The 2.6 for the other lambda makes no sense, since you have 96 for mfbr. 3LP require lambda above 3.0.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472419]The 2.6 for the other lambda makes no sense, since you have 96 for mfbr. 3LP require lambda above 3.0.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. I'll up it and re-run a few ranges to see how that parameter affects the speed and yield.

[b]QUEUED C215_10695665473_23[/b] C215 from the OPN t550 file.
Sieve on the algebraic side.
[CODE]n: 30763230003902403786374728887690763700728078820500331429048458439998376653484290078336744584927334552651151486915560134867070802466057580185289662645224533831086254604129851935910106985930522415164930677253990639963
# 10695665473^23-1, difficulty: 240.70, skewness: 46.94, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 4.04942e+18, est. time: 1928.29 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
lss: 0
skew: 46.939
c6: 1
c0: -10695665473
Y1: -1
Y0: 13086733074990294411997693788174817885441
m: 13086733074990294411997693788174817885441
type: snfs
rlim: 132000000
alim: 132000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 12348
60M 8822
100M 9910
150M 6537
200M 7234
250M 6071[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED AS C210_129_103b because I put it on 14e first by mistake[/b] C210_129_103 is ready for SNFS on the 15e siever.
[code]
n: 973422547784370322457514782831736956145196852856089924944333043407352689659116145124574973212168048907620323202284319881038292185920124546679327720675621471037727699034904089811538148953969144467029739410525629
# 129^103+103^129, difficulty: 261.77, anorm: 2.37e+040, rnorm: -3.95e+048
# scaled difficulty: 263.14, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.970e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.740e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 261
skew: 4.5150
c6: 129
c0: 1092727
Y1: -1860294571709496226110032706809177658295303
Y0: 758621374683090977986568634824263809
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 4879
80M 3522
150M 3378
250M 3015
320M 2764
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-300M with target # rels=480M.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472419]The 2.6 for the other lambda makes no sense, since you have 96 for mfbr. 3LP require lambda above 3.0.[/QUOTE]
Parameters:[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]

So I did some testing using the same parameters as before, but changing rlambda. Results are below, always sieving a-side:
[CODE]2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=4.6---total yield: 3675, q=300002029 (7.76544 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=3.6---total yield: 3675, q=300002029 (5.01857 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=3.0---total yield: 3485, q=300002029 (3.74347 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.6---total yield: 3485, q=300002029 (2.75728 sec/rel)
2k q-blocks, 16e, 33A, rlambda=2.2---total yield: 3440, q=300002029 (2.54916 sec/rel)[/CODE]

Increasing rlambda increase yield a bit, but the sec/rel goes up far more. More interestingly, I could drop it down to 2.2 and still get good yield and better speed. To check that this wasn't some anomaly at q=300M, I re-ran at q=500M and got:

[CODE]500M: (rlambda=2.6) total yield: 2619, q=500002003 (3.04544 sec/rel)
500M: (rlambda=2.2) total yield: 2692, q=500002003 (2.98365 sec/rel)[/CODE]

So again, slightly faster and actually a little higher yield. I'm going to run a few more sieving tests to confirm, but it looks like rlambda=2.6 should work fine and may actually work better than increasing it.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_133_73 is ready for SNFS on the 14e siever.
[code]
n: 724944184282146882229240663426590018526898008474680939544589033560019135346408745090706239982737192362639422940806860188203492279776297847688236932095959449250288392364539580917225652478824098917284281898899070075175763450990745189
# 133^73+73^133, difficulty: 249.69, anorm: 1.97e+038, rnorm: 9.36e+046
# scaled difficulty: 251.13, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.182e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.131e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.1052
c6: 73
c0: 133
Y1: -30635127461052805121505361
Y0: 98424433237708439716398638596388483974129
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]
20M 3469
80M 2269
150M 2061
250M 1748
[/code]
Suggesting a range of 20M-240M for Q with a target # rels = 250M.

[QUOTE=wombatman;472583]
Increasing rlambda increase yield a bit, but the sec/rel goes up far more. More interestingly, I could drop it down to 2.2 and still get good yield and better speed. To check that this wasn't some anomaly at q=300M, I re-ran at q=500M and got:

[CODE]500M: (rlambda=2.6) total yield: 2619, q=500002003 (3.04544 sec/rel)
500M: (rlambda=2.2) total yield: 2692, q=500002003 (2.98365 sec/rel)[/CODE]

So again, slightly faster and actually a little higher yield. I'm going to run a few more sieving tests to confirm, but it looks like rlambda=2.6 should work fine and may actually work better than increasing it.[/QUOTE]

What this tells you is that 3 large primes should not be used on the r side. That is, mfbr should be 66 rather than 96. Using lambda below 3 means that you're actually only searching for 2-large-prime relations.

If you leave rlambda at 2.6 and test mfbr of 65, 66 you should see almost exactly the name yield.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472620]What this tells you is that 3 large primes should not be used on the r side. That is, mfbr should be 66 rather than 96. Using lambda below 3 means that you're actually only searching for 2-large-prime relations.

If you leave rlambda at 2.6 and test mfbr of 65, 66 you should see almost exactly the name yield.[/QUOTE]

Mk. I'll check that as well.

[QUOTE=wombatman;472624]Mk. I'll check that as well.[/QUOTE]

Set rlambda=2.6 and mfbr=64 and got this:
[CODE]total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.54419 sec/rel)[/CODE]
With rlambda=2.2 and mfbr=96, I get:
[CODE]total yield: 2739, q=200002007 (2.45979 sec/rel)[/CODE]

All other parameters are the same and all sieving was done on the algebraic side.

I think 64 is too small to pair with 33-bit large primes. That's why I suggested 65 and 66.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472648]I think 64 is too small to pair with 33-bit large primes. That's why I suggested 65 and 66.[/QUOTE]

Ok. I've made the change and will test with 66. Thanks for all your advice thus far.:smile:

Tested with mfbr=64-66 and lpbr=32:
[CODE]32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=64--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.54419 sec/rel)
32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=65--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.24379 sec/rel)
32A, rlambda=2.6, mfbr=66--total yield: 2002, q=200002007 (3.25064 sec/rel)[/CODE]

Lastly, with lpbr=33 (33A), rlambda=2.6, and mfbr=65:
[CODE]total yield: 2737, q=200002007 (2.90922 sec/rel)[/CODE]

So I dunno, best yield by far is with lpba/r set to 33. Any idea why this might be?

[QUOTE=wombatman;472725]
Lastly, with lpbr=33 (33A), rlambda=2.6, and mfbr=65:
[CODE]total yield: 2737, q=200002007 (2.90922 sec/rel)[/CODE]

So I dunno, best yield by far is with lpba/r set to 33. Any idea why this might be?[/QUOTE]

This! This is the result I was expecting, for yield anyway. When you set mfbr to 96, you get 2739 relations. When you set it to 65, you get 2737 relations. So, whatever factorizations lasieve is trying to do for cofactors between 65 and 96 bits, it found only two relations.

However, I don't understand why the sec/rel would be worse for 65 than 96; it's finding 99.9% of the relations while testing fewer cofactors. That *should* result in a faster time.

