[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]

Provided you have an NTFS file system, it will work. On a FAT32 filesystem you can't have files of more than 2GB in any case.

Candidate for 15e
 

C226_141_59 is ready for SNFS as a 15e job. (I struck out with 3LPs, 14e/32 and 15e/31.)

[code]
n: 2025646362861897392198814945044679402485649592025332378407520032228761262902577000370396079244222507758311602928401073188653433353569456404929497047954062378264983285284343488884604953578028899615702167954870062745889431097499
# 141^59+59^141, difficulty: 249.69, anorm: 1.08e+040, rnorm: -2.25e+047
# scaled difficulty: 250.91, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.280e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.776e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 17.5238
c6: 1
c0: 28958439
Y1: -53653278865596927234911463541904971226579
Y0: 3105926159393528563401
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=16613
Q=80M rels=11567
Q=150M rels=10244
Q=200M rels=9825
Q=250M rels=8712
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-255M with a target # relations=520M.

For what it's worth, there are two NFS candidates posted in this thread a couple of pages back - see posts
[url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=468314&postcount=1149]1149[/url] and [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=468350&postcount=1152]1152[/url].

Queued C226_141_59 on 15e and C213_142_112 and C157_11040_10066 on 14e

[QUOTE=swellman;468707]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-255M with a target # relations=520M.[/QUOTE]

Note that when comparing 15e to 14e, 15e will produce fewer duplicate relations, so a 15e job will need fewer raw relations than the same job run on 14e. I bet 460-470M rels is enough here, while 500-520M would be enough for nearly any 15/32 job we could run.

450M 15e rels is often as good as 475M 14e rels; that is, the duplication rate is often 2/3rds. I'd like some confirmation of this; perhaps we could report raw vs unique relations for some time on the big 14e and all 15e jobs?

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;468728]Note that when comparing 15e to 14e, 15e will produce fewer duplicate relations, so a 15e job will need fewer raw relations than the same job run on 14e. I bet 460-470M rels is enough here, while 500-520M would be enough for nearly any 15/32 job we could run.

450M 15e rels is often as good as 475M 14e rels; that is, the duplication rate is often 2/3rds. I'd like some confirmation of this; perhaps we could report raw vs unique relations for some time on the big 14e and all 15e jobs?[/QUOTE]

I bow to your experience on the dup rate - 460M+ for the upper end of Q range seems a good thing. No need for extra work! Didn't realize the effect was that big.

Also I will report raw/unique relations for all my jobs from here on out. (No more 15/31 left in my queue, and only seven 14/31 jobs in the pipe).

I used to report both raw and unique, then I started using remdups so now I must pay attention to how many rels I downloaded before remdups-ing the file. This discussion is a reminder to myself that duplication rates matter, and the 14e queue is in new territory for nearly everyone here so data is scarce.

567661^41-1

I'm factoring this number, too.
My ETA is 01.10.2017.

Shall I proceed or stop ?

PS: I overlooked that the number was queued on 27.09.2017 (?)

[QUOTE=Alfred;468868]567661^41-1

I'm factoring this number, too.
My ETA is 01.10.2017.

Shall I proceed or stop ?

PS: I overlooked that the number was queued on 27.09.2017 (?)[/QUOTE]

Go ahead and finish it up. You will complete it before any post-processor will get to it Report the factors in the reservation thread so the entry can be removed from the queue.

15e candidate
 

[b]queued[/b] C215_147_53 is ready for SNFS as a 15e/32 job. Poly follows.
[code]
n: 10076208994859598682531631559632476483149792580846464207011654996964452486511085469244349665103204144457374964397184525525959111926947665668462480126249582933781635804479872947702733600393007111639304416333391508707
# 147^53+53^147, difficulty: 253.47, anorm: 9.36e+039, rnorm: -9.87e+047
# scaled difficulty: 254.81, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.242e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.409e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 1.2556
c6: 148877
c0: 583443
Y1: 1526288802270065127
Y0: -241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
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 5k
[code]
Q=20M rels=14562
Q=80M rels=10995
Q=150M rels=9660
Q=200M rels=9485
Q=250M rels=8655
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-240M with a target # rels=470M.

C224_122_119 is ready for SNFS as a 14e/32 job. Poly follows, sieve on the rational side.

[code]
n: 13307877300925386685345938840329367328291391900290267316907953921852040681608789787186937952056280570334468243036501611555199039785149719157777200413911511801319547784384281194429131286718282393950678213312628628743260334049
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 10.954
c6: 1
c0: 1727642
Y1: 324294234694341316421188266002423799213601
Y0: -533576401152564663352396469720606521163776
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]
Q=20M rels=16088
Q=80M rels=12470
Q=150M rels=11521
Q=250M rels=9877
Q=350M rels=8915
Q=450M rels=7653
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-490M with a target # rels=480M

Two for 14e
 

C227_135_76 is ready for SNFS as a 14e/32 job.
[code]
n: 71214437902112375896060657437728460097095202290204741636386555474729246128282657237134079404186626444618087412420357520216260587061572146926249192161085361782512091881680170848064795781912935659844494761770661911855612843638311
# 135^76+76^135, difficulty: 253.91, anorm: 2.32e+031, rnorm: 3.71e+056
# scaled difficulty: 258.11, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.283e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.004e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 2.6673
c5: 1
c0: 135
Y1: -90158468827845266682220458984375
Y0: 605294867755151978358116750555481286863651157835776
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving on -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
Q=20M rels=2276
Q=80M rels=2531
Q=150M rels=2841
Q=250M rels=2978
Q=350M rels=2448
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-380M with a target # rels=480M.

###############################

C227_140_61 is ready for SNFS as a 14e/32 job.
[code]
n: 10635572682307117167317953922926507675605717270731798946034434606605400168679923192857937714017057118456560683668735671068538016904190817593187769145392166670529533862425660587135557161772941230606817283786036463345241928211437
# 140^61+61^140, difficulty: 249.95, anorm: 2.37e+031, rnorm: 5.95e+055
# scaled difficulty: 254.01, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.290e-017, alpha = 1.145, combined = 1.057e-013, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 2.6867
c5: 1
c0: 140
Y1: -56693912375296000000000000
Y0: 97551820892064552722266841889541788960852432978481
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
Q=20M rels=2756
Q=80M rels=2936
Q=150M rels=3213
Q=250M rels=3354
Q=350M rels=2836
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-330M with target # rels=480M.

Sean-
Next time you test-sieve a candidate that stretches 14e (say, Q over 400M looks likely), try a test with rlim (assume sieving r side) of standard 268M, but alim (non-sieving side) of 400M or even 500M. This should improve yield a fair bit, while reducing the usual speed penalty from exceeding 268M factor-base bound.

This is likely to improve yield, but also result in a flatter sec/rel & yield curve at higher Q. sec/rel may get worse at lower Q, but hopefully the reduction in Q-range compensates. Worth a test-sieve, at least.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;469061]Sean-
Next time you test-sieve a candidate that stretches 14e (say, Q over 400M looks likely), try a test with rlim (assume sieving r side) of standard 268M, but alim (non-sieving side) of 400M or even 500M. This should improve yield a fair bit, while reducing the usual speed penalty from exceeding 268M factor-base bound.

This is likely to improve yield, but also result in a flatter sec/rel & yield curve at higher Q. sec/rel may get worse at lower Q, but hopefully the reduction in Q-range compensates. Worth a test-sieve, at least.[/QUOTE]

Tip noted. Never tried it but will from now on. I do attempt 3 LPs, poly deg, etc on all such jobs but never a lopsided r/alim. Thank you.

ETA: I can go back and try this technique on my recently proposed 14/32 jobs.

[b]queued[/b] C192 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 414293302092344017554661357329277202485278098895744995614721477118078507284151687520161679071795586391997371495642459917192518894462751183367401397961778517836686348168898838352646064970952651
# 249541^41-1, difficulty: 226.68, skewness: 7.93, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 1.32785e+18, est. time: 632.31 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 7.935
c6: 1
c0: -249541
Y1: -1
Y0: 60255039831511724428874194299741430381
m: 60255039831511724428874194299741430381
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 2K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 8115
50M 6087
80M 4922
110M 4751[/CODE]

Correction to the above post.
Trial sieving [B]5K[/B] blocks.

