, and only test-sieved at a single q; laziness doesn't pay, I suppose.
Test-sieved 1k blocks:
[code]Q yield sec/rel
15M 4732 0.0384
30M 4727 0.0448
60M 3840 0.0545
90M 3512 0.0635
120M 3426 0.0735[/code]

Two more for 14e
 

Two more candidates for 14e now ready for sieving. Both survived full t55 by yoyo@Home and a bit more @B1=3e8 by me.


QUEUED 1/6 1330 C214_123_104
[code]
n: 5166719264740945896517016191148357776632291080534010469449788562081667109333054962658097843673856429378080020663924737928712208787524079208840757268034774812593545689245880357917064575607533579431569927489851960447
# 123^104+104^123, difficulty: 253.18, anorm: 3.26e+040, rnorm: -4.44e+046
# scaled difficulty: 254.20, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.624e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.240e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 1.0253
c6: 15129
c0: 17576
Y1: -43822462860668387010961525553205767831552
Y0: 337587917446653715596592958817679803
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving in blocks of 5000 Q
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 10115, q=20005003 (0.51952 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7939, q=100005001 (0.70206 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 6510, q=200005007 (1.09317 sec/rel)
Q-300M total yield: 5758, q=300005039 (1.33745 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a range of 20-390M for Q




QUEUED 1/6 1330 C254_133_85
[code]
n: 24371997703997701483819053358015776510449740371883940079796043643360158564268707877768888155207525820198986127371298406856290019651385818690083714485756294147753130840309706077562173253165803041474008079912351622609418032599444972105863647091703823200949
# 133^85+85^133, difficulty: 258.54, anorm: 2.13e+038, rnorm: 2.70e+048
# scaled difficulty: 260.23, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 5.590e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.863e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 258
skew: 1.0775
c6: 85
c0: 133
Y1: -541904769658563069794308330729
Y0: 2800376120856162211833149645328521728515625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving in blocks of 5000 Q
[code]
Q=20M total yield: 8755, q=20005003 (0.76666 sec/rel)
Q=100M total yield: 7158, q=100005001 (0.99961 sec/rel)
Q=200M total yield: 5977, q=200005007 (1.37363 sec/rel)
Q-300M total yield: 5631, q=300005039 (1.57613 sec/rel)
[/code]
suggesting a range of 20-430M for Q

C165_11040_10029 is 31bit task, so please add 40MQ. Also I'll reserve it for postprocessing.

C164 for GNFS
 

A C164 from the OPN project is ready.
I tried a/rlim of 134M but it was worse. 20-25% slower while gaining <10% more yield.
Maybe values of 80M or 100M might be better which I didn't try because this looks pretty good.
[CODE]n: 48617051659411879901148500183191173740459719818818239572906825331510589697540739558361422095833883018398491446348980638157678408112092901699165057691650922870794961
# 12400411646533^17-1, GNFS-164, sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
Y0: -39473793098425407586702362013059
Y1: 261219411908353
c0: 36414268145373788770115624216770967668
c1: 42969519334008936189506779266008
c2: -125646566348823834900729739
c3: -10224912539480172989
c4: 5332389399891
c5: 507276
skew: 4174573.51659
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 12853
60M 14816
100M 12710[/CODE]

QUEUED 8/6 1300

SNFS-252 job is ready from OPN.
[CODE]n: 2628443707681354167068187357307406276224836247570952408476253944812890672190460092817686395342995854169493921586010588285093342807630218122037987668109546335074209003822352304893720480661143
# 179743^47-1, difficulty: 252.22, skewness: 7.51, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 9.83625e+18, est. time: 4683.93 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 7.512
c6: 1
c0: -179743
Y1: -1
Y0: 1089471535698978337428627067875381019180801
m: 1089471535698978337428627067875381019180801
type: snfs
alim: 268000000
rlim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9427
60M 8130
100M 7779
150M 6339
200M 6580
250M 5806
300M 6031[/CODE]

Two for 14e
 

Two more candidates for 14e

C215_145_52
[code]
n: 28517792151961169713334701529683994469920634832298395618828402880211937617714358390875895038921867809408730936364349284979531990120923644890094872165509528815503746898447469462582487316122189734747938969600125124951
# 145^52+52^145, difficulty: 248.82, anorm: 2.90e+032, rnorm: 2.15e+055
# scaled difficulty: 252.63, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.395e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.207e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 248
skew: 7.3206
c5: 1
c0: 21025
Y1: -4108469075197275390625
Y0: 58089409991159212052332855232011755388709594202112
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M 6501 rels
Q=100M 8277 rels
Q=200M 8326 rels
Q=300M 7750 rels
Q=400M 6879 rels
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range of 20-340M for Q