33-bit large primes are clearly superior to 32 for an input this size. 34-bit is almost certainly superior to 33, but the standard tools don't allow 34LP. Any increase in lpba/r will result in more relations, on any input; however, more relations will be needed to build a matrix (generally, 65-70% more relations are needed for each 1-bit increase in both lpba/r). So, when comparing 32 vs 33, you want yield to be at least 70% greater for 33.

mfbr denotes the cofactor size lasieve tries to split. lbpr denotes the size of the largest prime acceptable in a relation. So, using 64 and 32 means that 64-bit cofactors are split, and any that result in 32+32 bit primes are retained; however, a split that produces 31+33 is rejected because one prime is too large.
Using 65 and 32 means you're trying to split some 65-bit cofactors, but you only keep the ones that split as 32-32 or smaller; that's not possible for a 65 bit input, so no extra relations are found.

Time is gained sometimes by using mfbr = 2* lbpr -1, say 33 and 65, because more of the 65-bit splits will have both factors 33-bits or smaller, while lots of 66-bit cofactors will split as 34 and 32 (or 35 and 31...).

Hope this helps!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472754]This! This is the result I was expecting, for yield anyway. When you set mfbr to 96, you get 2739 relations. When you set it to 65, you get 2737 relations. So, whatever factorizations lasieve is trying to do for cofactors between 65 and 96 bits, it found only two relations.

However, I don't understand why the sec/rel would be worse for 65 than 96; it's finding 99.9% of the relations while testing fewer cofactors. That *should* result in a faster time.

33-bit large primes are clearly superior to 32 for an input this size. 34-bit is almost certainly superior to 33, but the standard tools don't allow 34LP. Any increase in lpba/r will result in more relations, on any input; however, more relations will be needed to build a matrix (generally, 65-70% more relations are needed for each 1-bit increase in both lpba/r). So, when comparing 32 vs 33, you want yield to be at least 70% greater for 33.

mfbr denotes the cofactor size lasieve tries to split. lbpr denotes the size of the largest prime acceptable in a relation. So, using 64 and 32 means that 64-bit cofactors are split, and any that result in 32+32 bit primes are retained; however, a split that produces 31+33 is rejected because one prime is too large.
Using 65 and 32 means you're trying to split some 65-bit cofactors, but you only keep the ones that split as 32-32 or smaller; that's not possible for a 65 bit input, so no extra relations are found.

Time is gained sometimes by using mfbr = 2* lbpr -1, say 33 and 65, because more of the 65-bit splits will have both factors 33-bits or smaller, while lots of 66-bit cofactors will split as 34 and 32 (or 35 and 31...).

Hope this helps![/QUOTE]

This is very helpful and gives me a better understanding of how the lpba/r and mfbr/a parameters work together. I wouldn't put too much stock into the reported time. The computer the sieving is being done has other tasks running as well. If I wanted to get more precise timings, I would need to average 3 or so runs. I'll review all the yields I have and see whether I hit that 70% threshold you recommend. Then I should be able to finally submit it to frmky for the 16e queue. Thanks! :smile:

There's no doubt in my mind that you want 33LP over 32; I'm pretty confident 34LP would be faster, and I would test 35 if I were running this factorization myself. LP bounds above 33 require non-standard sievers, either 16f, or the special 16e compilation floating around the forum that has the 33-bit LP bound removed.

16e is limited by 96 for mfbr/a in any case, so 3 large primes is limited to 33/96 on any 16e siever. For the 2LP side, 34/67 and 34/68 would be interesting to test; maybe I'll try that on your composite tonight, as I have some free time.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472790]There's no doubt in my mind that you want 33LP over 32; I'm pretty confident 34LP would be faster, and I would test 35 if I were running this factorization myself. LP bounds above 33 require non-standard sievers, either 16f, or the special 16e compilation floating around the forum that has the 33-bit LP bound removed.

16e is limited by 96 for mfbr/a in any case, so 3 large primes is limited to 33/96 on any 16e siever. For the 2LP side, 34/67 and 34/68 would be interesting to test; maybe I'll try that on your composite tonight, as I have some free time.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good. I'll be interested to see how that goes.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C246_143_58 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 202234776336417710261405650689553937354003752024559559819720848415479775339953852271735016014830768330201249099498810443191526804931744370369043836242022676379833111285928285371688174040550889129206034422099044852193382687944629320767783463076199
# 143^58+58^143, difficulty: 257.46, anorm: 1.51e+036, rnorm: 1.81e+055
# scaled difficulty: 260.64, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.911e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.190e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 1.7185
c5: 195112
c0: 2924207
Y1: -511324276025564512546607
Y0: 23767517358231570773047645414309870043308402671616
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 2908
80M 2678
150M 3017
250M 3066
350M 2801
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-350M with target # rels=460M.

[b]QUEUED AS C175_11040_10071[/b] C175 from 11040:10071 (thx for excellent poly was found by VBCurtis)
[CODE]n: 6484689970303129020517057103365894793216912303102493240993925500641398178923457820535718262847740804273820043327446358642419268046237801717129218758317768624690555974293740733
# norm 6.007105e-17 alpha -6.096724 e 1.935e-13 rroots 1
skew: 23869212.60
c0: 215515253399468621655935634084010628842875
c1: 18221026257270678573040535301222710
c2: 810840940444709291461562333
c3: -92370495278835169378
c4: -2376612213148
c5: 147408
Y0: -8485425654983521960650346075265192
Y1: 20565115814604599
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
type: gnfs
[/CODE]Suggesting sieving range 20M-140M with 15e siever.
I'll do LA for it.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;472754]This!
<snip>
Hope this helps![/QUOTE]
:goodposting: :tu: It helped me too, to understand few things that were unclear for me.

Reposting the final parameters and timings for the C208 blocker:
[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: 65
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6

Final Q-block timings:

50M: total yield: 1888, q=50002009 (2.61830 sec/rel)
100M: total yield: 3060, q=100002011 (2.20105 sec/rel)
200M: total yield: 2736, q=200002007 (2.31068 sec/rel)
300M: total yield: 3433, q=300002029 (2.45759 sec/rel)
400M: total yield: 2929, q=400002011 (2.65905 sec/rel)
500M: total yield: 2690, q=500002003 (2.87627 sec/rel)
600M: total yield: 2548, q=600002003 (2.86426 sec/rel)
700M: total yield: 2231, q=700002011 (3.56041 sec/rel)
800M: total yield: 2877, q=800002003 (3.12972 sec/rel)[/CODE]

As noted previously, the C207 used ~950M relations. I estimated a q-range of about 635M being needed before, and I think that holds decently well. So recommending sieving the q=100M-800M range at the least, and one could search a bit lower and a bit higher as well, as 900M sieved decently before.

[QUOTE=wombatman;472800]Sounds good. I'll be interested to see how that goes.[/QUOTE]

Well, I tried 7 different parameter settings before realizing that sieving the rational side is the less-efficient side. I'm repeating some of the choices on the -a side now; I should have data tomorrow.
Data for the best 3 choices:
65/96 -r 2067 rels, 3.67 sec/rel (33LP)
67/96 -r 4025 rels, 1.87 sec/rel (34LP) #looks best of -r options
69/96 -r 4970 rels, 1.66 sec/rel (35/34)

Data on the -a sieving side for the C208:
69/96 -a: 7134 rels, 1.05 sec/rel (35/34)
67/96 -a: 5418 rels, 1.43 sec/rel (34LP)
65-96 -a: 2736 rels, 2.77 sec/rel (33LP)

going to 34LP on both sides, even though mfbr is capped at 96, doubles yield and nearly cuts sec/rel in half. Since only 70% more relations are needed, this would result in project length 1.70/1.94 (ratio of extra rels needed to sec/rel ratio), which is around 86%. So, going to 34LP would save 14% of total sieving time. I would aim for 1600-1700M raw relations.