Another for 15e
 

[b]queued[/b] C222_141_62 is ready for SNFS as a 15e/31 job.
[code]
n: 972321105743081656979376997770755626021809788244648150121626742682893357818356078629936773839300186077348832447590209404560750435134166496197530649467144877594353187819630800027157225839553392840662199269876640383429889629
# 141^62+62^141, difficulty: 254.52, anorm: 2.22e+033, rnorm: 8.64e+055
# scaled difficulty: 258.28, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 8.099e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.746e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 3.1711
c5: 62
c0: 19881
Y1: -61748917974902741368975281
Y0: 153803885110405674678434597293100547399764930461696
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K.
[code]
Q=20M rels=2116
Q=80M rels=1958
Q=150M rels=2078
Q=200M rels=2119
Q=250M rels=1904[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-260M with target # rels = 240M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C161 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 18240051261562921058567070311861891715172678007177798917429354382357183300885632657444483979332189347244110527138705974473160994107001905334487636771142410048269
# 3613045528091^17-1 - GNFS-161
lss: 0
Y0: -13937843400604410542946244759611
Y1: 313390996726672401239
c0: -381675828186169124255846117946454368480
c1: 2371909260583519175557816411813204
c2: 39299843186916850157004264
c3: -58080752133083914273
c4: -328301327070
c5: 104040
skew: 11621349.00763
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 10298
50M 10442
80M 8633[/CODE]

C202_137_75 Status
 

[QUOTE=fivemack;468249]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]

Attempted to postprocess C202_137_75 @TD=70 with Q=400M and 542M+ raw relations. Didn't even make it through filtering, msieve demands more relations.

How about bumping Q up to 450M? [b]done[/b]

[QUOTE=swellman;469281]Attempted to postprocess C202_137_75 @TD=70 with Q=400M and 542M+ raw relations. Didn't even make it through filtering, msieve demands more relations.

How about bumping Q up to 450M? [b]done[/b][/QUOTE]

I'm afraid that won't be enough; 400M was set as a checkpoint for us to estimate how much Q would be needed to reach 720-750M rels. I'm filtering the other 14e/33 job tonight/tomorrow, so I'll have data on how many rels will be needed for this. Q=450M won't be enough, as you're gonna need 700M rels at minimum; 750M is likely necessary to get a tractable matrix. My rule of thumb is that for same-difficulty jobs, increasing LP by 1 increases raw relations needed by 70%. 32 -> 33 is a region I haven't yet explored, but we would want 450M(?) 32LP relations for this job; this suggests we'll want 750-760M 33LP rels. We'll find out soon how accurate the 70% estimate is!

FYI, [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=468918&postcount=1173]C215_147_53 is ready for SNFS on 15e[/url]. Just pointing it out before it gets lost in the rear view.

I will avoid proposing anymore 15e jobs for a while. We seem to have enough. Thanks.

C226_143_57 update
 

Our first 14e/33 job was filtered last night. 729M raw relations produced 592M unique via remdups4. Filtering with target_density=140 produced a matrix with density 83, so the number is quite oversieved.

So, C202_137_75 might be good to go with just 700-720M raw relations. I'm re-running filtering today with 560M unique relations to see if I get a smaller matrix.

580M unique relations produced 23.5M matrix with density 95.
560M unique relations produced 22.6M matrix with density 111.
540M unique relations produced 21.9M matrix with density 136.
Each density is as reported during filtering phase; I began LA on the first matrix, and the log reports sparse part has density 72. So, I'm running a 23.5M matrix of density 72, with ETA around 600 hours (I use the machine for other tasks, so ETA isn't very accurate anyway).

[QUOTE=swellman;469281]Attempted to postprocess C202_137_75 @TD=70 with Q=400M and 542M+ raw relations. Didn't even make it through filtering, msieve demands more relations.

How about bumping Q up to 450M? [b]done[/b][/QUOTE]

Well, adding 50M additional Q is projected to add ~55M relations for a total of 596M raw relations. And from the recent findings of VBCurtis that won’t be near enough for a 14e/33 job. Suggest Q be bumped up to 550M. From there we can bump it up in smaller increments until the matrix builds successfully at TD=70.

Or just bump Q up to 500M if there’s a risk of overshooting the minimum number of relations. I’ll keep at it until we build a good matrix. But 596M raw relations isn’t going to do it I think.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C228_137_69 is ready for SNFS as a 14e/32 job. Uses [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=469061&postcount=1176]a tip suggested by VBCurtis[/url]. Thanks!
[code]
n: 288586883064120353283752244127022318083321958689563012149474062888848914428054547248965781086918169929312487672089154962646543872755426023525435015307429819367951025596622808788595557023408258148610859799175375821689424729570031
# 137^69+69^137, difficulty: 253.76, anorm: 2.66e+040, rnorm: 4.04e+047
# scaled difficulty: 254.96, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.595e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.871e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 23.7047
c6: 1
c0: 177423357
Y1: -319099584516184696444313
Y0: 1965753632901132991452851230906979378964909
rlim: 268000000
alim: 450000000
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 2K
[code]
Q=20M rels=3491
Q=80M rels=2462
Q=150M rels=2249
Q=250M rels=2227
Q=350M rels=1687
Q=450M rels=1667
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-470M with a target # rels=480M.

[QUOTE=swellman;469413]Well, adding 50M additional Q is projected to add ~55M relations for a total of 596M raw relations. And from the recent findings of VBCurtis that won’t be near enough for a 14e/33 job. Suggest Q be bumped up to 550M. From there we can bump it up in smaller increments until the matrix builds successfully at TD=70.

Or just bump Q up to 500M if there’s a risk of overshooting the minimum number of relations. I’ll keep at it until we build a good matrix. But 596M raw relations isn’t going to do it I think.[/QUOTE]
I think this project is tougher than my 14e/33 effort, so you might need 680-700M raw relations to get a TD 120+ matrix. My job built at TD 140 with 670M raw relations, well below my expectations. I didn't try to build with fewer than 670M raw (540M unique).

C202_137_75 Status - update
 

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;469444]I think this project is tougher than my 14e/33 effort, so you might need 680-700M raw relations to get a TD 120+ matrix. My job built at TD 140 with 670M raw relations, well below my expectations. I didn't try to build with fewer than 670M raw (540M unique).[/QUOTE]

A few days ago I downloaded the relations set, just over 650M relations at that time. Was just looking to get a datapoint on whether msieve could even build a matrix @TD=70 (with the expectation being no). Started msieve on Monday afternoon with this dataset, thinking I’d see the answer when I woke up.

Now three days later and msieve is still chewing. Seems to be stuck on full merge after finding 0-7+ ideals, 2-way merge, then “reduced to 87474860 relation sets and 86454781 unique ideals”, and “26 oversized relation sets”. Presumably it’s low on memory - on a 16 Gb machine. I’ve hit this situation before on a large 15e/32 job. That took over a week to (eventually) build the matrix, along with a ridiculous ETA.

So that’s the status. Even if msieve manages to build a viable TD=70 matrix here, it’s fairly worthless other than data on minimum number of relations required for a 14e/33 job. And I’m wondering if I can complete this job - this is using my second best machine and it’s performance is in the mud. My best (32 Gb) machine will free in mid-January once a 15e/33 job is finished.

FWIW. I’ll just wait until msieve can get through the full merge step and see if a matrix is built.

Interesting! My 14/33 job (running on SSD and 16gb) took about 8 hours to complete each instance of -nc1. But I did remdups4 before I tried filtering, which took a couple hours.

As for minimum relations data, I accidentally set a GNFS172 project on 15e/33 rather than the intended 15e/32; it built a TD 104 matrix after just 529M raw relations. This matrix was 9.0M in size, about expected size for GNFS-172. So, if I send a GNFS-173+ to the 14e queue, I'll send it as 33LP to see how the duplicate rate compares to my 15e/33 data point.