C216_143_53 - note that test sieving indicates sieving on the -a side is best

[code]
n: 314653115809307951898713853390593679365304026849878683717647306448540598024840725423941604678327491979309970558045182675162419704208615919288865579283623418810465733214078622746767013840787080771222275807872799719543
# 143^53+53^143, difficulty: 249.41, anorm: 2.11e+040, rnorm: 7.90e+046
# scaled difficulty: 250.51, suggest sieving [b]algebraic[/b] side
# size = 6.352e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.929e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 9.3229
c6: 13
c0: 8535703
Y1: -2273168619161481613
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M 12022 rels
Q=100M 10368 rels
Q=200M 7240 rels
Q=300M 5871 rels
Q=400M 6022 rels
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range of 20-325M for Q

13*2^800-1 has been ECMed to ~0.6t55, and is ready for 14e:
[code]#13*2^800-1 difficulty: 242
n: 93279338268454023866245440870308237806520338071962741869336774244320823422643775297036986460002650705701592500634862028121070426777291354105093480717237604707298542950947863172273537595119
m: 10889035741470030830827987437816582766592
type: snfs
skew: 0.53
c6: 52
c0: -1
rlim: 110000000
alim: 110000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
I didn't test sieve, but extrapolating from 13_m_798 and 13_m_799 suggests a Q range of 15 to 120M should be sufficient. I'd like to do the LA.

If I was doing 13*2^800-1 I'd test sieve a degree 5 poly like the following to see it the lower coefficients beat the better degree.
[code]
#13*2^800-1 difficulty: 242
n: 75140219816134685225301475917061127924425548477298465135977357790861112720590532493747026331535493816353613052814667153290078550537040542030860937761702125774722744583825144915771505144999160066933624361096003812212466492784977
# m = 2^160
m: 1461501637330902918203684832716283019655932542976
type: snfs
c5: 13
c0: -1
[/code]
NB. Are you sure the n in the poly you posted is right? My checking script says the poly does not evaluate to a multiple of n.

Chris

No, not certain; I may have miscopied something. I'll do some test-sieving this evening and confirm settings/Q-ranges.
I've been factoring these numbers since about 2^600; deg 6 became faster than deg 5 around 2^660.

C162 from aliquot sequence 11040:i10042

[CODE]n: 666200860448065807559069011622289471024470083813150588678212557888061967734823709660780653171530668594928433698873446835653669759750831185673377372552136820286157
c0: -4842014125525207530858758666784717135662424
c1: -35867596255251296154589012184653034
c2: 3204310945049688836206519121
c3: -60889414509518735724
c4: -240033545412
c5: 1368
Y0: -54639137187600920645052480093943
Y1: 51476800658448971
skew: 123342400.58
lss: 0
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]Suggesting sieve range is 20M-100M with 14e.

[QUOTE=chris2be8;461782]NB. Are you sure the n in the poly you posted is right? My checking script says the poly does not evaluate to a multiple of n.

Chris[/QUOTE]

Nice catch, thank you- it was a miscopy, a single leading digit was left off when I copied n. Fixed here:
[code]#13*2^800-1 difficulty: 242
n: 293279338268454023866245440870308237806520338071962741869336774244320823422643775297036986460002650705701592500634862028121070426777291354105093480717237604707298542950947863172273537595119
m: 10889035741470030830827987437816582766592
type: snfs
skew: 0.53
c6: 52
c0: -1
rlim: 110000000
alim: 110000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
Test sieving: blocks of 2000 Q
Q=15M yield 9271
Q=45M yield 8525
Q=75M yield 7601
Q=105M yield 6481
Avg yield just under 4, so Q=15-115M should produce ~380M raw rels.

C217_143_51 is ready for SNFS.