If Frmky were interested in running as 34, a couple other Q values should be tested to make sure 34 is always faster.

Going to 35LP on the r side should require 30% more relations, 2100-2200M raw relations. Yield on this test is over 30% higher, and sec/rel is improved by more than 30% also. 35/34 happens to be what CADO would choose for a C210 (they have default settings for every 5 digits, 208 is closest to 210). I'm not convinced this is improved enough to bother trying 35, which is a stretch, but I'd do 34 on both sides for sure!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;473018]Data on the -a sieving side for the C208:
69/96 -a: 7134 rels, 1.05 sec/rel (35/34)
67/96 -a: 5418 rels, 1.43 sec/rel (34LP)
65-96 -a: 2736 rels, 2.77 sec/rel (33LP)

going to 34LP on both sides, even though mfbr is capped at 96, doubles yield and nearly cuts sec/rel in half. Since only 70% more relations are needed, this would result in project length 1.70/1.94 (ratio of extra rels needed to sec/rel ratio), which is around 86%. So, going to 34LP would save 14% of total sieving time. I would aim for 1600-1700M raw relations.

If Frmky were interested in running as 34, a couple other Q values should be tested to make sure 34 is always faster.

Going to 35LP on the r side should require 30% more relations, 2100-2200M raw relations. Yield on this test is over 30% higher, and sec/rel is improved by more than 30% also. 35/34 happens to be what CADO would choose for a C210 (they have default settings for every 5 digits, 208 is closest to 210). I'm not convinced this is improved enough to bother trying 35, which is a stretch, but I'd do 34 on both sides for sure![/QUOTE]

Wow! Definitely an improvement. I'll point frmky to your posts and he can decide if he wants to up it to 34 or not. Thanks for checking it.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_134_79 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 676870440131162186790205260284115103229905992405944474763786965158347196908998606158829512914913741518518550185426278771154202748468786511992582732124649322376550585259441177832426707359430632204475614844271700714398827407169704953
# 134^79+79^134, difficulty: 256.41, anorm: 1.83e+039, rnorm: -7.71e+047
# scaled difficulty: 257.85, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.549e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.926e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 1.8968
c6: 134
c0: 6241
Y1: -559494740587480879172162808385362976196641
Y0: 4491199828872408503792328704
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]
20M 4127
80M 2874
150M 2670
250M 2280
350M 1843
400M 1704
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-410M with target number rels = 480M

[b]QUEUED[/b] C164 from the OPN t600 file.
(I know I still have one pending but I want to get this listed before it gets lost.)
[CODE]n: 15234712737586721103604550217827103691335722219884678818626646892020804317203046936508614696882879218044394957722290829737523608324657357271792501492916421106461453
# 32607907713428723311^13-1, difficulty: 234.16, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 3.10
# cost: 2.41905e+18, est. time: 1151.93 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: -5
c3: -4
c2: 6
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -32607907713428723311
Y0: 1063275645447484430688183399163394802722
m: 4116174886578875451779080385257530068405655593255906669725778805326054390667175153667115574583829554496487666898231298223666826336036741546049998074154098460522073
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 9035
50M 7416
80M 5811
110M 5749[/CODE]

Another for 14e
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_135_73 is ready for SNFS on 14e
[code]
n: 405135366248403070014579145301092752429522305796020528619581222136619775733509794280594340666699024601709500245913945891233607180762122241552729694445771745966668715497199198907646172156978215320283919057062908487389773580323648327
# 135^73+73^135, difficulty: 251.55, anorm: 2.01e+032, rnorm: 8.11e+055
# scaled difficulty: 255.48, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.418e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.791e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 6.3253
c5: 1
c0: 10125
Y1: -2003521529507672592938232421875
Y0: 204040896602218382792418993938046358519102576817497
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 2679
Q=80M 2827
Q=150M 2943
Q=250M 3334
Q=350M 2963
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-340M with a target # rels = 480M.

I'm having complains about memory usage for the lasieved and lasievee applications and I do understand why it has increased but I also understand clients side therefore please can someone get in touch with Greg so he can update the NFS@Home preferences from

[CODE]lasieved - app for RSALS subproject, uses less than 0.5 GB memory: no
lasievee - work nearly always available, uses up to 0.5 GB memory: no
lasievef - used for huge factorizations, uses up to 1 GB memory: no
lasieve5f - used for huge factorizations, uses up to 1 GB memory: no[/CODE]

to

[CODE]lasieved - app for RSALS subproject, uses less than 1 GB memory: no
lasievee - work nearly always available, uses up to 1 GB memory: no
lasievef - used for huge factorizations, uses up to 2 GB memory: no
lasieve5f - used for huge factorizations, uses up to 2 GB memory: no[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C231_143_54 is ready for SNFS on 14e
[code]
n: 621085412790375307954842303091242401599187785292720387746556526386679857104333956026343063778911229796200937308543061359094429164695389309646960536529277270574547452218723280530181202814788132166578758240264451449370939414863659139
# 143^54+54^143, difficulty: 249.46, anorm: 1.47e+037, rnorm: 2.71e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.18, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.476e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.9442
c6: 1
c0: 54
Y1: -25004854810776297743
Y0: 377963825299746235969115118367001548947456
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 3535
Q=80M 2368
Q=150M 2108
Q=250M 1768
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-230M with a target # rels = 240M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C220_129_109 is ready for SNFS on 15e
[code]
n: 1346957944035369350649177183417460897586124902256063554768391394398599626692189283695087162300401361678902401675388806200833900916005885361521283703010174719944801385811778394608428733146714260436067757229410423908184919
# 127^109+109^127, difficulty: 260.79, anorm: 2.35e+038, rnorm: 6.03e+048
# scaled difficulty: 262.53, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.279e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.128e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 1.0258
c6: 109
c0: 127
Y1: -73869809188743794269800200736680064769
Y0: 6108807736878338211809453421477901879741309
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 4468
Q=80M 3284
Q=150M 2974
Q=250M 2831
Q=300M 2326
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-330M with a target # rels = 480M.

Pretty sure that 77^128+1 cofactor is somewhat undersieved. Not sure by how much, but I definitely can't get a matrix.

Well, if it's not undersieved, some help would be appreciated, but... I'm not really sure what else it could be

[code]nice -n 19 ./msieve -t 4 -v -nc "target_density=70"


Msieve v. 1.53 (SVN 991M)
Sat Dec 16 06:06:19 2017
random seeds: 91020989 c2601156
factoring 570611637478057074957499986744193359634547269168995406738772319690440015794454188222324761357837625956203568420184748900348100119547789201738170458697904144112540373136615440721108151900897392173128110
898213889 (210 digits)
no P-1/P+1/ECM available, skipping
commencing number field sieve (210-digit input)
R0: 4133378999547948340940571656980377632477
R1: -1
A0: 1
A1: 0
A2: 0
A3: 0
A4: 0
A5: 0
A6: 5929
skew 1.44, size 4.098e-12, alpha 0.309, combined = 3.062e-13 rroots = 0

commencing relation filtering
setting target matrix density to 70.0
estimated available RAM is 15992.2 MB
commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
read 10M relations
read 20M relations
read 30M relations
read 40M relations
read 50M relations
read 60M relations
read 70M relations
error -15 reading relation 76688484
read 80M relations
error -11 reading relation 80259748
skipped 17 relations with b > 2^32
found 3505866 hash collisions in 89196982 relations
added 1218505 free relations
commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
found 0 duplicates and 90415487 unique relations
memory use: 261.2 MB
reading ideals above 86573056
commencing singleton removal, initial pass
memory use: 3012.0 MB
reading all ideals from disk
memory use: 1657.2 MB
commencing in-memory singleton removal
begin with 90415487 relations and 118660108 unique ideals
reduce to 3625379 relations and 1325112 ideals in 24 passes
max relations containing the same ideal: 8
reading ideals above 100000
commencing singleton removal, initial pass
memory use: 344.5 MB
reading all ideals from disk
memory use: 167.4 MB
keeping 11247032 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 19298
commencing in-memory singleton removal
begin with 3858602 relations and 11247032 unique ideals
reduce to 801 relations and 0 ideals in 4 passes
max relations containing the same ideal: 0
filtering wants 1000000 more relations
elapsed time 00:20:28[/code]

Yes, it's wildly undersieved (I think I started it out planning to adjust the size later, because I wasn't quite confident with my yield measurements locally); have roughly doubled the number of Q.