Edit: I also ran 13*2^864-1 (SNFS 263-ish) as 15e/33. That built a TD 124 matrix after 618M raw relations, size 15.8M. So, your 650M relation data set *might* build a usable TD 120 matrix, though it's likely to be *big*.

Well, NFS@Home is closing on 698M raw relations for C202_137_75. Sounds like it might be enough to build a TD 120-130 matrix, almost certainly at lower TD. Hopefully we’ll know more in a few days.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C228_146_66 is ready for SNFS as a 14e/32 job.
[code]
n: 403322615866244971015317252029405207385883002450332874986241076661803461639902341122240548701970807294355395451809659292471104327113556821614657457353451021631933889729329464836801059879643933669408128486891525224194947154267597
# 146^66+66^146, difficulty: 245.79, anorm: 1.32e+038, rnorm: -4.58e+046
# scaled difficulty: 247.21, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.896e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.223e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 245
skew: 4.0412
c6: 1
c0: 4356
Y1: -22788959716066127411702810573964669100032
Y0: 313726685568359708377
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 in blocks of 2K[code]
Q=20M 6375
Q=80M 3726
Q=150M 3311
Q=250M 2795
Q=300M 2600
[/code]
Suggesting a range for Q of 20M-290M with target # rels = 480M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C169 from the OPN t600 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 6097289438711591127192360365762092054453165416495578597850906208624110004316023950433701371920699269920504667155602550087593939166837800663343603937040353385051250033689
# 2158316902961^17-1, difficulty: 222.01, skewness: 113.68, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 9.07895e+17, est. time: 432.33 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
lss: 0
skew: 113.680
c6: 1
c0: -2158316902961
Y1: -1
Y0: 10054156379241985814632159892175329681
m: 10054156379241985814632159892175329681
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 9787
60M 7601
100M 7164
140M 6693
180M 5676[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] Yoyo@Home recently got a p51 ECM hit on xyyx composite C229_128_87, leaving a C179 stub. Here is the SNFS poly for 14e.
[code]
n: 14647401704391583862307253743766974488929088078850910189463365031693758011327875999764099304820640355845120750370808754593361829848559861073833136967005304195920625140036050596033
# 128^87+87^128, difficulty: 252.14, anorm: 3.15e+040, rnorm: 4.75e+046
# scaled difficulty: 253.17, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 9.053e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.153e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 252
skew: 3.1332
c6: 8
c0: 7569
Y1: 53691347665120761247143202316447077077687
Y0: -2535301200456458802993406410752
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


Test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 2K.
[code]
Q=20M 3081
Q=80M 1907
Q=150M 1720
Q=250M 1510
Q=300M 1375
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-280M for a target # rels = 240M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C167 from the OPN t600 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 23327260711114199533184236869267853928958213099573852918831524904354035666636516779708187282668886005285499828361655214369428846201235359235214438370770257933482387771
# 6228362269^23-1, difficulty: 235.06, skewness: 42.89, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 2.59912e+18, est. time: 1237.68 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
lss: 0
skew: 42.894
c6: 1
c0: -6228362269
Y1: -1
Y0: 1504857788884562813973901378315425946321
m: 1504857788884562813973901378315425946321
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 9861
60M 6555
100M 7546
150M 6582
200M 6885[/CODE]

[B]QUEUED (to 15e)[/B] [QUOTE=swellman;468619]C226_127_106 is ready for SNFS. Another possible -r and -a simultaneous sieving job? -[b]NO[/b]

[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]


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]

This job appears to be too cumbersome for another split 14e/32 job sieved on both sides. Suggest it be enqueued as a straightforward 15e/32 job.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C229_150_58 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 2278938577267948440576205638759394291619090321721363932624743095904290280575130508313664426833988199618531605192119784698293356275291256402864532690909748774313973256892089290964813190056727674607759428605802289408954085632654453
# 150^58+58^150, difficulty: 248.26, anorm: 3.60e+038, rnorm: 1.00e+047
# scaled difficulty: 249.67, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.961e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.976e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 248
skew: 5.6462
c6: 1
c0: 32400
Y1: -375423431396484375
Y0: 237919412134036023751018299488621739966464
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
Q=20M 3433
Q=80M 2093
Q=150M 1902
Q=250M 1740
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-250M with a target # of rels = 245M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C192 from OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 342111864524063293825336262088484226391971928687135843134784616304200123278308375976499881378750510347809914915426740304278934944109297042523531978229423750026979762755763230118223943547133317
# 1577431459^23-1, difficulty: 220.75, skewness: 34.12, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 8.1842e+17, est. time: 389.72 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
lss: 0
skew: 34.119
c6: 1
c0: -1577431459
Y1: -1
Y0: 6191587163130663482001569147410679761
m: 6191587163130663482001569147410679761
type: snfs
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 12874
50M 10242
80M 7849
110M 8176[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C180 from the OPN t600 file.
Sieve on algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 446968172410122872992196388563123554199753477810992828395877112575518306619324701349248558096445378768374270606892728430431750550825937414107999299175967531699289648699961746620947
# 2387363771591^17-1, difficulty: 222.80, skewness: 115.61, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 9.68461e+17, est. time: 461.17 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
lss: 0
skew: 115.608
c6: 1
c0: -2387363771591
Y1: -1
Y0: 13606793610144465216226908028995378071
m: 13606793610144465216226908028995378071
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 13013
60M 10223
100M 9658
150M 10995[/CODE]

14e Candidate
 

[b]queued[/b] C229_149_54 is ready for SNFS.
[code]
n: 5653173533248994794247447276562651826449584825317819743946400192042140761541282322664794589728154821510962718342738281880966175531184298521350949426181114974944647080208693460157710313314350009561304996793884968965918238898780389
# 149^54+54^149, difficulty: 259.86, anorm: 1.47e+037, rnorm: 1.46e+049
# scaled difficulty: 261.86, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.920e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.797e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 259
skew: 1.9442
c6: 1
c0: 54
Y1: -36197319879620191349
Y0: 20410046566186296742332216391818083643162624
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 2K
[code]
Q=20M 4040
Q=60M 3588
Q=120 3053
Q=200M 2967
Q=300M 2510
[/code]
Suggesting a sieveing range for Q of 20M-320M with a target # rels of 460M.

One for 14e
 

[b]queued[/b] C243_127_113 can be run on 14e, as it has survived a full t50, plus a few thousand more curves @B1=260M.


[code]
n: 107076943618137683967379943913650054643076848188518968335031265248775750535227821878160399025435757089546341568930171803072959527050772771064083256433250761400530764914052992400174726920350324042650111608058679402327460191506455452234578759081
# 127^113+113^127, difficulty: 260.74, anorm: 2.40e+038, rnorm: -2.89e+049
# scaled difficulty: 262.59, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.358e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.314e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 4.9296
c6: 1
c0: 14351
Y1: -13021089174137413266744892374538813705886513
Y0: 9381465766970461872264625493558368225663
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 2K.
[code]
Q=20M 3939
Q=80M 2826
Q=150M 2707
Q=250M 2607
Q=350M 2353
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-370M for Q with target # rels=480M.

What next for 15e?
 

15e is running out of work to do. The 13xx-index Fibonacci numbers have been generally a bit tough to post-process; C180s are more reasonable but I can't generate reasonable polynomials for them fast enough to feed both my home equipment and nfs@home.

So what do you suggest? I can push more Fibonacci SNFS jobs, but basically that creates work for Greg and I don't know if he'd be OK with that. If people have 26x-difficulty SNFS from XYYXF, those would be handy. I would be delighted if someone else was willing to do ECM and polynomial selection for numbers of 183 digits or more from [url]http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/smallest.txt[/url]

Well, there is a [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=470213&postcount=77]C180 GNFS job ready to go[/url], with my thanks to Max, VBCurtis and YuL for the poly search. It’s from AS 3408 and it’s been well covered with ECM courtesy of yoyo@Home. It looks like a 15e/32 job to be sieved on the -a side presumably. Only drawback is I’m traveling and can’t test sieve it until later this week. If someone is willing to test sieve it now please be my guest. Or submit it with a short range of Q - say 30M-250M - and adjust later.

