|
C190_179743_47
It looks like C190_179743_47 could use a few more rels. 356M seems a little light for a 32-bit job. (Not that I have tried to build a matrix - just comparative to others.)
|
[QUOTE=RichD;463088]It looks like C190_179743_47 could use a few more rels. 356M seems a little light for a 32-bit job. (Not that I have tried to build a matrix - just comparative to others.)[/QUOTE]
OK, I've stuck in another 10% |
14e queue running dry
Can a moderator enqueue some more factorization jobs? There's four candidates listed in this thread.
|
[QUOTE=swellman;463154]Can a moderator enqueue some more factorization jobs? There's four candidates listed in this thread.[/QUOTE]
OK, I've queued up all four. |
[QUOTE=fivemack;407738]732541^47-1 (so 732541^48-732541) is I think too hard to be run sensibly with 15e - I'm seeing yields of 700 relations per 1kQ and times of nearly two CPU-seconds per relation on Ivy Bridge.[/QUOTE]
Is it worth considering this for 16e? It is one of the most wanted numbers for the odd perfect numbers project. |
[QUOTE=henryzz;463175]Is it worth considering this for 16e? It is one of the most wanted numbers for the odd perfect numbers project.[/QUOTE]
Definitely worth considering, but I think you have to do that by private-message to frmky rather than by forum discussion (have some 16e trial-sieving numbers available) - he's the only person with access to the 16e queue. |
I believe this C191 from OPN will work as a 31-bit job.
Sieve on algebraic side. [CODE]n: 19947745549179466411123477180198292576669859696921960022012438887766114836113435875503117706076524895073601628013972733623159871306811064732550107339068794030080752263204318751998659462601577 # 4440731591^23-1, difficulty: 231.54, skewness: 40.54, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.9631e+18, est. time: 934.81 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 40.542 c6: 1 c0: -4440731591 Y1: -1 Y0: 388882228186185917376121079240510820961 m: 388882228186185917376121079240510820961 type: snfs rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 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 7355 60M 5582 100M 5628 150M 4315 200M 4317[/CODE] |
C202 from the t550 file.
[CODE]n: 6465390448837521394926324864370323783814800107980963012130724825548754963831603089899418992874702068777335644473069199635219327920458146680289639198885699531837039229760097808711981137156896747009755893 # 386855506153^19-1, SNFS-220, sieve on algebraic side lss: 0 skew: 0.01027 c6: 386855506153 c0: -1 Y1: -1 Y0: 57895705139974944304896778147443577 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 13130 60M 10218 100M 9271 140M 9084[/CODE] |
C165_130_103 is ready for sieving on 14e. Many thanks to Max0526 for finding the polynomial.
[code] n: 648146241913641179539709408678988102109949241330132355164017105217570355687924132667745695890188640048674250246030149457534565613775349574502641905762758667691825307 Y0: -68968130918178516861525368148175 Y1: 15478263206398516582361 c0: 1358340209127403916341216724804402220 c1: 140154060678905434970517485120092 c2: -195540925968055295222224235 c3: -146751885047497441487 c4: 39502031242530 c5: 4144800 skew: 2180878.51095 # lognorm 51.41, E 44.41, alpha -6.99 (proj -1.99), 5 real roots # MurphyE=7.18364372e-13 rlim: 130000000 alim: 130000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10,000 [code] Q yield 20M 25758 50M 24043 80M 24361 130M 24624 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-125M for Q |
C165 from the [URL=http://www.lirmm.fr/~ochem/opn/t550.txt]t550[/URL] file.
Sieve on algebraic side. [CODE]n: 206624234787895127079635689160853271138184247037852040138807151313105472767301151006671925566833211427212893401789666545317553145123303517053270920352192996234823109 # 2745256771^23-1, difficulty: 226.53, skewness: 37.42, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.31139e+18, est. time: 624.47 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 37.419 c6: 1 c0: -2745256771 Y1: -1 Y0: 56797848571005889396690475603943366481 m: 56797848571005889396690475603943366481 type: snfs 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 11586 60M 10871 100M 9374 140M 8186[/CODE] |
Queued up those three
|
QUEUED C174 from the t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 239916927476551942095992863367164463158970778178010078683877508189096469371545024687863597008447229814417371690067957580765579626964227432369452156548680237268832766403897701 # 487880282891^17-1, difficulty: 210.39, skewness: 88.73, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 3.44693e+17, est. time: 164.14 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 88.726 c6: 1 c0: -487880282891 Y1: -1 Y0: 116128763246987682337382354822673971 rlim: 67000000 alim: 67000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 type: snfs[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 15996 40M 12182 60M 11550 80M 7585[/CODE] |
Two for 14e
QUEUED C168_142_110 is a composite stub remaining after yoyo@Home found a p53. Many thanks to Max0526 for the poly.
[code] n: 363277902680259442614176714864133250848403224964825331137143996445173146217829570835415191128024293855581817063562347568012605947526138156754376475204259220577827254381 skew: 9399666.93 c0: 17386074773831566227210106568407493348925 c1: -3663240440380508845590552166470194 c2: -262462773229983484219553787 c3: 120316206130301324492 c4: 247490489520 c5: 631080 Y0: -280191575377685212475134376828946 Y1: 746181002471411771147 # size 2.490e-016, alpha -7.824, combined = 5.069e-013 rroots = 1 rlim: 130000000 alim: 130000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side in blocks of 10K [code] Q=20M 20854 Q=60M 21827 Q=100M 20330 Q=140M 17978 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-150M QUEUED C222_125_104 is finishing a full t55 courtesy of yoyo@Home, plus I've run a few more curves @B1=300M. [code] n: 640644246545554161614030189006317112537910089378497481501471871820003579968519726741488195318291468065610488741130729792361207120632576932143112402025552921247172434034063714274205285226241826767967685050154631323783210409 # 125^104+104^125, difficulty: 254.75, anorm: 2.04e+037, rnorm: 1.09e+048 # scaled difficulty: 256.54, suggest sieving rational side # size = 2.221e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.090e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 254 skew: 1.0843 c6: 8 c0: 13 Y1: -2220446049250313080847263336181640625 Y0: 1139384034377378062284999664383349963620352 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5K [code] Q=20M 7655 Q=80M 5582 Q=140M 4795 Q=240M 3953 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-270M |
One for 15e
QUEUED [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=462424#post462424]C228_150_142 ready for SNFS[/url]
[code] n: 338313268707086634350944196310206935873788335179366657051362293687646025379031678776100858721017586250223875732855601898290781411089750754177921272802024755914362548300092366882262859585028219144728898823695818541135039489183653 # 150^142+142^150, difficulty: 280.89, anorm: 6.00e+037, rnorm: -3.92e+052 # scaled difficulty: 283.36, suggest sieving rational side # size = 6.177e-014, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.426e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 280 skew: 1.0627 c6: 25 c0: 36 Y1: -38237431646084858983458149164083507643015743502 Y0: 200678255510666758709703572094440460205078125 rlim: 500000000 alim: 500000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 66 mfba: 66 rlambda: 3.0 alambda: 3.0 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5000 [code] Q= 20M 9464 Q=100M 9185 Q=200M 8307 Q=300M 7999 Q=400M 7337 Q=500M 6589 Q=600M 5966 Q=700M 6007 [/code] Suggesting a range of 20M-650M+ for Q. This should be the last 33-bit job suggested by me for quite a while - I'll be focusing on 15/31 and 15/32 going forward. |
One for 14e
QUEUED C244_125_118 has survived a full t55 plus a few thousand curves @B1=3e8.
[code] n: 3082642686301864367729936009687335353321610678506163186654349539001566087473503535271487678692444561987472651625292047697554906721295721104717560567942553045977746345690790123578140236355264235559964351770691965633450772597030492649052198525127 # 125^118+118^125, difficulty: 262.26, anorm: 8.69e+037, rnorm: 1.52e+049 # scaled difficulty: 264.13, suggest sieving rational side # size = 9.510e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.112e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 262 skew: 1.1073 c6: 32 c0: 59 Y1: -173472347597680709441192448139190673828125 Y0: 16161890416481517831736432862659163202781184 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 2k [code] Q=20M 4366 Q=70M 3663 Q=150M 3098 Q=250M 2862 Q=400M 2125 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-470M |
QUEUED C165 from the t600 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 6320403086925404744443306420596166155012616893115696609588496272055016000453976618282871155868293853650165538234662988694612295116050579659385953594216902175711506495781 # 7742682019^23-1, difficulty: 237.33, skewness: 44.48, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 3.10929e+18, est. time: 1480.61 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 44.478 c6: 1 c0: -7742682019 Y1: -1 Y0: 3593897569962667539633537501662807482321 m: 3593897569962667539633537501662807482321 type: snfs rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 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 9563 60M 6710 100M 6987 150M 3909 200M 4960 250M 3925 300M 3636[/CODE] |
CORRECTION TO C244_125_118
Sieving range should be 20M-350M. Didn't notice the error until too late to edit post.
|
14e
QUEUED C221_143_50 is ready for SNFS.