[code]
n: 3847664448413812267047914867592103680820180524235526079545385971422562137541815537587473733566318197197881636227707158163914899168994354781394993864499983442146690251931248652461191792410592816347751852116841440456277
# 143^51+51^143, difficulty: 245.89, anorm: 2.44e+040, rnorm: 2.00e+046
# scaled difficulty: 245.89, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.294e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.952e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 245
skew: 13.005
c5: 1
c0: 371943
Y1: 3575694237941010577249
Y0: -33077684981700138043846177178617140686009839016451
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=30M 8939 rels
Q=120M 10207 rels
Q=200M 10256 rels
Q=250M 9370 rels
Q=300M 9372 rels
[/code]

suggesting a sieving range of 30-290M for Q

Being Thomas away who is feeding the 14e/15e server? I've noticed 16e buffer has been increased which is Greg work. Shall I contact Greg or Jon to add more work to 14e queue? Please let me know your thoughts.

I believe Tom returns tomorrow but do what you feel is best. [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=460868&postcount=1052]Post 1052[/url] of this thread is the next composite up for queueing.

Here I am, back from Kazakhstan. It's a surprisingly pleasant destination (and at the moment there are no visa formalities), though it's quite a long flight for Americans. Almaty is a beautiful green city full of parks and with snow-capped mountains towering behind, Astana is a showcase of contemporary architecture and Expo 2017 is well worth a week of most peoples' time.

I have queued up

C190_179743_47
C215_145_52
C216_143_53
13_2_800m
C162_11040_10042
C217_143_51

Another one ready from OPN.
Sieve on algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 80832557038347780888918781952433859700930123686236845575266729299411557537387398586383318894733059371401075331806816110662206491713236126708649379119251434934443311432802821700066684276342011789
# 69655517^31-1, SNFS difficulty: 243, sieve on ALGEBRAIC side
lss: 0
m: 1639749850771434978413554768710418997357
c6: 69655517
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 1639749850771434978413554768710418997357
skew: 0.0493
rlim: 262000000
alim: 262000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 11252
60M 8070
100M 9748
150M 7371
200M 7241
250M 6400
300M 6919
350M 5405[/CODE]

C194_69655517_31 added to the bucket

I thought this might be on the border of 30/31 bit job.
It appears to be a feasible 30-bit job.
C165, SNFS-214.

[CODE]n: 172904267607133692600023689313291160063499866826280531198927596373136744534083903187792657535880226755952840119335028977849736514146134295610291000088977551801930621
# 189343400041^19-1, sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.0132
c6: 189343400041
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6788135681763134049152738766268921
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 14066
60M 8574
100M 8135[/CODE]

Two more candidates for 14e are ready

C216_144_59
[code]
n: 514548289943568581559321061380772031778525064633771957427108878147287542341934942194563675367261688057460971264089058525422299281007398255591925791513112327395581524241043563058853387535286826303113988848427372240509
# 144^59+59^144, difficulty: 256.21, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.77e+048
# scaled difficulty: 257.97, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.216e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.355e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -1277919997482491707392
Y0: 3165543453070218706859776348972393302368161
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving results, with Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M 12144
Q=100M 10352
Q=200M 8861
Q=250M 7833
Q=300M 7817
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M to 290M




C217_128_101
[code]
n: 4554250754369240569241836149015408052441776431801581494189528934942848737019234430862488781232860282783276819529367528577389336977633263136835155375668361658923081297850267235690606115270359157215678027868378929514689
# 128^101+101^128, difficulty: 256.55, anorm: 2.86e+38, rnorm: -2.82e+48
# scaled difficulty: 258.22, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 5.110e-13, alpha = 1.178, combined = 7.377e-14, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 5.2273
c6: 1
c0: 20402
Y1: -1232391940347446492727576582468089832102101
Y0: 332306998946228968225951765070086144
rlim: 240000000
alim: 240000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving results for Q in blocks of 5000
[code]
Q=20M 8335 rels
Q=100M 6696 resl
Q=200M 5575 rels
Q=300M 5003 rels
Q=410M 4317 rels
[/code]

Suggesting a sieving range of 20-450M for Q

OPN Number
 

A C205 from the t550 file.
[CODE]n: 6812705581997627677120549500087957251265885151638027348637001979562879437680270930104180355867537729315934935127814988992396033962567217970919241520576836109473807185162725539805716963371326262786474133183
# 852460489981^19-1, SNFS-227, sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.01027
c6: 852460489981
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 619473564657564612496942929010663141
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 11787
60M 8624
100M 9608
150M 7503[/CODE]