I have several xyyx numbers ready for 15e that I’m happy to post but see above about test sieving.

[b]3408:1671 test-sieved with guessed parameters and queued[/b]

[QUOTE=fivemack;470266]I would be delighted if someone else was willing to do ECM and polynomial selection for numbers of 183 digits or more from [url]http://mersennus.net/fibonacci/smallest.txt[/url][/QUOTE]

I’ll take the C184 from L3865B if it’s available. How much ECM is ultimately needed at the t60 level before switching to NFS methods?

[b]queued[/b] C219_129_92 is ready for 15e
[code]
n: 251038195988045898600953315032429333639309555389212960413681197162218022181654170988435137749941172615502169056985465271548235503369507875117086731486571359512513617883253795784956569734210177673119844434553825369404441
# 129^92+92^129, difficulty: 255.89, anorm: 3.50e+033, rnorm: 1.95e+056
# scaled difficulty: 259.69, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 8.405e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.700e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 255
skew: 8.6291
c5: 8
c0: 382743
Y1: -97862157334118736160267353892330031361
Y0: 572075719290556693384652005928556009754405080399872
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]



[b] queued [/b] C200_140_73 is ready for 15e:
[code]
n: 55280931276473990415949299833125217386743133024402737332484429638043667425816937651741743528557876250953079039653997690121186758330917881325758280261184663442707700950318206865968248329065834553826459
# 140^73+73^140, difficulty: 260.87, anorm: 5.86e+032, rnorm: 4.78e+057
# scaled difficulty: 265.02, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.407e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.492e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 9.6972
c5: 1
c0: 85750
Y1: -2222401365111603200000000000000
Y0: 14894985451961941943846586557477384171894488107677281
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;470270]I’ll take the C184 from L3865B if it’s available. How much ECM is ultimately needed at the t60 level before switching to NFS methods?[/QUOTE]

I make it about 15000 curves @ B1=260M (this is a bit more than previous versions of ecm-toy suggest, because I've updated the prior for factor distribution based on experience with the brilliant-numbers search)

A slightly more optimal search would be 15000 @ 43M followed by 12000 @ 260M if the number survived the first lot.

Please mail marin DOT mersennus AT gmail DOT com to reserve the number.

Understood and reservation sent via email.

[QUOTE=fivemack;470266]15e is running out of work to do. The 13xx-index Fibonacci numbers have been generally a bit tough to post-process; C180s are more reasonable but I can't generate reasonable polynomials for them fast enough to feed both my home equipment and nfs@home.

[/QUOTE]

What would be the ideal system to post process them?

OS
No. Cores
GB

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;470291]What would be the ideal system to post process them?
OS
No. Cores
GB[/QUOTE]

"ideal" : Bigger is better. If by ideal you mean fastest possible, then a Xeon server with 32+GB. More cores is more work is less time! YuL has been using Amazon server instances to blast through medium-sized LA jobs in hours. I don't think OS matters, but I don't have any experience with windows machines over 16GB. msieve is msieve regardless.

However, anyone with the minimum system can do the work, if they're patient. 32GB is enough to solve a matrix for anything the 15e queue can generate; but a 4-core might take 3-4 months to solve the matrix from a GNFS195.

The smaller 15e jobs (say, GNFS 185 or lower, SNFS 265 or lower) are similar in difficulty to the big 14e jobs; matrices 15M-25M, 3-6 quadcore-weeks. A 6-core merely cuts 1/3rd from the time; changing a 6 week job into a 4 week job isn't going to alter the course of any project, so a patient worker can run anything he wants on a quad core.

Example: My current job, the second 14e/33 job we've tried, is a 23M matrix at low-ish TD (due to oversieving). top claims msieve is using 9GB on a 16GB machine. So, a 25M matrix should be solvable on any 16GB machine if it's not used for much else, and 24GB can handle all but the biggest jobs while still using the machine for regular life.

A GNFS 180-185 should build a matrix smaller than 20M, and should be solvable on a 16GB machine (that's what I plan to do, anyway!).

I think a fast SSD is also a good investment

15e candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C258 from the OPN MWRB file for the 15e queue.
[CODE]n: 781179418496003349506957439729362314644125846732665713084339945677877536695534769067966673976364848711270869987317014615916890976022261576513712051340477201711001902632021436863584734165581130067941543990700557298855022642108654130082277009034135714427496947
# 8081^67-1, difficulty: 261.80, skewness: 0.22, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 2.01944e+19, est. time: 9616.37 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 0.223
c6: 8081
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 9596573069509052763759925960743779265720881
m: 9596573069509052763759925960743779265720881
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield.
20M 7876
60M 6619
100M 6174
150M 5348
200M 5064[/CODE]

[QUOTE=pinhodecarlos;470291]What would be the ideal system to post process them?

OS
No. Cores
GB[/QUOTE]

They would work very nicely on a bargainhardware.com dual-octaXeon server (I am getting about 300 hours wall-clock on one of those for a 25M matrix running -t16, and the server has 64GB RAM which is more than enough).

As VBCurtis observes, any job that doesn't fit in 32GB isn't going to finish in at all reasonable time. I should probably get MPI running on my small cluster, 10Gbit Ethernet is hopefully fast enough for distributed jobs to be faster than a single machine.

[QUOTE=axn;470297]I think a fast SSD is also a good investment[/QUOTE]

A fast SSD makes lots of use cases more fun, but not really this one: the post-processing is not done at disc-read speed, it's only seven hours to filter a 32-bit-LP job over NFS-attached-by-gigabit-Ethernet.

[b] queued [/b] C192 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 820509983628149599725530163725918173029946762738122115708301986910039136975437410543224106014365961176642136311025280192536397165714380410331376093613059222840844852513910582756007825506511889
# 1920647391913^19-1, SNFS-220, sieve on algebraic side
lss: 0
skew: 0.01436
c6: 1920647391913
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 7085050051025406838642211594025485497
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 6339
60M 4756
100M 5226
150M 4506
200M 3886
250M 3441[/CODE]

I don't think I quite believe the SNFS-220 difficulty for that one; you're sieving 1920647391913^19-1, whose log is 233.39.

(yes, the actual-underlying-number is x^18+x^17+...+x+1, but that's too high a degree polynomial for SNFS; and even in that case the log is 221.1)

[QUOTE=fivemack;470335]I don't think I quite believe the SNFS-220 difficulty for that one; you're sieving 1920647391913^19-1, whose log is 233.39.

(yes, the actual-underlying-number is x^18+x^17+...+x+1, but that's too high a degree polynomial for SNFS; and even in that case the log is 221.1)[/QUOTE]

Yep, you're right. The 220 is leftover from a previous job and I forgot to update with the correct difficulty. :smile:

[b]QUEUED[/b] C230_125_103 is ready for SNFS on siever 14e.

[code]
n: 28521135208254886087875141264196218438819741739601791217526351979867886443731933341039566099501379023881662321858577195918264461259281214303491896591716506209256818596978186504281177207888391193723137146043586679928892001115217519
# 125^103+103^125, difficulty: 253.62, anorm: 2.27e+038, rnorm: 8.45e+047
# scaled difficulty: 255.21, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.264e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.416e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 253
skew: 4.8413
c6: 1
c0: 12875
Y1: -444089209850062616169452667236328125
Y0: 1860294571709496226110032706809177658295303
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 2K
[code]
Q=20M 5424
Q=80M 3630
Q=150M 3634
Q=250M 3431
Q=300M 3197
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-270M with a target # rels of 480M.