15e
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C245_147_55 is ready for SNFS on 15e
[code]
n: 15066216921569949537278591303356552160569221987375280410339362242277652815400239026041568122693798988503386855080995849909622265146560854689413460313451823537765927499326782303115354897790334497196042430631665104049382608447803356519497007367877
# 147^55+55^147, difficulty: 261.05, anorm: 9.89e+039, rnorm: 2.36e+048
# scaled difficulty: 262.45, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.344e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.256e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 261
skew: 1.5488
c6: 1331
c0: 18375
Y1: -32052064847671367667
Y0: 2935449086370352236840677559375762939453125
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 5474
Q=80M 3656
Q=150M 3421
Q=250M 3307
Q=300M 3053
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-290M with a target # of rels = 490M.

Two for 14e
 

[b]BOTH QUEUED[/b]
C231_145_57 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 487462203488641084662765485427390608344534392459053644895041190483745804399470392946074891462927507600003649603068413641219317478019716960363312633057558748313060257478328181865245410500890090974235275206527434105842036615448873389
# 145^57+57^145, difficulty: 254.60, anorm: 2.90e+032, rnorm: 3.08e+056
# scaled difficulty: 258.61, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 9.859e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.051e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 7.3206
c5: 1
c0: 21025
Y1: -595728015903604931640625
Y0: 832474260857516094176403796072035154334600003844057
rlim: 268000000
alim: 400000000
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 2022
Q=80M 1942
Q=150M 2122
Q=250M 2275
Q=350M 2075
Q=450M 1897
[/code]
Suggesting, with a dose of hedging, a sieving range of 20M-490M with a target # rels = 470M.

==================================

C231_144_110 is ready for SNFS on 14e
[code]
n: 700429108582468681530022000698447919307047404004645133500918005306274800591896396190869457916486076120861120153542900423094582708590081167008477678971459432646201578658620098507025288130705511570556065872418878841284188516477070969
# 144^110+110^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 3.60e+037, rnorm: 3.63e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.28, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.321e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.189e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.6207
c6: 1
c0: 324
Y1: -84495767949234467194240606666752
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
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 3310
Q=80M 2179
Q=150M 1974
Q=250M 1697
[/code]
Suggesting a range for Q of 20M-240M with target # rels = 240M.

Last of my nominations for a while. Gotta focus on postprocessing. Thanks.

[b]QUEUED[/b] 13*2^836-1, for 14e:
[code]n: 446778553763041880824029402190312582258057034807820679885780814903984332892787473020745705377923758412764637717930269968958993142983575301680607186388696393538943526067219268231596895913186678728689
m: 696898287454081973172991196020261297061888
type: snfs
size: 254
skew: 0.54
c6: 52
c0: -1
rlim: 134000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 65
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7[/code]
Suggested sieve range 20M-180M for ~630M relations.
Test-sieved on 1.1Ghz ultrabook, 2k Q-ranges:
[code]30M 0.117 sec/rel, 9652 rels
70M 0.127 sec/rel, 7953 rels
100M 0.145 sec/rel, 7892 rels
130M 0.164 sec/rel, 7442 rels
160M 0.169 sec/rel, 7059 rels
190M 0.184 sec/rel, 6794 rels[/code]
I would like to do LA for this number.

[QUOTE=swellman;471604]15120 curves @B1=43M yielded no factors. Now running 12000 curves @t60 level. Marin has been updated.[/QUOTE]

12000 curves @B1=260M completed with no factors found with C184 cofactor of L3865B. Marin updated.

Poly search scheduled to start next week.

15e Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C262 from the OPN MWRB file for 15e queue.
[CODE]n: 1691258362240878280454178428210930093387995565018686454967377347094043699721437276517346006084343984994009127771016074764883067093211082213169148955695073468059507949955137578606583196114785524503032331459432916909161408179816042086760615819245979012488032667543
# 5393^71-1, difficulty: 268.69, skewness: 4.19, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 3.35598e+19, est. time: 15980.87 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 4.188
c6: 1
c0: -5393
Y1: -1
Y0: 605292152577983359632734706451399897723780801
m: 605292152577983359632734706451399897723780801
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 93
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 6457
60M 5730
100M 5715
150M 4646
200M 4793
250M 3885
300M 3849[/CODE]

15e Candidate
 

[QUOTE=swellman;474414]12000 curves @B1=260M completed with no factors found with C184 cofactor of L3865B. Marin updated.

Poly search scheduled to start next week.[/QUOTE]

Poly search complete. L3865B survived all ECM efforts, and now [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=474860&postcount=85]thanks to Max0526[/url] a poly has been found with a record setting e-score for a C184. Poly is repeated here for convenience.

[code]
n: 1251516986508717322323583052382284336136171549993041380955868385111197235307360385444235100079672151016701474271745769669221614486348266045684925884036811974151645364807120147382456261
skew: 155081925.86
c0: 3258381761015893322703469355508610515519640008
c1: 994948670578842945305212888379095752533
c2: -11449251905133422400956610990120
c3: -69609283675092247656887
c4: 438761968162182
c5: 1519560
Y0: -510262266069797436279473833437161562
Y1: 3739355384257464468353
# norm 6.135551e-18 alpha -9.140155 e 4.696e-14 rroots 5
[/code]

I've pushed F1361 as an SNFS candidate.

swellman: would you like me to push L3865B to 15e with the polynomial you and Max found?

[QUOTE=fivemack;476961]
swellman: would you like me to push L3865B to 15e with the polynomial you and Max found?[/QUOTE]

Yes please.

Eta - Max0526 gets sole credit for the high quality polynomial.

C220_129_109 Title error
 

In [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=474026&postcount=1290]this post[/url] I nominated this composite for 15e, but it should be called C220_127_109. The job file in that posting shows the correct info, I just mistyped the title. Job should run just fine.

Apologies. Not sure if this needs to be corrected. Thank you for enqueueing it.

[b]corrected, though it didn't need to be[/b]

L3865B is queued on 15e (32-bit large primes, I did trial sieving with 3LP on either side but both were slower than 2LP)

Yield looks quite reasonable.

I think that's all the requests from the last month queued up, there are now six jobs on 14e and five on 15e.

Filled the time for my tea to brew by determining that 32607907713428723311 is a factor of polcyclo(5,5229043), and 5229043 is polcyclo(7,13). I suspect there's an efficient way to do the first search, though I just looked at Mod(p,32607907713428723311)^5 for increasingly large primes.