[code] n: 50692678828829814335843873311263915251648891116777308704957159296365934238152334220543808303082520188077750886381829332507612450798092542784790965284470152673768553092213313519219942866918992234883103456133197815067869233 # 143^50+50^143, difficulty: 245.86, anorm: 8.09e+039, rnorm: 1.33e+046 # scaled difficulty: 246.89, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.454e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.630e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 245 skew: 5.0185 c6: 32 c0: 511225 Y1: -174859124550883201 Y0: 29802322387695312500000000000000000000000 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 2k [code] 20M 2964 80M 1819 140M 1704 200M 1543 300M 1292 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-320M |
Another for 15e
QUEUED C208_124_107 is ready for SNFS by 15e.
[code] n: 4335607462250561491943275485202750570489510188810186642497447458336419885614145818180008303279554329626065554861891617891232238176656191426831093318020696089499454560998171907779061485707825201097688670033869 # 124^107+107^124, difficulty: 253.67, anorm: 2.57e+033, rnorm: 1.30e+056 # scaled difficulty: 257.46, suggest sieving rational side # size = 8.962e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.950e-014, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 253 skew: 17.5084 c5: 1 c0: 1645232 Y1: -91591545735429755867572944568246496735002624 Y0: 542743264012288969802354897466886823886496729903307 rlim: 130000000 alim: 130000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k [code] Q=30M 5833 Q=60M 6087 Q=100M 6675 Q=150M 5815 Q=200M 5735 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-250M |
15e
QUEUED C208_127_105 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code] n: 5252124870898076769014060393454727742081964687798564052660677471335993190144280735029840118645417046357965331808687638545235901449984862992880519576205253258702349720856257962724917137934922181712321905737859 # 127^105+105^127, difficulty: 256.69, anorm: 2.10e+032, rnorm: -8.59e+056 # scaled difficulty: 260.79, suggest sieving rational side # size = 8.570e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.481e-014, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 256 skew: 6.4339 c5: 1 c0: 11025 Y1: -338635494089938481670833366668373644351959228515625 Y0: 151313661355466579537756144585602921111718527 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k [code] Q=20M 5025 Q=60M 5572 Q=100M 5863 Q=150M 5157 Q=250M 4507 [/code] Suggests a sieving range of 20M-270M |
QUEUED 13*2^802-1 has had nearly 0.6*t55 ECM, and is ready for the 14e queue:
[code]#13*2^802-1 difficulty: 243 n: 608251385246284197911804104077717886217896067507158071902089288273194132521154591904301400688567806982890446079733852535401071548435862863247958447898782887726105111905422864237986928823341435972477 m: 21778071482940061661655974875633165533184 type: snfs skew: 0.83 c6: 13 c0: -4 rlim: 110000000 alim: 110000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7[/code] Q=15M to 130M should produce ~380M relations: Q=15M yield 3.8 Q=40M yield 4.0 Q=70M yield 3.1 Q=100M yield 2.9 Q=130M yield 2.8 |
QUEUED C222_127_97 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code] n: 136492511581775089024117139893972407425671819028452361539319594394807438281156804697518148072407672673426927975994420660045143097498604430406328103630062188790737782462452584954339423334667913738505669162748840918714170249 # 127^97+97^127, difficulty: 254.31, anorm: 2.22e+038, rnorm: 5.16e+047 # scaled difficulty: 255.87, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.485e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.595e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 254 skew: 1.0459 c6: 97 c0: 127 Y1: -4579937329576774398276408998492161 Y0: 527480512638944839726474542256547576188897 rlim: 130000000 alim: 130000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k [code] Q=20M 6909 Q=60M 5684 Q=100M 5247 Q=150M 4455 Q=220M 3735 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-310M |
14e job (GNFS)
C164_142_95 is ready for GNFS. Many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial.
[code] n: 32890934938060467185470450398926412490830129646594398346495293383017930475501026742709484611654214989519366361761311053871763612843981840938794074662453187038378603 skew: 3661680.86 c0: -166556080295683410817374978857628274848 c1: 171385010700195577244425051033362 c2: 314976816131198926495787162 c3: 2263384440748507447 c4: -24200003644230 c5: 976140 Y0: -32026746486505785756256021923115 Y1: 3569661231148829 # norm 7.311075e-016 alpha -6.722439 e 8.426e-013 rroots 5 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10k [code] Q=20M 29399 Q=60M 28761 Q=100M 27020 Q=140M 25386 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-110M |
[QUOTE=wombatman;458450]The C207 has been fully ECM'd and (thanks to the users of this forum) has been extensively searched for an appropriate polynomial.
[/QUOTE] Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p77 factor: 11608509273921563109439110259639414471356114110142975750976087040901350928229 Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p131 factor: 15826744797120361763521929615046796483162069831324813689483008801977696882321039305213712077547518040994592711420810039672478365003 |
[QUOTE=frmky;464860]Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p77 factor: 11608509273921563109439110259639414471356114110142975750976087040901350928229
Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p131 factor: 15826744797120361763521929615046796483162069831324813689483008801977696882321039305213712077547518040994592711420810039672478365003[/QUOTE] Thanks again for running this number. |
Now that I've seen firsthand what a monster the matrix is for GNFS-195 level, I'm even more grateful Greg ran this for us!
|
A C186 from the t550 file.
[CODE]n: 144268731931503810822450632838596288499605841877229332093679947911418336317330701200146117157855605920178793744186119321490765881776162797619751437592959430355786179955858471642334407153 # 63877469^29-1, difficulty: 234.16, skewness: 19.99, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 2.41916e+18, est. time: 1151.98 GHz days (not accurate yet!) skew: 19.994 c6: 1 c0: -63877469 Y1: -1 Y0: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349 m: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349 type: snfs 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 10423 60M 7755 100M 6971 150M 5675 200M 5543[/CODE] |
C163_147_83 (GNFS)
C163_147_83 is ready for GNFS. Thanks to wombatman for nailing the poly.
[code] n: 6454273849166708118046701901574392361706520624684969973212143218220952481744668788864244347868227573742363743418340002935811680620892852804801238389092258088912067 # norm 7.790882e-016 alpha -6.994543 e 8.654e-013 rroots 5 skew: 1362798.39 c0: -62057357458060537836573440811415776288 c1: 145992050674316985734150671718757 c2: 164497155567398800607282616 c3: -292217561612679096802 c4: -132455034514438 c5: 29026260 Y0: -11733059187170585350839114142699 Y1: 1401760836584467 rlim: 60000000 alim: 60000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6[/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 10k [code] Q=20M 13179 Q=50M 13449 Q=100M 12240 Q=130M 11834[/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-115M. |
I am on vacation by the Baltic Sea until 22nd August, so someone else will have to take on the queue-stuffing duties. Though the queues don't look likely to drain that quickly.
|
Another for 14e
C222_146_62 is ready for NFS, having completed a full t55 from yoyo@home, plus a bit more @B1=3e8.
[code] n: 966388137590772139485083165067803454256006438022474201146395997825155455256798780072921353545083044067468242672697091002242686144457578658732478368702292194784550010473334632534035306902598593756916310410524927387852091229 # 146^62+62^146, difficulty: 246.01, anorm: 4.53e+039, rnorm: 8.81e+045 # scaled difficulty: 247.06, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.779e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.886e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 246 skew: 1.3304 c6: 961 c0: 5329 Y1: -4297625829703557649 Y0: 10164841037259205643277114598574606270464 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7[/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k [code] Q=20M 7599 rels Q=60M 5881 rels Q=120M 5074 rels Q=200M 4222 rels[/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M |
GNFS (14e)
C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.