[b]queued 14e[/b] C206 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 43054571344319562525175339557182100345885547746820995312018814147133450134181278318210442952277654977047906540754269409749233399626456182473514812378195316490859005659119939110257412086994207437024997497731
# 288624373085970303047^13-1, difficulty: 245.52, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 5.88906e+18, est. time: 2804.31 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -288624373085970303047
Y0: 83304028739269378634511622067993017484210
m: 36804340438773561370108118724375481945457980663275057472108694583323303624376093452096966737343487005341177954686085944498665957272914416762648721750027055154332792938580634589018627399546646801620026670533
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10646
60M 8521
100M 7940
140M 6897
180M 6273[/CODE]

15e/33 job from GNFS thread
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C197_149_70 has survived ECM up to almost a full t60. Originally this job was [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=468968&postcount=295]slated for GNFS[/url], but subsequent analysis shows the SNFS poly below is faster and has better yield.
[code]
n: 18990123508557902868419834986612849212629329047848408031918356871905091180915018818857084783656883790655928770567349115604303665109625610225945717466120031386943078873289069222693826896799892056101
# 149^70+70^149, difficulty: 278.01, anorm: 9.97e+039, rnorm: -1.53e+052
# scaled difficulty: 280.04, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.773e-014, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.262e-015, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 278
skew: 5.2229
c6: 35
c0: 710432
Y1: -6705343098319824504035000000000000000000000000
Y0: 119738888098469732352733201
rlim: 536000000
alim: 536000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 66
mfba: 66
rlambda: 3.0
alambda: 3.0
[/code]


Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 6K
[code]
Q=40M 11223
Q=100M 10841
Q=250M 9156
Q=400M 8198
Q=550M 7553
Q=700M 6760
Q=800M 6543
[/code]


Not sure what is the best target number of relations for this job, so I list three scenarios.
[code]
# rels Q range
800M 40M-560M
900M 40M-650M
1B 40M-740M
[/code]

I am hoping Greg would be willing to take on postprocessing for this composite but I will reserve it if he is unable to do so.

GNFS
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C162 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 197622873793160243807385045116819555876404845504839179857130945490044807048446484276962290305846032932712738674572189413010412263215299396255923884269732389761061
# 101575129733962903176164717219488895595781584956747683545056554733469676083500321620734233^3-1 (P90^3-1)
# expecting poly E from 1.05e-12 to > 1.20e-12
# skew 6066744.05, size 1.052e-15, alpha -6.821, combined = 1.180e-12 rroots = 3
lss: 0
Y0: -15371818604016342704499800918662
Y1: 242959684100947
c0: 312205997068107821744178854799316960065
c1: -306252528432352480689437271018491
c2: -12938900013765957327549451
c3: -1397956056894758645
c4: 1818955314954
c5: 230256
skew: 6066744.05
type: gnfs
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 10453
50M 8874
80M 7721
110M 8198[/CODE]

15e Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C254 from the OPN MWRB file for the 15e siever.
[CODE]n: 16217623429519447665770331331234191617830657739056976241325545935071016487291689396910718629448531940462354331150908723291525188932655677244804366689033392520186152594766096800444961208969165612248705939744316323472203043824345842420862282162372999558193
# 6863^67-1, difficulty: 257.05, skewness: 0.23, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 1.41591e+19, est. time: 6742.41 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 0.229
c6: 6863
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 1590940683676811073936298865652272041928687
m: 1590940683676811073936298865652272041928687
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9424
60M 7603
100M 7279
150M 6018
200M 5826[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C176 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 33784021118970858265370482603424977883022766295305410917003959764526982763948334199910994392375958208766994770384031443139142378900585511095542471832062502501985884907263072381
# 47009039042447030231489^11-1, difficulty: 226.72, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
# cost: 1.33235e+18, est. time: 634.45 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: -4
c2: -3
c1: 3
c0: 1
Y1: -47009039042447030231489
Y0: 2209849751694309200974241233614941108927157122
m: 6329499096068265712687939244299844781098127210644487053753318819095948684373199228494673211769695914480810181532893005826675507820918472218991005122296792316301292945634979389
type: snfs
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 10786
50M 11111
80M 9712[/CODE]

14e Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C230_137_84 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 12502076715723291670940262374503895561515752176468277072102656390265501094162597937587053683058322813182485259258738440289299155468566624475685603750324147628994031284830728438367455673182146252193291725477933152658684773668625493
# 137^84+84^137, difficulty: 266.45, anorm: 3.67e+037, rnorm: 8.86e+049
# scaled difficulty: 268.52, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.187e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.002e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 266
skew: 1.0464
c6: 16
c0: 21
Y1: -820517673944445067756173565489
Y0: 90655380226775924938050450323019805545725952
rlim: 268000000
alim: 450000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


Test sieving with Q in blocks of 10K.
[code]
Q=20M 18940
Q=80M 15545
Q=150M 15230
Q=250M 13212
Q=350M 12098
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-360M for a target # relations of 490M.

GNFS
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C160 from the OPN t600 file.
(a.k.a. phi_5(phi_47(17)) - I think :smile: ) ✔️
[CODE]n: 2653276588733970207986066872864284162001100132929743202968477667206366748729406698928782335735456063416805822121192211762064229032218628291177377783638712810251
# 423622795798733187216959754496018087627393990881167960767^5-1 (P57^5-1)
# expecting poly E from 1.36e-12 to > 1.56e-12
# skew 4510792.90, size 1.644e-15, alpha -8.256, combined = 1.514e-12 rroots = 5
lss: 0
Y0: -4716730817556692379820492055174
Y1: 7569585004308053
c0: -302850131623700376775316372745371942775
c1: 530322955589312794780134608784539
c2: 585805943512121933916198565
c3: -38949566665577518063
c4: -27886916154114
c5: 1136520
skew: 4510792.90
type: gnfs
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 11214
50M 9992
80M 8241[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] 13*2^828-1:
[code]n: 675220304271879058159839399473570713107203656532664891177442252585591644435696912037141295999148987268643467492131117445573285733440642969469247150569723987749269348218195059012486839404025403117
m: 348449143727040986586495598010130648530944
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 0.67
c6: 13
c0: -1
rlim: 120000000
alim: 120000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 66
mfba: 66
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8[/code]

Suggested sieve range of 15M to 190M for ~630M relations
Test-sieving: 2K blocks on a broadwell @ 1.1ghz (ultrabook)
[code]Q=20M 9525 rels 0.082 sec/rel
Q=40M 8010 rels 0.088 sec/rel
Q=60M 8155 rels 0.117 sec/rel
Q=90M 6682 rels 0.124 sec/rel
Q=120M 6734 rels 0.131 sec/rel
Q=150M 6414 rels 0.141 sec/rel
Q=180M 3871 rels 0.169 sec/rel[/code]

I also test-sieved 32/64, and a sieve range of 15-225M should yield 410M relations. I think 33LP is substantially more efficient, and I wish to continue to collect data about required # of relations for these small 33LP projects.

I would like to do the LA for this number.

Another 15e candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C225_127_99 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 564280433004452015236556792394701657194917623343788536845376026778042758362415675160082823240324647608311925669082853802958506382647614589778632315160410710968915743060180745896065226287405803602833365880648559555060804218619
# 127^99+99^127, difficulty: 255.35, anorm: 4.29e+032, rnorm: -5.48e+056
# scaled difficulty: 259.37, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.353e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.187e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 255
skew: 5.5194
c5: 3
c0: 15367
Y1: -233346407819744031602621847468621430290111891007497
Y0: 1191446152405248657777607437681912764659201
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 2K:
[code]
Q=30M 4120
Q=60M 4387
Q=90M 4626
Q=130M 4820
Q=190M 5331
Q=250M 4652
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 30M-230M for Q with a target # rels = 480M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C212 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 16162234374030954651062542469324941508405506194622290501101866664751734964448062528589459783403444764703106052467195460430696272229863871290077241590772985371501246636945120829551322430809412338842281631760237413
# 14009^59-1, difficulty: 248.78, skewness: 4.91, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 7.56693e+18, est. time: 3603.30 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 4.910
c6: 1
c0: -14009
Y1: -1
Y0: 291119537669624727213343933518641575244401
m: 291119537669624727213343933518641575244401
type: snfs
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 6704
60M 5682
100M 5140
150M 4443
200M 4229
250M 3862[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C230_142_86 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 19744386475034050653672331167908740062431308313374369896927339908981716472382627191713525694330229604408588023130266982594198522719114382632677104677626710842524066667955795757569172819102654136306198926632420362647012461543564061
# 142^86+86^142, difficulty: 252.08, anorm: 1.22e+040, rnorm: 2.41e+047
# scaled difficulty: 253.29, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.760e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.204e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 252
skew: 11.5142
c6: 4
c0: 9320809
Y1: -82721210695570328927708881
Y0: 817547311848210312851967482654905401754112
rlim: 268000000
alim: 450000000
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 2K.
[code]
Q=30M 3728
Q=70M 3085
Q=120M 2693
Q=180M 2158
Q=280M 2229
Q=400M 1624
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-440M with target # relations = 470M.