A 14e candidate from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=472250&postcount=1252]this post[/url] with follow-up data points in the [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=472261&postcount=1253]next post[/url] was missed.

[b]fivemack[/b]: Sorry. Queued now

What work may be suitable?
 

Apologies if this is in the wrong place; if so perhaps a mod could send it packing.

Some time back NFS@Home wanted relatively small, <S250, jobs to keep users with relatively small machines happy. I long since ran out of them. The GCW tables presently have three sub-C170 GNFS candidates, all reserved, and a bunc h>C181. Sam Wagstaff is working through the remaining C181 numbers. As far as SNFS is concerned the numbers start at S255.

Question: into which queue(s) should these go and is there spare capacity for a few of my numbers?

Paul

There’s plenty of processing power for sieving in all applications, backlog is post-processing I suppose.

There is plenty of spare capacity; I think C182 and S255 are both optimally in the 15e range, but we did several at 14e when the 15e queue was moving slowly.

[QUOTE=fivemack;477043]There is plenty of spare capacity; I think C182 and S255 are both optimally in the 15e range, but we did several at 14e when the 15e queue was moving slowly.[/QUOTE]Thanks. I'll set up some candidates.


Added in edit: 265*(9^265+1).C232 aka GC(9,265) aka 9,265+ now added to the 15e queue. It's been years since I put anything there so may have mis-remembered the procedure. Could someone cast a critical eye over it please? If all is well I'll add 9,266+, 12,236+ and 12,238+

I've queued L2755A as an awkward but perfectly practical quartic, having finally worked out how to get reasonable polynomials for the Lucas Aurifeuillian factors.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C232_140_59 is ready for SNFS on 14e. I’ve pushed a lot of numbers towards the queue, but this is the last until March - didn’t want it to get lost. Thank you.
[code]
n: 2234378048249495869632277535776778536491220070872178334323257257984004715599817130218098631993983409929561189021862530161860248402011281511389799252654886688065574453902542653717067012722454732217367978217338892307708541470519239077
# 140^59+59^140, difficulty: 247.92, anorm: 1.40e+039, rnorm: -1.60e+047
# scaled difficulty: 249.26, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.061e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.277e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 247
skew: 8.8710
c6: 1
c0: 487340
Y1: -53653278865596927234911463541904971226579
Y0: 2892546549760000000000
rlim: 268000000
alim: 400000000
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 4309
Q=80M 2771
Q=150M 2569
Q=250M 2382
Q=350M 1996
Q=400M 1782
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-400M with a target # rels=480M

[QUOTE=xilman;477044]Thanks. I'll set up some candidates.


Added in edit: 265*(9^265+1).C232 aka GC(9,265) aka 9,265+ now added to the 15e queue. It's been years since I put anything there so may have mis-remembered the procedure. Could someone cast a critical eye over it please? If all is well I'll add 9,266+, 12,236+ and 12,238+[/QUOTE]

That looks reasonable, but it would be nice to have a sieving range - you've presumably done some trial sieving. I usually use the Y0/Y1 notation rather than m, but I think that's just an idiosyncrasy on my part and the siever will work fine.

Default is to sieve on the rational side, 'lss: 0' for the algebraic one.

C160 from the t600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_3(Phi_13(44611351)/225629*3919943)/3 )
[CODE]n: 1645198996771698287519863000103286845983679086526137651458314721270137400493141395353109314720582263630795645925431899925091171439403445582834679495769727909407
# 70253804098533303996256039060114483059484940828633741987845788959049023444144179^3-1
Y0: -8510992183097608908062342669389
Y1: 3119774805895455331
c0: -2458879178066279636329775588966198643600
c1: 175013919598807213096374655733910
c2: 184284825279548288432637647
c3: 1077827593448971645
c4: -992173422658
c5: 73680
skew: 9223168.66838
# lognorm 50.25, E 42.78, alpha -7.47 (proj -1.69), 3 real roots
# MurphyE = 1.53414751e-12
lss: 0
type: gnfs
rlim: 80000000
alim: 80000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 9207
50M 6194
80M 4735
110M 4844[/CODE]

C227 from the OPN t600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_11(Phi_83(3)/167*12119*1036745531) )
[CODE]n: 26203677826730851377939430233626534532641385178649456490321172522050584861944654221947297095921282393175735198139983340765314029246333295994370171982113084465746386028525242503793016869208931881500957725963368575548045513021493
# 950996059627210897943351^11-1, difficulty: 239.78, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
# cost: 3.76853e+18, est. time: 1794.54 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: -4
c2: -3
c1: 3
c0: 1
Y1: -950996059627210897943351
Y0: 904393505426481665605349523006322663681605109202
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 8630
60M 9469
100M 9974
150M 8850
200M 8984[/CODE]

C160 from the OPN t600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_3(Phi_11(Phi_3(794191)/2/3^/5/23/307/1151)/23/858001)/3/151 )
[CODE]n: 2919357762182025637085736884361041528026147286452771585642240169286735537985256859236432072193315178520639434000278148158555949326472316399110665642570661007011
# 1149986550472855579648408239822856912298581122489969299470029337872846236797481461^3-1
# expecting poly E from 1.35e-12 to > 1.56e-12
lss: 0
Y0: -4722891534396009461283724343702
Y1: 5216350505029673
c0: 578637001754130307843070131474029555
c1: -23476954085250857643262788342
c2: -10969905444374948895614757
c3: -36272430452838801366
c4: 4272682082006
c5: 1242360
# skew 1539269.06, size 1.694e-15, alpha -6.538, combined = 1.549e-12 rroots = 3
skew: 1539269.06
type: gnfs
rlim: 80000000
alim: 80000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 11408
60M 9899
100M 10282
120M 8672[/CODE]

C199 from the OPN t1000 file.
3LPs provide a better yield but the times are a little slower.
Not having to go as deep into the special-Qs may be quicker overall.
I will look closer in the future since I have several of these quartics.
[CODE]n: 5262199667347704370383382573882546842844132668115527189076062581874638943044817276421916975296385935474146837843853199024201903372763704218014620151293853622962990584469731632691969324944794952060901
# 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221^5-1, difficulty: 214.58, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 4.90392e+17, est. time: 233.52 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 93
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
Perhaps starting at Q=30M.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 6624
30M 7904
60M 9442
100M 9569
140M 8383
180M 7984[/CODE]

[QUOTE=RichD;478263]C199 from the OPN t1000 file.
3LPs provide a better yield but the times are a little slower.
Not having to go as deep into the special-Qs may be quicker overall.
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 93
[/QUOTE]
It is my experience with 3LP that trying mfba = 3 * lpba -2 improves speed quite a bit without hurting yield much. Maybe give mfba = 91 a try? I found 32/93 quicker than 32/95, but I didn't experiment much with 31bit 3LP.
The idea (I think) is that 93-bit cofactors are unlikely to split into 31*31*31, so we shouldn't bother trying to split them.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;478268]It is my experience with 3LP that trying mfba = 3 * lpba -2 improves speed quite a bit without hurting yield much. Maybe give mfba = 91 a try? I found 32/93 quicker than 32/95, but I didn't experiment much with 31bit 3LP.
The idea (I think) is that 93-bit cofactors are unlikely to split into 31*31*31, so we shouldn't bother trying to split them.[/QUOTE]

I was going to try mfba = 92 but it slip my mind until you mentioned the above. I will try 90 & 91 going forward. I have about 8-10 of these quartics that are ready for SNFS. It just takes a while to perform trial sieving on my antiquated MacBook Pro (C2D processor era).