[code] n: 16432623607473574219758563585400708524378818125206904056185988551457839250312821323878324356918801650702586763199236947949550568517635374514910417505008392250111636215513873 # norm 8.440626e-017 alpha -7.132528 e 2.296e-013 rroots 3 skew: 5870867.97 c0: 25419121017344360577864617013788268281760 c1: 28857530855456147761173668461688476 c2: 631397788691506677770489927 c3: -2664694777806407733134 c4: 223010337756792 c5: 14302440 Y0: -1028156805787591556952709321595503 Y1: 7449870672504553 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side, with Q in blocks of 10k [code] Q=20M 11058 Q=60M 10562 Q=100M 10791 Q=150M 10918 Q=200M 9900 Q=250M 8316 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M |
[QUOTE=swellman;465498]C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M[/QUOTE] How did you get 50% longer sieve time with 14e/32? I did a quick test-sieve at Q=60M: 14e/31 yield 1.03 sec/rel 0.2276 14e/32 yield 1.93 sec/rel 0.1139 14e/33 yield 3.37 sec/rel 0.0606 15e/32 yield 4.29 sec/rel 0.1163 (15e included to show the 14e queue isn't foolish for this job) Using your test-sieve data, looks like you plan to get 260-270M relations from Q=20M-280M. A 32LP job will take no more than 70% add'l relations; I would target 420M myself, but even using 440M as target I think Q=20-250M will work with 32LP, with about 15% less sieving time (assuming the sec/rel ratio of 31LP to 32LP remains nearly constant throughout Q range). For 14e/33, I would target 640M rels, which ought to require Q=20-210M. I don't have much experience with 33LP yet, so 640M may not be very accurate (I intend to find out this Fall!). All of my target relations numbers are intended to build a matrix with TD = 120 to 130. Also, I suggest changing alim and rlim to 134M; I don't know if it's worth staying under 2^27, but I do know yield drops off pretty badly near double alim, and changing alim from 120M to 134M means the sieving should use only Q's below alim x 2 without adding much to sec/rel. I was too lazy to test-sieve alim = 134M vs alim = 230M (chosen to roughly match expected maximum Q used). tl;dr version: Let's go with 14e/32, Q = 20-250M, and alim = rlim = 134M. If so, I'll do the LA. |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;465511]How did you get 50% longer sieve time with 14e/32?[/QUOTE]
Simple answer - I used alim=240M when I jumped to 32 LP. Speed was slower and total ETA went up over 50%, which did seem odd. Usually when one jumps from 31 to 32 LP, the speed about doubles, as does the required number of relations, yielding a total estimated time on par with the lower LP. Didn't seem to happen in this case. Your analysis seems sound, with only alim being different between us if I'm reading you correctly. Submitting this as a 14/32 job is fine with me, though we probably need to increase alim to 240M (or perhaps 268M). |
I agree that speed about doubles, but required relations only jump by 70%. That's why I've been submitting everything as 32LP jobs; it's 10%+ faster to get ~400M 32LP relations than it is to get ~240M 31LP relations, and those targets produce comparably-sized matrices for the SNFS jobs I've been submitting (roughly SNFS-240).
I found SNFS-232 to be equivalent in time between 31LP and 32LP, and I suspect 14e/33 is faster than 14e/32 for SNFS250+ (that's specifically what I'll be testing this fall). For GNFS, I think 165 or 166 is the size where 14e/32 is faster than 14e/31. Anyone interested in seeing raw relations vs matrix size for various 14e tasks might have a look at mklasson.com/factors, where I have reported relation counts and matrix sizes for a range of 14e (and some 15e) tasks. I built quite a few 32LP matrices (with TD 100+) with fewer than 300M raw relations! |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;465547]I built quite a few 32LP matrices (with TD 100+) with fewer than 300M raw relations![/QUOTE]
This is a key takeaway. I have always gone for almost double the relations on a 32 LP job and look for TD 130-140. Too gratuitous perhaps? |
I think so, yes. My most-recent personal factorization was 13*2^824-1, an SNFS-250. I used 15e/32, and 342M raw relations built a 9.5M matrix at TD 124. 14e will have a higher duplicate rate, so 380M+ relations would have been required. 13_2_802m is currently in LA, with 385M raw 14e rels building a 9.2M matrix at TD 128.
I am unconvinced LA time is reduced much from TD's of 130+ vs 124, though 10% more relations often does build a notably smaller matrix. I just don't mind ~10M matrices, so I don't request 400M relations for my 32LP jobs. By the time I need 400M+ relations, I'll be trying 650M rels on a 33LP job. My only 33LP data so far: 13_2_837m, SNFS-254, 15e 557M rels 13.3M matrix @TD 116 13_2_864m, SNFS-263, 15e 618M rels 15.8M matrix @TD 124 I think 14e will require 10% more raw relations, which is where I get 650M as a target for SNFS 250ish. I hope to build TD 130 from that! |
C168 from aliquot sequence 11040:10047 is ready for GNFS:
[CODE] # norm 3.283662e-16 alpha -7.189363 e 5.248e-13 rroots 3 n: 164736666196825435404787655557209541928453253817257190535489412880787204132992680104314895301014743595089954795439761491986708889605473014584152814138097043938952406623 lss: 0 skew: 109895634.01 c0: -2587514198810932133781061266797804601115248 c1: 118096329304515670253820808175119610 c2: -3227397132471174410574315469 c3: -3024371911208417764 c4: 537996052764 c5: 756 Y0: -737316031279832613957275011228637 Y1: 223134028521912307 rlim: 134217727 alim: 134217727 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/CODE]Suggesting sieving range is 20-200M. |
14e
C223_129_100 has completed a full t55 courtesy of yoyo@Home, plus more by me @B1=300M. It is ready for SNFS.
[code] n: 4121964423333085982233645849696974555736659790176918393117155325578174843765145584449220313884341611314785419434214245850957549019875541011482943960868788283748164810375959133569837736384152647784409749435630112732651168981 # 129^100+100^129, difficulty: 260.10, anorm: 2.06e+039, rnorm: -1.59e+049 # scaled difficulty: 261.74, suggest sieving rational side # size = 3.890e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.948e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 260 skew: 10.1055 c6: 1 c0: 1065024 Y1: -5000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Y0: 758621374683090977986568634824263809 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 5k [code] Q=20M 7495 Q=60M 6494 Q=120M 6081 Q=180M 4975 Q=250M 4732 Q=350M 4453 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-390M. |
13*2^809-1 has had ~0.65*t55 ECM, and is ready for the 14e queue:
[code]#13*2^809-1 difficulty: 245 n: 1239789660577535690534614521677444030147477630236436423304522866975933818525373635094601468561768127340898032949877526163671525540683448874435752600175483996348771943183814887859855047267660475340958164569 m: 43556142965880123323311949751266331066368 type: snfs skew: 0.74 c6: 13 c0: -2 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7[/code] Q=15M to 130M should produce ~400M relations: Q=20M yield 4.5 Q=40M yield 4.0 Q=70M yield 3.3 Q=100M yield 3.2 Q=130M yield 2.9 I would like to do the LA for this. |
C223_134_130 is ready for SNFS using 14e.
[code] n: 4417091095813892728688127286539418937001062060139144566410118517363873055548200137085311347969572389434795982006727158878482355239828084851904001712779423524660241818271804042718723366337991739188314563357310291511109941841 # 134^130+130^134, difficulty: 247.15, anorm: 6.45e+031, rnorm: 7.38e+054 # scaled difficulty: 250.99, suggest sieving rational side # size = 6.455e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.666e-013, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 247 skew: 1.3236 c5: 16 c0: 65 Y1: -300569473249667159156751403864289752106501534569 Y0: 8885065410379260901802741051591932773590087890625 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7[/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k [code] Q=20M 5224 Q=60M 5567 Q=100M 6099 Q=150M 5368 Q=200M 5313 Q=250M 4556[/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-240M |
C179 from OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 78661921744862268746392821910119971203310936316649614623464932083843089020842600468566329508985146010206665451770759873909581154091523093828626316045059995522213621312463847888383 # 3927085741^23-1, difficulty: 230.26, skewness: 39.72, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.77165e+18, est. time: 843.64 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 39.720 c6: 1 c0: -3927085741 Y1: -1 Y0: 237838158555059113223510634120175084561 m: 237838158555059113223510634120175084561 type: snfs 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 12690 60M 7617 100M 8149 140M 8063 180M 7205[/CODE] |
C223_139_53 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code] n: 2134306013540056436162362749944339187027634625746710385409150646699404123149356207283444594500512753512120063279898246384817114656023398427304457483745657908117396756331638727744896748005798167437682521600906082498653650293 # 139^53+53^139, difficulty: 241.40, anorm: 2.39e+034, rnorm: 2.91e+053 # scaled difficulty: 244.58, suggest sieving rational side # size = 2.838e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.177e-013, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 241 skew: 42.7232 c5: 1 c0: 142337807 Y1: -2692452204196940400601 Y0: 1904251686165483303166544735375573842653419591761 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8[/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5K [code] Q=30M 9733 Q=80M 9481 Q=150M 9547 Q=220M 9580 Q=300M 9436 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-280M |
C173_129_85 -- better CADO polys
[QUOTE=swellman;465498]C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.