May I call a moratorium on adding new 14e entries while we have 12 essentially fully-sieved ones without a post-processor?

I'll throw some cycles at helping to clear this backlog.

[QUOTE=fivemack;470946]May I call a moratorium on adding new 14e entries while we have 12 essentially fully-sieved ones without a post-processor?[/QUOTE]

You can easily do that since the majority of the 14e tasks are done by Gridcoin users which are sieving randomly. By not feeding the 14e they will process more 15 and 16 tasks.

Or ask Greg to give less priority to 14e tasks on the overall balance, can’t remember what was the % breakdown for each application.

[QUOTE=fivemack;470946]May I call a moratorium on adding new 14e entries while we have 12 essentially fully-sieved ones without a post-processor?[/QUOTE]

I'll trade you my ill-advised OPN sieving reservation in exchange for throwing my cpu at the backlog.

It's 5366319547249^17-1. I already ECMd it and did ~7-8% of the sieving.

Here's the nfs.job produced by yafu (I didn't so much as glance at it):

[code]n: 472960072945324790649011915544651834111300001518282847576455281830793231297779413258575139633668465686989918552066685480742698827004361914871104648190206574311733982073446748764526700801777229738140122001
# 5366319547249^17-1, difficulty: 229.13, anorm: 1.26e+38, rnorm: 1.34e+43
# scaled difficulty: 229.13, suggest sieving algebraic side
# size = 1.988e-12, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.066e-13, rroots = 2
type: snfs
size: 229
skew: 132.3161
c6: 1
c0: -5366319547249
Y1: -1
Y0: 154535972628089443284732002908839079249
m: 154535972628089443284732002908839079249

rlim: 36800000
alim: 36800000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/code]

Note the recommendation to sieve algebraic side.

I'm not sure where exactly yafu started sieving, but a reproduction indicates it started at 18.4M. I have completed up to 32.96M with a yield of ~1.15 rel/q in the most recent batch of 160K spq, making for a total so far of ~17.5M rels. Yafu suggested 181M minrels for filtering so 200M is probably a good target to overshoot. So perhaps 180M more spq from nfs@home, say 33M-210M or 215M or so depending on how much the yields decline (I don't recall). Does that sound reasonable? (I will complete the 32.96M-33M gap, and do the post processing as well.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;470992]
rlim: 36800000
alim: 36800000
So perhaps 180M more spq from nfs@home, say 33M-210M or 215M or so depending on how much the yields decline (I don't recall). Does that sound reasonable? (I will complete the 32.96M-33M gap, and do the post processing as well.)[/QUOTE]

Sieving a job to Q=200M when lim's are 36M does not sound reasonable, no. Neither does yield under 1.5 in the good part of the sieve region. This job should be run with alim/rlim of 134M, or higher.

The classic advice that yield below 2.0 indicates some parameter changes are in order applies here. I would personally also change to 32LP, but I recognise that I'm in the minority for my large-LP choices. Changing alim/rlim to 134M or 180M might get yield near 2.0, but I can't say I understand why 31LP would be better than 32 here.

Test-sieving saves more time than it costs.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;471000]Sieving a job to Q=200M when lim's are 36M does not sound reasonable, no. Neither does yield under 1.5 in the good part of the sieve region. This job should be run with alim/rlim of 134M, or higher.

The classic advice that yield below 2.0 indicates some parameter changes are in order applies here. I would personally also change to 32LP, but I recognise that I'm in the minority for my large-LP choices. Changing alim/rlim to 134M or 180M might get yield near 2.0, but I can't say I understand why 31LP would be better than 32 here.

Test-sieving saves more time than it costs.[/QUOTE]

I "blame" yafu ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: Here's its table, which is admittedly not optimized for SNFS:

[code]/* note: min_rels column is no longer used - it is equation based and */
/* is filled in by get_ggnfs_params */
/* columns: */
/* digits, r/alim, lpbr/a, mfbr/a, r/alambda, siever, min-rels, q-range */
{85, 900000, 24, 48, 2.1, 11, 0, 10000},
{90, 1200000, 25, 50, 2.3, 11, 0, 10000},
{95, 1500000, 25, 50, 2.5, 12, 0, 20000},
{100, 1800000, 26, 52, 2.5, 12, 0, 20000},
{105, 2500000, 26, 52, 2.5, 12, 0, 20000},
{110, 3200000, 26, 52, 2.5, 13, 0, 40000},
{115, 4500000, 27, 54, 2.5, 13, 0, 40000},
{120, 5500000, 27, 54, 2.5, 13, 0, 40000},
{125, 7000000, 27, 54, 2.5, 13, 0, 40000},
{130, 9000000, 28, 56, 2.5, 13, 0, 80000},
{135, 11500000, 28, 56, 2.6, 14, 0, 80000},
{140, 14000000, 28, 56, 2.6, 14, 0, 80000},
{145, 19000000, 28, 56, 2.6, 14, 0, 80000},
{150, 25000000, 29, 58, 2.6, 14, 0, 160000},
{155, 32000000, 29, 58, 2.6, 14, 0, 160000},
{160, 40000000, 30, 60, 2.6, 14, 0, 160000}, // snfs 232
{165, 49000000, 30, 60, 2.6, 14, 0, 160000}, // 241
{170, 59000000, 31, 62, 2.6, 14, 0, 320000}, // 250
{175, 70000000, 31, 62, 2.6, 15, 0, 320000}, // 259
{180, 82000000, 31, 62, 2.6, 15, 0, 320000}, // 267
{185, 100000000, 32, 64, 2.6, 16, 0, 320000}
};[/code]

The code makes adjustments for yields >4 rel/spq or <1 rel/spq; the given params came up at less than 1, so it upped the bits to 31. (>8 rel/spq = lower siever, < 1/2 rel/spq = higher siever)

[QUOTE=fivemack;470273]I make it about 15000 curves @ B1=260M (this is a bit more than previous versions of ecm-toy suggest, because I've updated the prior for factor distribution based on experience with the brilliant-numbers search)

A slightly more optimal search would be 15000 @ 43M followed by 12000 @ 260M if the number survived the first lot.

Please mail marin DOT mersennus AT gmail DOT com to reserve the number.[/QUOTE]

15120 curves @B1=43M yielded no factors. Now running 12000 curves @t60 level. Marin has been updated.

[b]PARAMETERS SELECTED (31-bit lp; alim=rlim=134000000) AND QUEUED[/b]
[QUOTE=Dubslow;470992]I'll trade you my ill-advised OPN sieving reservation in exchange for throwing my cpu at the backlog.

It's 5366319547249^17-1. I already ECMd it and did ~7-8% of the sieving.

Here's the nfs.job produced by yafu (I didn't so much as glance at it):

[code]n: 472960072945324790649011915544651834111300001518282847576455281830793231297779413258575139633668465686989918552066685480742698827004361914871104648190206574311733982073446748764526700801777229738140122001
# 5366319547249^17-1, difficulty: 229.13, anorm: 1.26e+38, rnorm: 1.34e+43
# scaled difficulty: 229.13, suggest sieving algebraic side
# size = 1.988e-12, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.066e-13, rroots = 2
type: snfs
size: 229
skew: 132.3161
c6: 1
c0: -5366319547249
Y1: -1
Y0: 154535972628089443284732002908839079249
m: 154535972628089443284732002908839079249

[/code]

Note the recommendation to sieve algebraic side.
[/QUOTE]

I would still like for 14e to sieve this, though I obviously need some help with the parameter selection. Any takers? :smile:

14e GNFS Future Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] Next term in AS 4788 is a C167. Yoyo@Home ran it up to a full t55, and VBCurtis found a very good poly - thanks to both for their efforts. Not sure if/when the moratorium on the queues will be fully lifted, just parking this job here for use when needed. I will not have more 14e candidates until late November.