C156 for HP10(10319)--index 223
 

This C156 is a current blocker for Home Primes base 10 #10319 and seems like a good candidate for 14e:

[CODE]n: 829947270509843783968285132730360242554211003188405745637764693710273647973469773749403752968599120365370119962963727902520256786907451772898125027846577241
#norm 4.318399e-015 alpha -7.710025 e 2.361e-012 rroots 5
skew: 1818364.43
c0: 15404695912880251969672235365489751625
c1: 96169763706945968510973435993989
c2: -55451960683080945242365464
c3: -52672332961861307650
c4: 15731934889652
c5: 7819728
Y0: -638515978727085600665939620354
Y1: 3485497284917351

rlim: 33600000
alim: 33600000
lpbr: 29
lpba: 29
mfbr: 58
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]

Test sieving yielded the following (note that the sec/rel would really be about 2x as fast--these were done on a computer carrying out numerous tasks):
[CODE]q=8M: total yield: 2740, q=8002003 (0.07685 sec/rel)
q=12M: total yield: 2970, q=12002059 (0.07785 sec/rel)
q=16M: total yield: 3047, q=16002001 (0.07880 sec/rel)
q=20M: total yield: 2630, q=20002007 (0.08051 sec/rel)
q=24M: total yield: 2884, q=24002051 (0.08107 sec/rel)
q=28M: total yield: 2822, q=28002019 (0.08472 sec/rel)
q=32M: total yield: 3291, q=32002021 (0.08572 sec/rel)
q=40M: total yield: 3255, q=40002023 (0.08797 sec/rel)
q=50M: total yield: 2498, q=50002009 (0.09430 sec/rel)[/CODE]

Based on previous numbers, I would expect to need ~50M relations to solve, so a q-range of ~10M-45M should do it, but it's feasible to increase to 50M or 60M and drop down to 8M as needed.

I would be happy to run the linear algebra on this once it's done.

Shoot. Forgot to mention that this was on the a-side. Apologies.:smile:

I have queued wombatman's number and RichD's first three numbers; waiting for information about trial sieving with different mfb figures before queuing the C199 quartic.

[QUOTE=RichD;478263]C199 from the OPN t1000 file.
3LPs provide a better yield but the times are a little slower.
Not having to go as deep into the special-Qs may be quicker overall.
I will look closer in the future since I have several of these quartics.
[CODE]n: 5262199667347704370383382573882546842844132668115527189076062581874638943044817276421916975296385935474146837843853199024201903372763704218014620151293853622962990584469731632691969324944794952060901
# 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221^5-1, difficulty: 214.58, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 4.90392e+17, est. time: 233.52 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 93
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 3.6[/CODE][/QUOTE]

A C199 quartic will be harder on the rational side, so I would expect [code]
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code] to work better. At least try trial sieving it.

Chris

[QUOTE=chris2be8;478441]A C199 quartic will be harder on the rational side, so I would expect [code]
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6
[/code] to work better. At least try trial sieving it.

Chris[/QUOTE]

I only got to this point before I noticed the above post. All times on a C2D laptop. (5K blocks)
[CODE] mfba=92 mfba=91
Yield sec/rel Yield sec/rel
20M 6624 0.399 6623 0.450
60M 9439 0.366 9439 0.375[/CODE]
I wasn't sure if I should stay on the rational side or not. Since I normally put the 3LP on the non-sieving side I tried -a side first. After a few hundred Q I abandoned that approach. Yield < 1.0 and the times doubled.

So I went back to the -r side. Times increased a bit but now getting yield close to 3.0. I will repost the full poly when I complete all the trial sieving. Thank you for the insider information. :smile:

Repost C199 (p54^5-1)
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] Thanks to the help from [B]chris2be8[/B] we have better parameters for the original poly from [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=478263&postcount=1314] this post[/url].
[CODE]n: 5262199667347704370383382573882546842844132668115527189076062581874638943044817276421916975296385935474146837843853199024201903372763704218014620151293853622962990584469731632691969324944794952060901
# 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221^5-1, difficulty: 214.58, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 4.90392e+17, est. time: 233.52 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
m: 441047607640944329101719685655443319185854243052422221
type: snfs
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks. (C2D timings.)
[CODE] Q Yield sec/rel
20M 13040 0.309
60M 14466 0.486
100M 14234 0.521
120M 13701 0.487[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C197 from the OPN t1600 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_2(Phi_3(Phi_7(Phi_11(2801)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small)/small) )
or P55.76454_5M.C197
[CODE]n: 15420106394864175646956697460687018537255496896008096522537550268413863999071964128123246880858150236150236618717851768444792711346084264069707278037651651645100472752767291966576474365987720132361
# 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099^5-1, difficulty: 219.53, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.40309e+17, est. time: 352.53 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 7645463225990568242011672429536839102186796836095591099
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 8235
60M 9540
100M 10126
140M 9152
180M 8438[/CODE]

Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?

[b]QUEUED[/b] C180_144_55 is the composite cofactor remaining after yoyo@Home found a p54. At first I assumed this would be best factored using GNFS (there have been a few examples from the xyyx project in the last few weeks) but test sieving shows that factoring this composite using SNFS is still the best strategy.

Use 14e.

[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]


[code]
Test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 5K:
Q=20M 16680
Q=70M 14081
Q=110 13510
Q=180 10870
Q=230 10943
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with target # relations = 490M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C233_144_53 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
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 5K:
[code]
Q=20M 8626
Q=60M 7097
Q=110M 6800
Q=170M 5293
Q=220M 4861
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-210M with a target # rels = 240M

[QUOTE=fivemack;478778]Do you want to use 14e or 15e for these quartics?[/QUOTE]

Use 14e unless 15e is explicitly stated.

[QUOTE=swellman;478787]
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 2.2894
c6: 1
c0: 144
Y1: -26623333280885243904
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]
[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, how does it compare against
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
[B]skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808[/B]
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;478788]
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 1.3104
c6: 16
c0: 81
Y1: -8874444426961747968
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]
[/QUOTE]

Similarly
[code]
n: 38374312398283582325657648808004146969907525900800855301406386671996814999601395796168777811469002125491748155628991413242994998135066203928803044194578764063765362584114426962905305186903758830477297619339375543622596742289572279889
# 144^53+53^144, difficulty: 249.50, anorm: 7.20e+037, rnorm: 2.11e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.08, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.537e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.345e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
[B]skew: 1
c6: 9
c0: 4
Y1: -13311666640442621952[/B]
Y0: 241335311011519234780052665404754645838881
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]

[QUOTE=axn;478800]Out of curiosity, how does it compare against
[code]
n: 117584889783093103096672802605868198355384364847159094368448829303838825468335358899723272324256691112560210596562609505161517633649883850274330478506472074476907005355795371114817
# 144^55+55^144, difficulty: 250.61, anorm: 2.40e+037, rnorm: 3.88e+047
# scaled difficulty: 252.31, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 2.493e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 2.298e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
[B]skew: 1.2
c6: 4
c0: 9
Y1: -53246666561770487808[/B]
Y0: 587089817274070447368135511875152587890625
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code][/QUOTE]

That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.