[code] n: 16432623607473574219758563585400708524378818125206904056185988551457839250312821323878324356918801650702586763199236947949550568517635374514910417505008392250111636215513873 # norm 8.440626e-017 alpha -7.132528 e 2.296e-013 rroots 3 skew: 5870867.97 c0: 25419121017344360577864617013788268281760 c1: 28857530855456147761173668461688476 c2: 631397788691506677770489927 c3: -2664694777806407733134 c4: 223010337756792 c5: 14302440 Y0: -1028156805787591556952709321595503 Y1: 7449870672504553 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code]Test sieving on the -a side, with Q in blocks of 10k [code] Q=20M 11058 Q=60M 10562 Q=100M 10791 Q=150M 10918 Q=200M 9900 Q=250M 8316 [/code]Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-280M[/QUOTE] I am back. I ran wombatman's polys through CADO and got 2 new ones with higher E: [code] Y0: -1009427825229151996551657342942778 Y1: 210906019054079 c0: 1517916384314284524046593239944919275305 c1: 51606612902664333569121720673602967 c2: -21530506587449528039635915175 c3: -3400396043158328006231 c4: 285057466029006 c5: 15679440 skew: 7472683.89357 # lognorm 55.38, E 47.69, alpha -7.69 (proj -2.60), 5 real roots # MurphyE=2.41438948e-13 [/code][code] Y0: -3197822479513387219745948715313154 Y1: 1754259244774553 c0: 21923856716069276138650845587215150125578775 c1: 11093238189155958142431413095849715939 c2: -139660187299407105214765983455 c3: -2538515809629993061807 c4: 2171373063408 c5: 49140 skew: 122161020.18715 # lognorm 56.45, E 48.25, alpha -8.20 (proj -2.21), 5 real roots # MurphyE=2.33756938e-13 [/code]Hope it's not too late. |
C173_129_85 Msieve poly
[code]
R0: -1009427825229211597749017949451862 R1: 210906019054079 A0: -14706812234442561584746077625649079501315 A1: 62935577997654071065756497728660415 A2: -18514641213973620944626070771 A3: -3710098762779786734135 A4: 262902730897806 A5: 15679440 skew 7500107.12, size 7.565e-017, alpha -7.687, combined = 2.415e-013 rroots = 5 [/code]Happy test-sieving! |
C188 from OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 11898866265155418122871677489588714888703045467895047058715246366141905148921201626919907143879172017874828243883162877376009897125290098459597687121800806560670751039236533392115845524673 # 1942157131^23-1, difficulty: 222.92, skewness: 35.32, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 9.77718e+17, est. time: 465.58 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 35.322 c6: 1 c0: -1942157131 Y1: -1 Y0: 14227790282011262021212858731917647921 m: 14227790282011262021212858731917647921 type: snfs rlim: 66000000 alim: 66000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 11321 50M 6499 80M 5832 110M 6796[/CODE] |
[b]Queued: [/b]
C188_1942157131_23 C223_139_53 C179_3927085741_23 C223_134_130 C222_146_62 C168_11040_10047 13_2_809m Could someone please do the trial sieving and decide which polynomial we want to use for C173_129_85 ? |
[QUOTE=fivemack;466125][b]Queued: [/b]
C188_1942157131_23 C223_139_53 C179_3927085741_23 C223_134_130 C222_146_62 C168_11040_10047 13_2_809m Could someone please do the trial sieving and decide which polynomial we want to use for C173_129_85 ?[/QUOTE] Yes, of course. My suggestion, my responsibility to test sieve it. |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C190 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 1325324320557455001788448610477140077418405659119617768498841818222068356580398973924102880049921589071941214074318867551198468474818336266697692700377681173952307422757757209614714956777867 # 3372531985651^17-1, difficulty: 225.50, skewness: 122.46, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.20698e+18, est. time: 574.75 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 122.460 c6: 1 c0: -3372531985651 Y1: -1 Y0: 38359084354469978248840166468025849451 m: 38359084354469978248840166468025849451 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 10135 60M 8395 100M 9178 150M 6564 200M 7244[/CODE] |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C166 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 1124136516828269021398444028033645650313365193579181592022470389050041651343233766155397986272283076827231643066766434083034719264134043207440092477899202836580811233 # 4590514719337^17-1, difficulty: 227.91, skewness: 128.92, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.46709e+18, est. time: 698.62 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 128.917 c6: 1 c0: -4590514719337 Y1: -1 Y0: 96735115123696580071426138556975605753 m: 96735115123696580071426138556975605753 rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 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 9375 60M 7392 100M 7605 150M 7195 200M 6374[/CODE] |
C223_129_100 [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=465755&postcount=1105]was suggested for 14e[/url] but I think it fell through the cracks.
|
C173_129_85 revisited
C173_129_85 re-trial sieved using Max's poly, with target relations set to 450M.
[code]n: 16432623607473574219758563585400708524378818125206904056185988551457839250312821323878324356918801650702586763199236947949550568517635374514910417505008392250111636215513873 skew: 7500107.12 c0: -14706812234442561584746077625649079501315 c1: 62935577997654071065756497728660415 c2: -18514641213973620944626070771 c3: -3710098762779786734135 c4: 262902730897806 c5: 15679440 Y0: -1009427825229211597749017949451862 Y1: 210906019054079 # size 7.565e-017, alpha -7.687, combined = 2.415e-013 rroots = 5 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8[/code] Yield with Q in blocks of 10K on 14e: [code] Q=30M 24012 Q=60M 25041 Q=100M 23056 Q=150M 25205 Q=200M 23624 Q=250M 22541 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-215M |
Queued C223_129_100 and C173_129_85
(by a typo I queued C166_4590514719337_17 as C16_4590514719337_17; bear this in mind at download time) |
C172_146_97 for 14e (GNFS)
C172_146_97 is another composite stub remaining after yoyo@Home found a p53. Many thanks to Max for the excellent poly.
[code] n: 1170853019515033698415242459454033802398574616300210069115767756868401726019155955087945146536620237667693835959736726342342054660212038811896070939605661625429429731919839 skew: 25160967.71 c0: 991834780948194543991887971239482751691040 c1: 572326646054572174299171725001398778 c2: 1934877978873866669654342727 c3: -2069560651005489103571 c4: 12064175741450 c5: 1187400 Y0: -1580449837730585778276683181839623 Y1: 628496539689113733197 # size 1.201e-016, alpha -8.977, combined = 3.255e-013 rroots = 3 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 10K [code] Q=30M 18319 Q=60M 18350 Q=100M 15579 Q=150M 15474 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-170M |
Swellman PM'ed me with a question about test-sieving C224_148_86, and I found it interesting so I took on test-sieving a few options:
[code]n: 45627432792347670688239956412173506509008903107099345312947604301182520320088908379217379060309588664605324037213136495321294587557850433562888672922025539316571326365191223456037265379609488544611394330437749647736122392373 # 148^86+86^148, difficulty: 245.02, anorm: 2.55e+040, rnorm: 1.42e+046 # scaled difficulty: 245.02, suggest sieving rational side # size = 8.583e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.120e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 245 skew: 11.674 c6: 1 c0: 2531281 Y1: 4838313566980742053301602746368 Y0: -2303887567059225375711861260560690857602371813376 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8[/code] I tried 14e/32 and 14e/33 with the above parameters, also 15e/31 and 15e/32 with alim = rlim = 134M. All testing was done with Q-range of 2000 per test. 14e/32: [code] Q=30M 3237 rels 0.223 sec/rel Q=80M 3136 rels 0.206 sec/rel Q=130M 3290 rels 0.244 sec/rel Q=180M 2626 rels 0.291 sec/rel Q=230M 2766 rels 0.328 sec/rel Q=280M 2772 rels 0.359 sec/rel Target 450M relations => Q-range 20-330M suggested[/code] 14e/33: [code] Q=30M 5069 rels 0.142 sec/rel Q=80M 5153 rels 0.126 sec/rel Q=130M 5834 rels 0.138 sec/rel Q=180M 4838 rels 0.158 sec/rel Q=230M 5074 rels 0.179 sec/rel Q=280M 5090 rels 0.197 sec/rel Target 760M relations => Q-range 20-310M suggested[/code] 15e/31: [code] Q=30M 3968 rels 0.266 sec/rel Q=80M 2869 rels 0.320 sec/rel Q=130M 3024 rels 0.371 sec/rel Target 240M relations => Q-range 20-170M suggested[/code] 15e/32: [code] Q=30M 6818 rels 0.155 sec/rel Q=80M 5568 rels 0.165 sec/rel Q=130M 5831 rels 0.192 sec/rel Target 410M relations => Q-range 20-170M suggested[/code] 15e/32 is at least 35% faster than 14e/32 for the job (20-25% faster sec/rel at identical Q-values, but 15e avoids all the slow Q-range above 180M). I didn't do the integration to calculate estimated job length, but roughly 35% less time suggests 15e might be the right siever here. We haven't tried 14e/33 yet, and 20-310M sieve range isn't a terrible idea; I estimate 14e/33 to be 10% faster job than 14e/32, with 15e/32 roughly 25% faster than 14e/33. |
C173_130_129 GNFS on 15e
C173_130_129 is the remaining composite stub after yoyo@Home found a p53. Many thanks to Max0526 for the excellent poly - a new record for a C173 I believe.