15e jobs - I have a couple in the pipe whenever they are needed.

[code]
n: 17836284178544632533542177396765800795130282738703934751781697055497914407582438994518501693989751069293655786255415284196091460190684162535720450721416707626752884161
# size 3.385e-16, alpha -7.920, combined = 5.956e-13 rroots = 5
skew: 18358107.69
c0: 103884462589639482345566009768214320572000
c1: 47191213555613539104636642858135210
c2: 1454356932206018793505452993
c3: -470345432281617508754
c4: -619088058732
c5: 308880
Y0: -142004765472725557951356006205383
Y1: 3703011190457693
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 4K:
[code]
20M 9536
40M 10707
60M 9934
80M 10882
100M 10226
120M 10394
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-120M with a target # rels = 250M

It looks like we're pretty much ready to open the floodgates; I'll put in that one, may I ask for some idea of ETAs on the four post-processing jobs that you are doing?

Bring out your 15e jobs!

[QUOTE=fivemack;471776]It looks like we're pretty much ready to open the floodgates; I'll put in that one, may I ask for some idea of ETAs on the four post-processing jobs that you are doing?

Bring out your 15e jobs![/QUOTE]

C223_129_100 ETA 17 November

C202_137_75 ETA mid-December (it’s a big job)

C224_122_119 ETA late Nov (don’t recall exact date)

C229_150_58 Starting job tonight, so 2+ weeks?

I’ve also got some 15e jobs that will finish this week and 20 Nov


I’ll post a 15e candidate shortly.

One for 15e
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C200_135_88 is ready for SNFS on the 15e siever.
[code]
n: 87888332475755296961160995965639013959918156535124288327434175564493189194993141607274211531949886272329138895486432621875007098222115288915997789288737554603190432640638541724510406248622624413988507
# 135^88+88^135, difficulty: 263.41, anorm: 1.03e+039, rnorm: -3.40e+049
# scaled difficulty: 265.16, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.487e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.294e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 263
skew: 8.0205
c6: 1
c0: 266200
Y1: -12012925478682801599137321597819550997413888
Y0: 30052822942615088894073486328125
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 2K.
[code]
30M 5052
70M 4386
120M 3904
180M 3279
250M 3367
350M 2901
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-290M with target # rels=480M.

15e Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C215_130_99
[code]
n: 49833630031446805341523223993061272887629988252880330172671039060813272703554720631108598527222934821038478746162246504104818695035957246494264592630202337337346670352247722604197417048988702850161044500560323748007
# 130^99+99^130, difficulty: 260.64, anorm: 6.45e+031, rnorm: -8.86e+057
# scaled difficulty: 264.99, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.173e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.385e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 1.3236
c5: 16
c0: 65
Y1: -7700431458051553042886520966464507199573692403247401
Y0: 950248188744039971940050000000000000000000
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 2K.
[code]
30M 3354
80M 3466
150M 4010
220M 4105
300M 4017
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-275M with target # rels = 470M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C163 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 1080503066106698087586651991457465043992609984173528684616009612564813602539917546985969119922603598826633275314005441990327850900855723687104437297639104182503667
# 63681511996418550459487^11-1, difficulty: 228.04, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
# cost: 1.48216e+18, est. time: 705.79 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: -4
c2: -3
c1: 3
c0: 1
Y1: -63681511996418550459487
Y0: 4055334970149999756229680589499240778828303170
m: 975438631458606076956362077526239768614756593443760699997211032530612672659366554391382838653531635504376112870487663508483370080735381036907976734909040979270411
type: snfs
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 10384
50M 10334
80M 9217[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C234 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 192725867705281441525422889055874800038730686963150842195186929960063554570954596119192099155454242274711160217973873268914104211869366025364433125210927731166921460514305468408668147540169745569255416611247531861982750938848048344937
# 548557^43-1, difficulty: 247
skew: 0.111
c6: 548557
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 14946941317954647098399465749938128278693
m: 14946941317954647098399465749938128278693
type: snfs
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 6684
60M 5256
100M 4955
150M 4194
200M 4102
250M 3584
300M 3529[/CODE]

Two for 15e
 

[b]BOTH QUEUED[/b]
Both composites ready for 15e.


C208_146_108
[code]
n: 8414544949610480087306820066215673720226841324032450527613483247157392225347635545646406784450140342629596680485411656121603175268186521238344925011932096318510993049991757962088985602113261639283309214580381
# 146^108+108^146, difficulty: 266.28, anorm: 8.00e+036, rnorm: -9.14e+049
# scaled difficulty: 268.45, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.811e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 6.713e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 266
skew: 1.5874
c6: 1
c0: 16
Y1: -72569054457551277306070102726464297397911552
Y0: 3465863721549107204083472585375569
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 2K.
[code]
20M 6356
80M 4492
150M 4390
250M 4001
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-225M with target # rels=480M.




C202_148_51
[code]
n: 7922987143853894905138057630216193925603656368032297800265770473288499188012099118185426869055236702593043364496139462525676431457515953058394358217932941569705673985279405711866815675421145749902512897
# 148^51+51^148, difficulty: 257.09, anorm: 6.89e+040, rnorm: 5.94e+047
# scaled difficulty: 258.25, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.900e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.710e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 13.0942
c5: 1
c0: 384948
Y1: 5042166166892418433024
Y0: -1686961934066707040236155036109474174986501789839001
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 2K
[code]
Q=20M 3332
Q=60M 3952
Q=100M 4318
Q=150M 4015
Q=200M 4493
Q=250M 4348
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-250M with a target # relations of 480M.

[QUOTE=swellman;472158]
Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2K
[code]
Q=20M 3332
Q=60M 3952
Q=100M 4318
Q=150M 4015
Q=200M 4493
Q=250M 4348
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-250M with a target # relations of 480M.[/QUOTE]

Go where the yield is best -> 50-280M looks better, since the yield below 60M looks thin (compared to yield at 250M).

Can we get a few relations on 6867^67-1 (15e)? [b]YES[/b]

8081^67-1 (15e) had 240M relations and built a matrix at TD=120 (124 not) with an ETA of 260 hours (-t 4).

[b]PLEASE REPOST WITH CORRECT ALIM/RLIM AND I'LL QUEUE THAT ONE[/b]

P55.62226_5M.C201 from the OPN t800 file.
a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_7(Phi_31(7)/311*21143)/29*197*701*2437*33797*414457*2574587*1867616469677438263621087036067)
[CODE]n: 113288552660300779040173859677762891079520612456125983279252278101224791436792841447950023187340039268585938328283134031816371710009802618891070652590043351335983098163881376904862115197880457570408711
# 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851^5-1, difficulty: 219.18, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.18759e+17, est. time: 342.27 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851
m: 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851
type: snfs
rlim: 26800000
alim: 26800000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 6827
60M 6472
100M 6275
150M 5243
200M 5445
250M 5096
300M 5080
350M 5065[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED AS C168_791xx431_13[/b] C168 from the OPN t600 file.
a.k.a. Phi_13(Phi_5(Phi_13(17)/212057)/41*31*1708293108577921)
[CODE]n: 241722911654233570080051620977099027042596516409392478447814954488548006970606293896114708841977676699433250709432263748851204254475893660010530354325387459729127338819
# 7914727876080437431^13-1, difficulty: 226.78, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 1.33878e+18, est. time: 637.51 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -7914727876080437431
Y0: 62642917352404752130825523292305879762
m: 101291612786764653205825427030419713514518890179483249061713161358540150530231227884003325433249914285656027621721344963873834798160864026553143637993358607830226005727
type: snfs
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 13437
50M 10191
80M 8344[/CODE]

[QUOTE=RichD;472217]P55.62226_5M.C201 from the OPN t800 file.
a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_7(Phi_31(7)/311*21143)/29*197*701*2437*33797*414457*2574587*1867616469677438263621087036067)
[/QUOTE]
I think you meant to make the lims 268M rather than 26.8M.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472223]I think you meant to make the lims 268M rather than 26.8M.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the catch. This should have been an easy 31-bit job but I couldn't get a decent yield. Back to the drawing board.