[QUOTE=swellman;478803]That was the first candidate poly I test sieved, but it proved to be 10-15% slower with a slightly lower yield. Tested at both ends of the estimated sieving range and the results did not change, as I recall. Same thing with 144_53.[/QUOTE]

Cool :smile: Good to know

[b]QUEUED[/b] C232_146_49 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 1013101528926077978679178427704027695375716974314089721050828820271712465075225788768410285923554921116684180703005038969476384074972513279143913652849762612925082241419943363578919924527774569025441804427639587057809167118875794133
# 146^49+49^146, difficulty: 250.15, anorm: 1.69e+038, rnorm: 1.23e+047
# scaled difficulty: 251.63, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.687e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.774e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 250
skew: 4.3896
c6: 1
c0: 7154
Y1: -206453783524884736
Y0: 256923577521058878088611477224235621321607
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 4K:
[code]
Q=20M 6076
Q=80M 4298
Q=150M 3734
Q=250M 3128
Q=300M 2974
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-270M with target # rels = 250M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C197 from the OPN t1200 file.
P55.21900_5M.C197
[CODE]n: 28848967990077705846988961468539295920671331242155757837897308053389516744137239692990930018313384178496879018740961164234293984375975760512498647138632711308817604574356514611333530865932937557161
# 2190066216160043027357373834534068629814437632915752857^5-1, difficulty: 217.36, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 6.1848e+17, est. time: 294.51 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 2190066216160043027357373834534068629814437632915752857
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10345
60M 11861
100M 12221
140M 11148[/CODE]
This will be it for a while since I will be out of town next week.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C233_133_86 is ready for SNFS on 14e.

[code]
n: 10633354020919847828049263705668353382285616309669021200078310598696796477207436371326306802388614964256350490347978458835867676327562757887165210981714336194048764404430848960645565061266895540038717130441903406926921630132396259373
# 133^86+86^133, difficulty: 259.22, anorm: 2.47e+039, rnorm: 2.32e+048
# scaled difficulty: 260.72, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.137e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.413e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 259
skew: 2.4296
c6: 86
c0: 17689
Y1: -541904769658563069794308330729
Y0: 3622145797004077275761664476965378610692096
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=30M 9513
Q=70M 8214
Q=140M 7044
Q=230M 6493
Q=320M 6047
Q=400M 5352
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-390M with a target # relations = 490M

[b]QUEUED[/b] XY_C230_130_77 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 18315142786666101398591398195652968891950079559697267218869070977624355302066323827855137263904494058903414979203244755702312169623822646226647486135677880809134691327837076059931140659435555511440691793413686862305600824600423447
# 137^77+77^137, difficulty: 262.22, anorm: 2.05e+038, rnorm: -2.57e+049
# scaled difficulty: 264.07, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.233e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.186e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 262
skew: 1.1008
c6: 77
c0: 137
Y1: -24506804088319785713436649354236658982956133
Y0: 5989180101784270567563310697
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=30M 13535
Q=60M 11612
Q=100M 10688
Q=160M 9560
Q=220M 8185
Q=300M 7481
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-260M with a target # relations = 460M

[b]QUEUED[/b] C234_138_130 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 873871377158311959084069104485448955380742878586910511066775683676005627366318727796089678603178221314609623090150332844943898936307004248150490182806133725295221071021681004836291150479521618813536089469216388339331568112155847161029
# 138^130+130^138, difficulty: 251.99, anorm: 2.76e+038, rnorm: -2.25e+048
# scaled difficulty: 253.64, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 9.276e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.125e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 251
skew: 5.1676
c6: 1
c0: 19044
Y1: -995490680060699376274247097969055175781250
Y0: 28489183085523666542794945375463469260361
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 11629
Q=70M 9941
Q=130M 9048
Q=200M 8060
Q=280M 7355
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-275M with a target # rels = 460M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C180_132_95 is the composite cofactor of C235_132_95, which fell out when yoyo@Home found a p56. The C180 is close to the GNFS/SNFS threshold but test sieving shows it to be a decent SNFS candidate on 14e. GNFS would need a VERY good poly to beat SNFS, but when considering the estimated time to run a poly search and then properly test sieve it, SNFS seems to have the edge.

[code]
n: 289396665786312982141006307236099419705652823106983094814522618811166859549920672792894184549036158544227111489361203033421179354216009603309439787077402269680722529033925255839017
# 132^95+95^132, difficulty: 262.26, anorm: 4.60e+037, rnorm: -3.44e+049
# scaled difficulty: 264.24, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 8.792e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.039e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 262
skew: 1.1282
c6: 16
c0: 33
Y1: -32353354497370936650756292250156402587890625
Y0: 4247690876126830874600666969407488
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 10037
Q=60M 9062
Q=120M 8467
Q=200M 7607
Q=280M 6754
Q=340M 6195
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-310M with a target # rels = 460M

[QUOTE=ATH;479462]So apparently the large vectors makes sense even without MPI=1:


make all WIN=1 WIN64=1 ECM=1 CUDA=0 NO_ZLIB=1 VBITS=64/128/256:


[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits64-haswell.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits64-haswell.zip[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits128-haswell.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits128-haswell.zip[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits256-haswell.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits256-haswell.zip[/URL]

[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits64-sandybridge.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits64-sandybridge.zip[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits128-sandybridge.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits128-sandybridge.zip[/URL]
[URL="http://hoegge.dk/mersenne/msieve-svn1018-vbits256-sandybridge.zip"]msieve-svn1018-vbits256-sandybridge.zip[/URL][/QUOTE]

For filtering stage of a GNFS130 I see a gain of 30% on those new binaries, nothing on the LA stage. Version tested were all sandybridge.

[b]QUEUED[/b]

[i]also identified as phi_7(largest factor of phi_7(phi_13(7)))[/i]

C164 from the OPN t600 file.
P38.14020_5M.C164
[CODE]n: 23868414476868587995325249170685588832943809103422768132521828316896025074624706715888406731264933402097870928021784797238895030842545830931640968187921163985020669
# 14020072124657538094183043839811142289^7-1
skew: 1.00
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 14020072124657538094183043839811142289
m: 14020072124657538094183043839811142289
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 16361
50M 12366
80M 10196[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] 13*2^847-1 for 14e queue:
[code]n: 42246880894524383035892167318063256701851446750403840464286176017669351238138572605165092732275908592011242081859470348782066064144827879104751823280198945957929888255355032133967798016490782003
m: 2787593149816327892691964784081045188247552
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 0.60
c6: 26
c0: -1
rlim: 134000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 65
mfba: 92
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7[/code]
Trial sieving blocks of Q=2000:
Q=40M 0.152 sec/rel, 9863 rels
Q=100M 0.198 sec/rel, 8329 rels
Q=160M 0.204 sec/rel, 7925 rels
Suggest Q 15M-165M, for 620M rels.

I tested mfbr of 65, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95; 92 was the fastest of the 3LP options, with 20% better yield than 65 at a penalty of 5% speed (at the same Q). Since 92 will find more relations at lower/faster Q, choosing 92 means avoiding the slowest Q and is overall no slower. Also, it's fun to try something new in parameter selection with an eye toward extending 14e use via improved yields.
I'll do the LA.

[QUOTE=RichD;479928][b]QUEUED[/b]

[i]also identified as phi_7(largest factor of phi_7(phi_13(7)))[/i]

C164 from the OPN t600 file.
P38.14020_5M.C164
[/QUOTE]

Under my aforementioned scheme, this would be named [c]OPN_C164_7_13_1_7_6_7_7[/c].

(Perhaps the OPN subscheme should include an extra letter to help discern what each field is, like OPN_C164_7_p13_n1_p7_n6_p7_n7 ? Where p means "phi" or "power" and "n" means "nth factor of previously-calculated number", or maybe something else.)