[code] n: 12943490163899842800202807808563517677179129369217866856794847025883663552804850369692061096437966431056254749174584130929481762886801341603554776086080941421222438047588701 skew: 14985693.28 Y0: -2314093965309990903135234813960467 Y1: 2512273913966851261789 c0: -8462437386056646112680224420839599115776 c1: 10997372261995056796792168726037808 c2: 2165078146665064726520117240 c3: -74627684218946321311 c4: -9006531480082 c5: 195060 # size 8.218e-017, alpha -5.665, combined = 2.579e-013 rroots = 5 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10K [code] Q=30M 29034 Q=60M 26919 Q=100M 29630 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-115M |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;466488]Swellman PM'ed me with a question about test-sieving C224_148_86, and I found it interesting so I took on test-sieving a few options:
[code]n: 45627432792347670688239956412173506509008903107099345312947604301182520320088908379217379060309588664605324037213136495321294587557850433562888672922025539316571326365191223456037265379609488544611394330437749647736122392373 # 148^86+86^148, difficulty: 245.02, anorm: 2.55e+040, rnorm: 1.42e+046 # scaled difficulty: 245.02, suggest sieving rational side # size = 8.583e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.120e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 245 skew: 11.674 c6: 1 c0: 2531281 Y1: 4838313566980742053301602746368 Y0: -2303887567059225375711861260560690857602371813376 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8[/code] I tried 14e/32 and 14e/33 with the above parameters, also 15e/31 and 15e/32 with alim = rlim = 134M. All testing was done with Q-range of 2000 per test. 14e/32: [code] Q=30M 3237 rels 0.223 sec/rel Q=80M 3136 rels 0.206 sec/rel Q=130M 3290 rels 0.244 sec/rel Q=180M 2626 rels 0.291 sec/rel Q=230M 2766 rels 0.328 sec/rel Q=280M 2772 rels 0.359 sec/rel Target 450M relations => Q-range 20-330M suggested[/code] 14e/33: [code] Q=30M 5069 rels 0.142 sec/rel Q=80M 5153 rels 0.126 sec/rel Q=130M 5834 rels 0.138 sec/rel Q=180M 4838 rels 0.158 sec/rel Q=230M 5074 rels 0.179 sec/rel Q=280M 5090 rels 0.197 sec/rel Target 760M relations => Q-range 20-310M suggested[/code] 15e/31: [code] Q=30M 3968 rels 0.266 sec/rel Q=80M 2869 rels 0.320 sec/rel Q=130M 3024 rels 0.371 sec/rel Target 240M relations => Q-range 20-170M suggested[/code] 15e/32: [code] Q=30M 6818 rels 0.155 sec/rel Q=80M 5568 rels 0.165 sec/rel Q=130M 5831 rels 0.192 sec/rel Target 410M relations => Q-range 20-170M suggested[/code] 15e/32 is at least 35% faster than 14e/32 for the job (20-25% faster sec/rel at identical Q-values, but 15e avoids all the slow Q-range above 180M). I didn't do the integration to calculate estimated job length, but roughly 35% less time suggests 15e might be the right siever here. We haven't tried 14e/33 yet, and 20-310M sieve range isn't a terrible idea; I estimate 14e/33 to be 10% faster job than 14e/32, with 15e/32 roughly 25% faster than 14e/33.[/QUOTE] My thanks VBCurtis for the extensive trial sieving and analysis. Seems to me 15/31 is the way to go from your findings, but whatever folks want to try. A 14/33 sounds like masochism! FWIW, the sievers were crashing with this number when using a new Win 10 machine. It's the only time I've seen this. |
[QUOTE=swellman;466499] A 14/33 sounds like masochism!
FWIW, the sievers were crashing with this number when using a new Win 10 machine. It's the only time I've seen this.[/QUOTE] Since 14/33 is untested ground, I'll do the LA if 14/33 is chosen by the gatekeepers. My test-sieving was done in Ubuntu 14.04, so I can't comment on the Win-siever crash. |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C165 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 252200952570714959522276510841096370674323976995081889215727156126160616201246948514974489509681516961184893362356286486785968091610249508946327883536380191981616429 # 4635303278743^17-1, difficulty: 227.99, skewness: 129.13, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.47611e+18, est. time: 702.91 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 129.126 c6: 1 c0: -4635303278743 Y1: -1 Y0: 99594295370402687259450073008396038407 m: 99594295370402687259450073008396038407 rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 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 8947 60M 7335 100M 7297 150M 5374 200M 6158 250M 5001[/CODE] |
C225_140_138 for 14e
[b]QUEUED[/b] C225_140_138 is ready for SNFS.
[code] n: 542038016194898058377811481575996489349998488336457433551304722132283550121460835423485159142752243216163118385595486921487165241322448030181348476110253687710135764732748278610302647894409987865604739881721074443428491912449 # 140^138+138^140, difficulty: 258.07, anorm: 2.76e+038, rnorm: -3.26e+048 # scaled difficulty: 259.75, suggest sieving rational side # size = 7.614e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.684e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 258 skew: 5.1676 c6: 1 c0: 19044 Y1: -1965753632901132991452851230906979378964909 Y0: 2736874734008091634300000000000000000000000 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k on 14e. [code] Q=30M 9807 Q=80M 8073 Q=150M 7241 Q=250M 6208 Q=350M 5899 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-340M |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C189 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 252594637447607245241185695796134629188854883886869844681604282726480736521809390738657412988155154855736991000412550165400686017997275949776088501372043867909702418929596732428615892729759 # 4052490063499^17-1, difficulty: 226.94, skewness: 126.27, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.35598e+18, est. time: 645.71 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 126.266 c6: 1 c0: -4052490063499 Y1: -1 Y0: 66552730150123655613864377003248440499 m: 66552730150123655613864377003248440499 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 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 11332 60M 9540 100M 9929 150M 7047 200M 8016[/CODE] |
Summarizing those waiting for enqueuing
C172_146_97 - GNFS - 14e/31 - posted in [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=466368&postcount=1120"]post 1120[/URL]
C173_130_129 - GNFS - 15e/31 - posted in [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=466498&postcount=1122"]post 1122[/URL] C224_148_86 - SNFS - siever/lpb TBD - posted in [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=466488&postcount=1121"]post 1121[/URL] C224_148_86, well test sieved and analyzed by VBCurtis, is probably best sieved as a 15e/31 or 32 job, but as Curtis has suggested, a 14/33 is possible. Would this be a good opportunity to verify the speed/yield of such a job with a host of users willing to chew on such a non-trivial task? Probably not something to try everyday, but with the upcoming challenge the timing is perfect and the results could be instructive. Or has this topic been done to death in the past? Of course if 14/33 is seen as abusing the goodwill of the sievers, then obviously the idea should be dropped. |
There's a GNFS-179 in the 14e queue presently; that makes the GNFS173 from post 1122 a clear 14e choice.