Repost
 

[b]FINALLY QUEUED 09-Jan-2018, SORRY[/b]
P55.62226_5M.C201 from the OPN t800 file.
a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_7(Phi_31(7)/311*21143)/29*197*701*2437*33797*414457*2574587*1867616469677438263621087036067)
[CODE]n: 113288552660300779040173859677762891079520612456125983279252278101224791436792841447950023187340039268585938328283134031816371710009802618891070652590043351335983098163881376904862115197880457570408711
# 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851^5-1, difficulty: 219.18, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.18759e+17, est. time: 342.27 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851
m: 6222648624384545900485568946851528214367103431174781851
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 4231
60M 6152
100M 6114
150M 5256
200M 5399[/CODE]
Perhaps start with Q=30M.

C201 more data points
 

Additional data points for the above C201.
[CODE] Q Yield
30M 5108
250M 4971[/CODE]
Time played more of a helper role in these parameters.

I propose Two Golden Rules of 14e queue parameter choice:
1. Choose lim's such that your forecasted sieve range ends before 2 * {lim on the sieving side}. You don't have to choose a power-of-two lim: 140M is not a fast choice (just above a power-of-two), but there's nothing wrong with using 180M or 100M.
2. Choose LP bound such that average yield (specifically, relations divided by Q-range) is 2.0 or higher.

It's really unlikely to go wrong when following these two rules, and rarely faster to violate either of them.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472262]I propose Two Golden Rules of 14e queue parameter choice:
1. Choose lim's such that your forecasted sieve range ends before 2 * {lim on the sieving side}. You don't have to choose a power-of-two lim: 140M is not a fast choice (just above a power-of-two), but there's nothing wrong with using 180M or 100M.
2. Choose LP bound such that average yield (specifically, relations divided by Q-range) is 2.0 or higher.

It's really unlikely to go wrong when following these two rules, and rarely faster to violate either of them.[/QUOTE]

Those are really good general rules to go by. The quartics (p^5-1) must have different attributes.

I tried increasing the lim from 67M to 134M but that added 20-25% more time per rel, but did increase the yield. We still needed the same number of total relations. Hence, more total time to sieve. My accidental first try had the best times of all - nearly half the current rate.

I usually like to keep the range to about 1.6-1.8 times the lim. I've seen curves where the yield starts at 2.0 but by the time the Q gets to 2*lim, it could be at or below 1.0. This curve is so flat there is not much of a penalty extending the range, for some unknown reason.

Which brings me to another point. I sometimes will increase the lim by 50% to squeeze a bit more yield. It increases the time/rel more than the yield gain but it keeps from getting past the 2*lim region where the curve really falls off. I try to avoid creating 32-bit jobs where it takes weeks on my Core-i5 to post-process. :smile:

P.S. These where the parameters [B]jyb[/B] used for p55^5-1 jobs when he added items to the queue.

[QUOTE=RichD;472271]Those are really good general rules to go by. The quartics (p^5-1) must have different attributes.

I tried increasing the lim from 67M to 134M but that added 20-25% more time per rel, but did increase the yield. We still needed the same number of total relations. Hence, more total time to sieve. My accidental first try had the best times of all - nearly half the current rate.

I usually like to keep the range to about 1.6-1.8 times the lim. I've seen curves where the yield starts at 2.0 but by the time the Q gets to 2*lim, it could be at or below 1.0. This curve is so flat there is not much of a penalty extending the range, for some unknown reason.

Which brings me to another point. I sometimes will increase the lim by 50% to squeeze a bit more yield. It increases the time/rel more than the yield gain but it keeps from getting past the 2*lim region where the curve really falls off. I try to avoid creating 32-bit jobs where it takes weeks on my Core-i5 to post-process. :smile:

P.S. These where the parameters [B]jyb[/B] used for p55^5-1 jobs when he added items to the queue.[/QUOTE]
This is, indeed, interesting to note the exceptions to such rules. Your job has a very unusually flat yield/Q curve, and a small choice of alim/rlim does appear better than my rules. I haven't done many (any?) quartics with SNFS, so my "golden rules" are perhaps only for degree 5-6 polys.

I do object to your 32-bit comment, though- unless this is another quartic quirk, I've found no difference in matrix size for 32LP vs 31LP, for a given difficulty of input number. Tough 32LP jobs are way bigger than most 31LP jobs, but there's no reason to assume that a bigger LP bound produces a bigger matrix.

[b]QUEUED C223_14083_59[/b] C223 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 1865615717130772767119311116455570124208658607305842896726964588854670423572329039423087652007275888761705267019924529226143361268713546866643218854079602599917062877045108854870518360637155062971394820217914898442214150729
# 14083^59-1, difficulty: 248.92, skewness: 4.91, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 7.6469e+18, est. time: 3641.38 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 4.914
c6: 1
c0: -14083
Y1: -1
Y0: 306868134259300507087306303463544482273449
m: 306868134259300507087306303463544482273449
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 12794
60M 10453
100M 10259
150M 8718
200M 8112
250M 7103[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED C188_895087_37[/b] C188 from the OPN t600 file.
[CODE]n: 10617829570839276659747741853830398849952865684054101910712506186845820619498688254461924516392091331519790551485245847452914148598316001358346365710249062092556695500444158007971971931097
# 895087^37-1, difficulty: SNFS-222
skew: 0.102
c6: 895087
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 514270363717491334687895212442791009
m: 514270363717491334687895212442791009
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9690
50M 7398
80M 5836
110M 5735[/CODE]

For 16e
 

A C208 blocker from HP2(4496) index 314. It has been thoroughly ECM'd and shows no sign of breaking.

The polynomial is:
[CODE]n: 8095101662371927421703337019465587498085337648622133688278589711654019359923503887978141510461468343349838217540569173400647791769725685803537804186347867144149599002247585690859122186539724272741806859085719
skew: 771127364.56
Y0: -17068243492239505219994785346910834818341
Y1: 1873940548553722757
c0: 165792391853474935561243616954647727516748946250496
c1: 2160239644350504494844955872920952825447896
c2: -21514458180493538566295548810659238
c3: -5887571126475837688637761
c4: 35919796435243602
c5: 5588280
type: gnfs

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

All parameters were set based on the previous C207 I ran as well as some sieving tests. The best degree 6 polynomial was also checked and found to be slower.

Sieve timings are as follows:
[CODE]Q-blocks of 2000, 16e
33A
50M: total yield: 2030, q=50002009 (2.37828 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 2986, q=100002011 (2.19112 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 2663, q=200002007 (2.28734 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 3343, q=300002029 (2.41504 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 2874, q=400002011 (2.70271 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 2619, q=500002003 (3.04544 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 2464, q=600002003 (2.94305 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 2263, q=700002011 (3.67559 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 2904, q=800002003 (3.70078 sec/rel)
900M: total yield: 2771, q=900002017 (3.72014 sec/rel)[/CODE]

The C207 needed 950M+ relations to build the matrix, according to the log, so the Q-range needs to be ~635M long or so, which would suggest something like 100M-800M?

I know this will need to be sent to frmky to actually get added to the 16e queue, but I figured I would post it here for both posterity and to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious before I make my request to him.

Just curious - did you mean alambda: 4.6 or is that a typo?

If intentional, does it make a big difference in speed/yield?

[QUOTE=swellman;472407]Just curious - did you mean alambda: 4.6 or is that a typo?

If intentional, does it make a big difference in speed/yield?[/QUOTE]

The 4.6 is intentional and it does slightly improve the speed and yield over 3.6.