I think it also makes 148_86 a clear 14e choice, given how much demand there is presently for workunits. I hope it's the first 14e/33!! :-) |
I have queued 148_86 as a 14/33 job, and put VBCurtis down to do the post-processing. I don't have anything resembling an idea how big the post-processing will be.
Also queued the two GNFS jobs from #1128 I tend to do C17x jobs as 15/32 locally, but while we have a 14e queue it probably needs filling. |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C185 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 21937558583985708320116671473750602401633425908726074660018054001811997097813276941214646593868352842549839079152759241372197970005427726934544492415395022285746597747109414781668801143 # 1511140989109^17-1, difficulty: 219.23, skewness: 107.12, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 7.21829e+17, est. time: 343.73 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 107.123 c6: 1 c0: -1511140989109 Y1: -1 Y0: 3450761606696041645508981952839222029 m: 3450761606696041645508981952839222029 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 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 14395 60M 12558 100M 12132 140M 9507[/CODE] |
I've added three of the smallest Fibonacci and Lucas SNFS numbers to the 15e queue.
The Fibonacci and Lucas GNFS numbers will take a little while longer because lots of them haven't had all that much ECM done yet, let alone the polynomial selection; also I am selfish and want to save some of them for my local cluster. |
[b]QUEUED[/b] GNFS C157 from the t550 file.
This might be considered too small for 14e. [CODE]n: 1285513678558327974452479212785276193227825026334227699014956971970123507922903619704409921192405117718118925304817341669218102975406714504637552034617856703 # 113990869481^19-1 - GNFS(157) lss: 0 Y0: -1176235284690866295875755403927 Y1: 1907379916459067 c0: -32000710470499238861821069593087061552 c1: -43772364993873314254620513196320 c2: 9509011773943995412695483 c3: -9946694495490369478 c4: 1843213838856 c5: 570960 skew: 3346989.46545 # lognorm 49.42, E 42.14, alpha -7.28 (proj -2.45), 3 real roots # MurphyE=2.24660304e-12 rlim: 67000000 alim: 67000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 type: gnfs[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 15996 60M 15345 100M 13332[/CODE] |
GNFS C181 currently blocking HP2(4496).
[CODE]n: 12318214520619502375309197444302415329946926189197389561198861911510635946133589638416409637733506897688961608651544$# norm 1.439129e-017 alpha -8.905887 e 7.874e-014 rroots 3 skew: 123515293.34 c0: 4939055050442425955439652118236542439461254700 c1: 13600752217009344448310033829110047310 c2: -2321123572444702694783022432428 c3: -22840646084593908802465 c4: 211416855324726 c5: 727272 Y0: -70108419896313411533408862388542677 Y1: 10591976477210123 type: gnfs rlim: 286000000 alim: 286000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 [/CODE] This sieved best as a 15/32 job. Assuming ~350-400M raw relations needed (is this accurate?), recommending sieving from 20M-250M for a bit of buffer. Test sieve yields below (2k q-blocks): [CODE] Q=20M: total yield: 3853 (0.35063 sec/rel) Q=100M: total yield: 5379 (0.23646 sec/rel) Q=200M: total yield: 4497 (0.28346 sec/rel) Q=300M: total yield: 3487 (0.31513 sec/rel)[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=wombatman;467598]GNFS C181
This sieved best as a 15/32 job. Assuming ~350-400M raw relations needed (is this accurate?), recommending sieving from 20M-250M for a bit of buffer. Test sieve yields below (2k q-blocks): [CODE] Q=20M: total yield: 3853 (0.35063 sec/rel) Q=100M: total yield: 5379 (0.23646 sec/rel) Q=200M: total yield: 4497 (0.28346 sec/rel) Q=300M: total yield: 3487 (0.31513 sec/rel)[/CODE][/QUOTE] My personal data only goes up to GNFS170, but 275M 32LP raw relations built a matrix under 10M for that. 400M is likely enough to build a decent matrix, but GNFS180 is getting into "big matrix" land, so some oversieving should save substantial matrix time. Also, note the high time per relation at 20M; small Q-values don't work as well for GNFS as for SNFS. Even 300M is faster than 20M! It should probably run 40-230M and expect ~430M relations. We're fortunate the gatekeepers have much experience at this size, and can correct both of us. |
I'm assuming 286000000 is a typo for 268000000 (the largest multiple of 10^6 less than 2^28) because there is a small performance cliff at powers of two there. That looks an entirely reasonable 32/15 candidate; when dispatching sieving to nfs@home I usually go for 444 million relations (just a round number!) though I'd expect to be able to build a usable matrix at 350M.
My nearest data point is logN=178.7 E=9.49e-14 where 326.8M relations made a 16.76M matrix which took eight days on an i7/4770K to solve, after 13 days of sieving on 128 fairly slow Xeon threads; a day more on the Xeons might well have saved a day on the matrix. I appreciate this oversieving is a matter of burning more of other peoples' natural gas in order to be nicer to the 15e linear algebra team, I oscillate on whether that's the right thing to do. Queued on 15e. (and then queued again with the right number in the top line - your post has the first 115 digits, a $, and then the norm line) |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C159 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 117944828466783029341130794951407919800494290243676688928501114065533252139794251478009415680546990298699711759392626060835559321003200394428376875862099950309 # 64171^47-1, difficulty: 230.75, skewness: 6.33, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.84331e+18, est. time: 877.77 GHz days (not accurate yet!) skew: 6.327 c6: 1 c0: -64171 Y1: -1 Y0: 287548069938690982194158881806162430561 m: 287548069938690982194158881806162430561 type: snfs rlim: 100000000 alim: 100000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 17158 60M 12861 100M 11825 140M 9527[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=fivemack;467614]I'm assuming 286000000 is a typo for 268000000 (the largest multiple of 10^6 less than 2^28) because there is a small performance cliff at powers of two there. That looks an entirely reasonable 32/15 candidate; when dispatching sieving to nfs@home I usually go for 444 million relations (just a round number!) though I'd expect to be able to build a usable matrix at 350M.
My nearest data point is logN=178.7 E=9.49e-14 where 326.8M relations made a 16.76M matrix which took eight days on an i7/4770K to solve, after 13 days of sieving on 128 fairly slow Xeon threads; a day more on the Xeons might well have saved a day on the matrix. I appreciate this oversieving is a matter of burning more of other peoples' natural gas in order to be nicer to the 15e linear algebra team, I oscillate on whether that's the right thing to do. Queued on 15e. (and then queued again with the right number in the top line - your post has the first 115 digits, a $, and then the norm line)[/QUOTE] :davieddy: Yes, thank you for correcting those typos. And please set the Q-range to whatever you think is appropriate. I've been trying to learn more about the necessary guidelines, but I'm still shaky. :smile: |
[QUOTE=fivemack;467614]
I appreciate this oversieving is a matter of burning more of other peoples' natural gas in order to be nicer to the 15e linear algebra team, I oscillate on whether that's the right thing to do. [/QUOTE] IMO, any job that requires more than 16GB or more than a quad-core-month for LA deserves to be oversieved, as resources to do such jobs are in short supply. The 14e jobs and the 15e/31 jobs can be run on most of the LA-solving-pool's machines, and as such should be oversieved only insofar as to minimize the frequency a gatekeeper's editing of Q-range is required. Is there a chance to alter the BOINC commands for the 14e pool to add "-J 14" to the lasieve command line? Now that nearly every 14e job is near the size where 15e is a viable option, setting this flag would improve overall 14e efficiency. The flag changes the sieve region from 2^14 by 2^13 to 2^14 by 2^14, finding ~40% more relations per Q-range. It's marginally less efficient search space in theory, but since we're sieving numbers outside the efficient range for 14e the gain from more rels outweighs the loss in theoretical efficiency. Then again, we'd gain efficiency simply by convincing more BOINCers to run 15e rather than 14e and then sending the tougher 14e jobs to 15e instead; but I don't have any idea how we would go about doing that. |
C226_143_57 (14e)
Another candidate for 14e. Survived ECM to t55 and a bit more at t60. Sieve on the -a side.
[code] n: 4846210163780194652371739154306052503975694058742199643141954936038658621178225753197153487600982972049251631335307675463568920952755482872691616056868934686502334591899184971330850887145560276922389198184294368241994267585521 # 143^57+57^143, difficulty: 252.85, anorm: 2.58e+040, rnorm: 2.86e+047 # scaled difficulty: 254.02, suggest sieving [b]algebraic[/b] side # size = 5.957e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.434e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 252 skew: 23.4592 c6: 1 c0: 166679799 Y1: -25004854810776297743 Y0: 1383555343921576970686857174303757103336001 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Some test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10K: [code] rels Q=20M 20991 Q=80M 15884 Q=150M 14223 Q=250M 14203 Q=310M 12420 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-310M with a target of 450M relations. |
C224_148_86, marked 33LP, is actually posted as a 32LP number (and yielding more than I estimated, whoops). I'll start the matrix late Tuesday Pacific time.
I'm still curious about 14e/33; if the gatekeepers are willing to post this new candidate 143_57 as 14e/33, I'll do the LA. |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;468082]C224_148_86, marked 33LP, is actually posted as a 32LP number (and yielding more than I estimated, whoops). I'll start the matrix late Tuesday Pacific time.[/quote]
Sorry, that was my fault. I thought it was going very slowly for a 33LP. I have submitted 143_57 as 14e/33, and this time actually changed the LPB values in the input file rather than just the number in the description. Initially sieving 200MQ; let's look at the yield when that's done and see how much further VBCurtis wants to go. |
C202_137_75
C202_137_75 is ready for SNFS, preferably on 14e. It seemed a toss-up between 15e/31 and 14e/32 - neither has great yield - but gotta feed the grid, right? 15/32 looks like the optimal solution, if we ignore the everpresent hunger of 14e...
3LP did not work in any of the four possible combinations, i.e. 3LPa+2LPr and 3LPr+2LPa, sieved on either the -r or the -a side. Is this perhaps another possible data point for the 14e/33 condition? I will postprocess it regardless of siever/lpb/rlim combination chosen by the gatekeeper. [code] n: 1254920216327506711470857726162165812550094782910886342493118602914148985990576287053479944571411779598799332039514853128792523457936465212358489555790194402703085433378083484443208260708735082143829089 # 137^75+75^137, difficulty: 258.76, anorm: 2.78e+040, rnorm: 2.73e+048 # scaled difficulty: 260.09, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.763e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.468e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 258 skew: 24.0365 c6: 1 c0: 192851475 Y1: -43716643078717303412870881 Y0: 13378550367377783913980238139629364013671875 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Test sieving of the above 14e/32 poly with Q in blocks of 5K. [code] Q=20M rels=5448 Q=80M rels=4487 Q=150M rels=3826 Q=250M rels=3356 Q=450M rels=2652 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-640M with target # rels = 400M (maybe oversieving?). Test sieving of 14e/33 poly with Q in blocks of 5K, using same poly as above (with r/alim=[b]268e6[/b], lpbr/a=33, mfbr/a=66 and r/alambda=3.0). [code] Q=20M rels=7959 Q=80M rels=6563 Q=150M rels=5640 Q=250M rels=4935 Q=350M rels=4664 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-380M with a target # rels = 400M. Test sieving of 14e/33 poly again with Q in blocks of 5K, using same poly as above (but this time with r/alim=[b]134e6[/b], lpbr/a=33, mfbr/a=66 and r/alambda=3.0). [code] Q=20M rels=6838 Q=80M rels=5530 Q=150M rels=4595 Q=250M rels=3775 Q=400M rels=2975 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-510M with a target # rels = 400M. Test sieving as a 15e/31 job with Q in blocks of 5K, using same poly as above (with r/alim=134e6, lpbr/a=31, mfbr/a=62 and r/alambda=2.7). [code] Q=20M rels=5098 Q=80M rels=3972 Q=150M rels=3184 Q=250M rels=2691 Q=400M rels=2291 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-410M with target # rels = 240M. And finally, going all in with test sieving the above poly as a 15e/32 job with Q in blocks of 5k (i.e. r/alim=268e6, lpbr/a=32, mfbr/a=64 and r/alambda=2.8). [code] Q=20M rels=11464 Q=80M rels=9305 Q=150M rels=8033 Q=250M rels=7113 Q=400M rels=6092 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-340M with target # rels = 520M. |
Thank you for all the options!
I have put this one in as a 14/33, I think 400M is rather low for 33LP; if you don't mind, could you try post-processing when it hits the Q=400M mark, and we can add more relations if that doesn't work. |
[QUOTE=fivemack;468249]...if you don't mind, could you try post-processing when it hits the Q=400M mark, and we can add more relations if that doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
Of course. Anyone know a good minimum TD to aim for? Or is it build a matrix anyway possible? |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C177 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side. [CODE]n: 332835016354511782859920847764611369215654651692152387544372086667611336781169647953439747356831034116086752413757313198324771557842674176530558333493181202822353107340319678877 # 4287755796749^17-1, difficulty: 227.38, skewness: 127.46, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 1.40523e+18, est. time: 669.16 GHz days (not accurate yet!) lss: 0 skew: 127.459 c6: 1 c0: -4287755796749 Y1: -1 Y0: 78829746184630742457434595059507577749 m: 78829746184630742457434595059507577749 rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 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 7449 60M 7023 100M 7423 140M 5600 180M 5889 220M 4492[/CODE] |
[QUOTE=swellman;468251]Of course. Anyone know a good minimum TD to aim for? Or is it build a matrix anyway possible?[/QUOTE]
I think it would be interesting to know both 'how many relations to build with td=70' and 'how many relations to build with td=120' (if I'm going to pick a reasonable oversieving point at random) |
[QUOTE=swellman;468251]Of course. Anyone know a good minimum TD to aim for? Or is it build a matrix anyway possible?[/QUOTE]
This job will stretch 14e more than any other NFS@home has done, at least that I've seen. I think you'll need 700-750M relations at 33LP, so Q may have to reach 550 or 600M (by that time, yield will be dropping rather quickly, above 2 * alim and all...). If you can't build a good matrix (say, TD 110 or higher), we can sieve low Q values off-grid using 15e or even 16e to get a few million more relations. I hope this works! |
C213_142_112 is ready for SNFS using 14e.
[code] n: 455715217613905419326896862948405969104460570801874971719843970220193901956710849582700079225285279197142578692909920761615400944852069264077050644230406950814525311956771920417257379928316326381911686147209565113 # 142^112+112^142, difficulty: 261.86, anorm: 9.94e+038, rnorm: -2.13e+049 # scaled difficulty: 263.58, suggest sieving rational side # size = 3.024e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.961e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 261 skew: 2.1646 c6: 49 c0: 5041 Y1: -14475468573095697959140800125364450189377536 Y0: 149248036287203113136096720283566231 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5k. [code] Q=20M rels=6797 Q=80M rels=5510 Q=150M rels=4901 Q=250M rels=4511 Q=450M rels=3969 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-520M with a target # rels = 460M. |
For 202_137_75, might we sieve the -a side from 20M up rather than the -r side from 400M up? I'm getting timings twice as good for Q=20M -a versus Q=400M -r:
Q = 20M -a 0.160 sec/rel yield 1.75/Q Q = 120M -a 0.229 sec/rel yield 1.32/Q Q = 400M -r 0.405 sec/rel yield 1.00/Q (tests done on 2kQ regions) Perhaps this job could be re-queued on the -a side from 20M up to generate the remaining relations after -r finishes to Q=400M? perhaps as 202_137_75a, and Sean can just zcat together the two dat files before filtering? Does sieving both sides produce more duplicates than normal? |
Just keep in mind I'm using a Win 7 box. Copy command - no zcat. Not sure what the limit on file size in DOS environment. Merging two huge files on my machine could be problematic, though in all fairness I've not tried that for some years.
|
C157 from aliquot sequence 11040. I'll run LA for it.
[CODE]# lognorm 47.75, E 41.44, alpha -6.31 (proj -1.64), 5 real roots # MurphyE = 2.41811536e-12 n: 2153646797243598406022781698871921179468736333856465460905533539179197067080286019717757270291317968880659999793269997464862726882530680275363360113121869979 Y0: -3412887084652747994920013434801 Y1: 726799483512671712557 c0: -155739768072620872585403642819221342740 c1: 105731537875959470823347887885348 c2: 16051986632892334694632495 c3: -2782308567581898834 c4: -134653299134 c5: 4680 skew: 11561243.62085 rlim: 35200000 alim: 35200000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 type: gnfs[/CODE]Suggesting sieving range 20M-60M. |
[QUOTE=fivemack;468084]Sorry, that was my fault. I thought it was going very slowly for a 33LP.
I have submitted 143_57 as 14e/33, and this time actually changed the LPB values in the input file rather than just the number in the description. Initially sieving 200MQ; let's look at the yield when that's done and see how much further VBCurtis wants to go.[/QUOTE] Looks like the initial 200MQ will produce 560M relations; I think 720-750M is enough for this job, so how about another 70MQ (to 290 total)? |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;468351]Looks like the initial 200MQ will produce 560M relations; I think 720-750M is enough for this job, so how about another 70MQ (to 290 total)?[/QUOTE]
Your wish is my command. Done. |
C222_143_73 is ready for SNFS. It is notionally best sieved on the rational side, but the algebraic side is almost as good. Perhaps this should be sieved on both sides simultaneously? Is that command lss:0? For the gatekeeper to decide.
[code] n: 103501114207510940834382339780477032273818392297712699737243103372773427310309763554999518496440606907949943972568789048639960888063252135338756392008546273739323139843951769793341393703783471868302578674124875908308512349 # 143^73+73^143, difficulty: 268.32, anorm: 2.04e+038, rnorm: 2.43e+050 # scaled difficulty: 270.33, suggest sieving rational side # size = 4.244e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 6.046e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 268 skew: 4.6749 c6: 1 c0: 10439 Y1: -73119371471655725294164801 Y0: 524503804723748275248688345080154231098133441 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 10K [code] total yield: 15159, q=20010017 (0.93006 sec/rel) total yield: 14175, q=50010001 (0.97618 sec/rel) total yield: 12850, q=80010001 (1.09179 sec/rel) total yield: 12401, q=150010001 (1.34504 sec/rel) total yield: 10877, q=250010011 (1.61802 sec/rel) total yield: 9785, q=350010013 (1.75480 sec/rel) [/code] Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-480M with target # rels 500M Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10K [code] total yield: 17378, q=20010017 (0.80164 sec/rel) total yield: 13575, q=50010001 (0.98051 sec/rel) total yield: 12230, q=80010001 (1.12366 sec/rel) total yield: 11622, q=150010001 (1.32670 sec/rel) total yield: 7822, q=250010011 (1.82551 sec/rel) total yield: 9263, q=350010013 (1.80202 sec/rel) [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-500M with target # rels 500M. A combined sieving on the -r and -a sides would have duplicates, but I am unsure of the percentage. Is a sieving range of 20M-350M a feasible place to start? Whatever is decided, I will perform the postprocessing. |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C191 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 20508929330948193698572470599897897516304792943826902972122198941094004036574931871066771664508847800829028047903019470182253564143086946641713384879471166102489510360704972302100259660442469 # 567661^41-1, difficulty: 242 skew: 9.099 c6: 1 c0: -567661 Y1: -1 Y0: 18994304917146663927336123812607926921221 m: 18994304917146663927336123812607926921221 type: snfs rlim: 200000000 alim: 200000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 7669 60M 5949 100M 5372 150M 4513 200M 4590[/CODE] |
[b]QUEUED[/b] C191 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 21750517772066764429310825826210057391453549257352013805877881343987118383585416981161422596613352446917132610877793669465789122940062574932401115917345625709274117784979612588064171198595443 # 22926121^31-1, difficulty: 228 c6: 22926121 c0: -1 Y1: -1 Y0: 6333633091927020072021010384826454601 skew: 0.0593 rlim: 67000000 alim: 67000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 type: snfs[/CODE] Trial sieving 5K blocks. [CODE] Q Yield 20M 8738 50M 6813 80M 5538 110M 5428[/CODE] |
C226_127_106 is ready for SNFS. Another possible -r and -a simultaneous sieving job?
[code] n: 2280139691439976870568969462338718473449233379612063824087464058088350308991326968788088698275254458880939735465798971790789201177419031841268155618018789135288844404141201471594727605279414772263530156097952068024055709191881 # 127^106+106^127, difficulty: 257.21, anorm: 2.62e+039, rnorm: -1.12e+049 # scaled difficulty: 258.82, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.785e-013, alpha = 1.262, combined = 3.445e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 257 skew: 10.9350 c6: 1 c0: 1709674 Y1: -3399563600545615415795972563652626094227456 Y0: 73869809188743794269800200736680064769 rlim: 268000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 64 mfba: 64 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 2.8 [/code] Test sieving on the -a side, with Q in blocks of 10K. [code] total yield: 12031, q=20010017 (0.78872 sec/rel) total yield: 9275, q=50010001 (1.33246 sec/rel) total yield: 8401, q=80010001 (1.50232 sec/rel) total yield: 7452, q=150010001 (1.79374 sec/rel) total yield: 7218, q=300010001 (2.58760 sec/rel) total yield: 5767, q=450010013 (3.05052 sec/rel) total yield: 5404, q=530010001 (3.17532 sec/rel) [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-750M+ for Q with a target # of relations=470M. Test sieving on the -r side, with Q in blocks of 10K. [code] total yield: 10791, q=20010017 (0.82643 sec/rel) total yield: 9420, q=50010001 (1.33603 sec/rel) total yield: 8660, q=80010001 (1.45594 sec/rel) total yield: 8091, q=150010001 (1.70537 sec/rel) total yield: 6891, q=300010001 (2.62294 sec/rel) total yield: 5452, q=450010013 (3.07939 sec/rel) total yield: 5702, q=530010001 (3.20157 sec/rel) [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-710M+ for Q with a target # of relations=470M. A combined -r/-a sieving strategy would likely require a sieving range of 20M-400M. If this job is judged to be too much for 14e/32, even if sieved on both sides simultaneously, then 15e/32 appears to work. Test sieving results on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2k. [code] Q=20M rels=4691 Q=80M rels=3465 Q=150M rels=3141 Q=250M rels=2994 Q=350M rels=2549 [/code] Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-350M for Q with a target # of relations=520M. |
[QUOTE=swellman;468452]C222_143_73 is ready for SNFS. It is notionally best sieved on the rational side, but the algebraic side is almost as good. Perhaps this should be sieved on both sides simultaneously? Is that command lss:0? For the gatekeeper to decide.[/quote]
I have queued C222_143_73 twice on 14e, with 250MQ range (20M-270M) on each side - please post-process when that's done, and we can see what the actual duplication rates are and how much further to go. Would it be OK if I wait to see how well that worked before deciding what to do with the harder C226_127_106 ? I think those sieving rates are just too slow for 14e for large Q and probably it's a not-too-hard 15e job. |
[QUOTE=fivemack;468637]I have queued C222_143_73 twice on 14e, with 250MQ range (20M-270M) on each side - please post-process when that's done, and we can see what the actual duplication rates are and how much further to go.[/quote]
Of course. My only worry is combining two large files locally in a Windows environment but I'll cross that bridge later. [quote] Would it be OK if I wait to see how well that worked before deciding what to do with the harder C226_127_106 ? I think those sieving rates are just too slow for 14e for large Q and probably it's a not-too-hard 15e job.[/QUOTE] Sure, makes sense. Agreed these are not horribly slow/difficult 15e jobs but this entire exercise may be instructive. |
[QUOTE=swellman;468639]Of course. My only worry is combining two large files locally in a Windows environment but I'll cross that bridge later.
[/QUOTE] There's a package of small executables called "CoreUtils" for windows that provide unix-shell commands such as grep or cat. You could also try the windows "type" command, which prints the contents of a file (but I'm not sure it concatenates...). |
[QUOTE=VBCurtis;468642]There's a package of small executables called "CoreUtils" for windows that provide unix-shell commands such as grep or cat. You could also try the windows "type" command, which prints the contents of a file (but I'm not sure it concatenates...).[/QUOTE]
[c]copy file1+file2[/c] concatenates file1 & file2 into file1. [c]copy file1+file2 file3[/c] concatenates file1 & file2 and writes to file3. Use /b switch to do binary copy. |
[QUOTE=axn;468643][c]copy file1+file2[/c] concatenates file1 & file2 into file1.
[c]copy file1+file2 file3[/c] concatenates file1 & file2 and writes to file3. Use /b switch to do binary copy.[/QUOTE] Does it work with 20+ Gb files? DOS used to have a 1 or 2 Gb size limit on file to be manipulated but I haven't tried it in a few years. Maybe Win 10 has removed this barrier? |
[QUOTE=swellman;468644]Does it work with 20+ Gb files? DOS used to have a 1 or 2 Gb size limit on file to be manipulated but I haven't tried it in a few years. Maybe Win 10 has removed this barrier?[/QUOTE]
Never tried it, but no reason why it shouldn't work. |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 10:17. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.