[b]QUEUED AS C168_AS3408_1679[/b] C166 from Aliquot Sequence 3408.
AS 3408:i1679
[CODE]n: 1849959698458141896282042340312824214549892860101677080063475429346433861792907412970467950297875110048406275074129147348999744724448993266489199137326482342635948767
skew: 2852369.7
lss: 0
c0: 79263284085565649297873532999343489290
c1: 79084889934473764927625577490723
c2: 44061537669541890460319774
c3: -87634034888970002123
c4: -7574786715264
c5: 265680
Y0: -106938861903569094031722097992052
Y1: 15868117662209966512381
type: gnfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
[/CODE]Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 11645
60M 12907
100M 12124
140M 11712[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] XY_C235_136_73 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 3022097742171909896469821607991129417603238081622029062120288869936000792725151646002626764713280852193715837371596515939390878411093102032135613053999973028679746988293776145557353892099428388515941705081615842217874519335637517986453
# 136^73+73^136, difficulty: 257.14, anorm: 1.70e+039, rnorm: 2.33e+048
# scaled difficulty: 258.66, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.040e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 9.266e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 9.4776
c6: 1
c0: 724744
Y1: -40037495277186834126340096
Y0: 7184983626352716099297100617536359330111417
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 10099
Q=80M 8126
Q=140M 7343
Q=200M 7032
Q=280M 6447
Q=350M 5964
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-330M with a target # relations = 460M

[b]QUEUED AS C184_217081_43[/b] C184 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 1085589812111008739513471765788330807246600767323440435635325647121217363097340479439784491975288398866216264523074805104224796979849112771398954361816724861627209864537161961533376873
# 217081^43-1, difficulty: 229
skew: 0.129
c6: 217081
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 22717089793138873048382730730176093961
m: 22717089793138873048382730730176093961
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 9374
50M 7234
80M 5782
110M 5657[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C236_124_109 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 42692111033823115459766748203733259348924224902015956938569802982186281991825898223034782992121476434087807361497656767448535982366330937669182196773220343670462112233307268018373533769591435301761360226976014133471013810010061701868283
# 124^109+109^124, difficulty: 256.17, anorm: 3.29e+032, rnorm: 6.18e+056
# scaled difficulty: 260.22, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 7.592e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.243e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 1.9491
c5: 31
c0: 872
Y1: -5678675835596644863789522563231282797570162688
Y0: 862308066040318102715050927390978531482726334172749
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 5K
[code]
Q=30M 4764
Q=80M 5111
Q=150M 4942
Q=250M 4409
Q=300M 4409
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-280M with the target # of relations = 240M. While the yield is not stellar on this 15e/31 job, it is almost constant and test sieving showed it to be 30% faster than the 15e/32 version (ignoring the unknown duplicate rate for each job). LA should be quicker for 15/31 vs 15/32 as well.




If the mod(s) feel a 15e/32 job is better suited here, the sieving range is 30M-260M with a target # relations = 460M. Yields with Q in blocks of 5K were as follows:
[code]
Q=30M 9782
Q=80M 10574
Q=150M 10986
Q=250M 11003
Q=300M 11572
[/code]

[QUOTE=swellman;480339]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-280M with the target # of relations = 240M. While the yield is not stellar on this 15e/31 job, it is almost constant and test sieving showed it to be 30% faster than the 15e/32 version (ignoring the unknown duplicate rate for each job). LA should be quicker for 15/31 vs 15/32 as well.
If the mod(s) feel a 15e/32 job is better suited here, the sieving range is 30M-260M with a target # relations = 460M. Yields with Q in blocks of 5K were as follows:
[/QUOTE]
There's no way 460M 32LP relations are required. I've never seen a job that would take more than 75% more relations when going up an LP; if 240M is the target for 31LP, 420M is plenty for 32. That's almost 10% less than your target, but if 32 tested as 30% slower, reducing target rels by 10% isn't going to change that 31LP is best here. You'd be ditching the slowest relations by running 30-240M, but that still leaves 32LP as 15% slower.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C233_124_115 is ready for SNFS on the 15e siever.
[code]
n: 18377655195296265187514761571226431762221313920211887545926034660830323464975143163781556056184421449098837246640661277858669383209221014596527902212636666790474240112008544063950116768020216878128686094308072856908542179984026582813
# 124^115+115^124, difficulty: 257.59, anorm: 2.14e+031, rnorm: 2.05e+057
# scaled difficulty: 261.92, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.031e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 4.793e-014, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 2.5831
c5: 1
c0: 115
Y1: -1408311607227967926219801595681358133797400346624
Y0: 3291895261978967626742664697673899829387664794921875
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 5K
[code]
Q=30M 5311
Q=80M 5662
Q=150M 5537
Q=250M 5017
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 30M-250M with a target # rels = 240M.

[b]QUEUED AS C200_213xx011_5[/b] C200 from the OPN t1200 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_11(Phi_3(Phi_2(Phi_3(Phi_41(5) . . . )
P55.21377_5M.C200
[CODE]n: 51462425163933049195540927871664633139385054052239468576952467132556136084194569987381708254985505040046060876657376041736618425937180274229273157048643748725812763493404462695806427411985146082798171
# 2137797970720029159470231899841604792137476543030139011^5-1, difficulty: 217.32, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 6.16328e+17, est. time: 293.49 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 2137797970720029159470231899841604792137476543030139011
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 10420
60M 11891
100M 12338
140M 11287[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED AS C185_226741_43[/b] C185 from the OPN t550 file.
[CODE]n: 24090474693914034925899676719295587069385678757497529226369165213997167076239026064754877931549239965261085943732440948252187253306399029226134096232578301046061798571563301386204071497
# 226741^43-1, difficulty: 230
skew: 0.128
c6: 226741
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 30811327043119753897005849665208006781
m: 30811327043119753897005849665208006781
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 14111
60M 10698
100M 9621
140M 8073[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C234_140_67 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 232920863837021840672929569146531670069743265338784006142402847547528474933987303843362045000650192019380510796424138672226385463839568142049590093579399214805883453172469542779490028523798147771463814457898322431865749479422612851479
# 140^67+67^140, difficulty: 257.80, anorm: 1.59e+039, rnorm: -1.33e+048
# scaled difficulty: 259.28, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.948e-013, alpha = 1.114, combined = 6.202e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 1.7824
c6: 140
c0: 4489
Y1: -999356547346805156075552524294177648535563
Y0: 404956516966400000000000
rlim: 134000000
alim: 220000000
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 5K
[code]
Q=20M 7206
Q=30M 7039
Q=80M 5255
Q=150M 4062
Q=250M 3361
Q=300M 3325
[/code]
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-290M with a target # reations = 240M.

15e Candidate
 

[b]QUEUED[/b] C264 from the Most Wanted file with an OPN weight of 70751 is ready for the 15e queue.
Tried 3LP on the -a side but the 15% increase in yield at the nearly 60% expense of sieving time was not worth it.
[CODE]n: 630320845887184416465848375790134282795128937971455359505417806993770090261709880797679011912736110018682240393286136137534162166436603115886661836353034265559917481111242545268731170205637390012048439030829891963131894599300269347604519754223927366642184863052051
# 5869^71-1, difficulty: 271.34, skewness: 4.25, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 4.06981e+19, est. time: 19380.05 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 4.247
c6: 1
c0: -5869
Y1: -1
Y0: 1670203210513245485275406552900537150911974961
m: 1670203210513245485275406552900537150911974961
type: snfs
rlim: 268000000
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 5288
60M 4976
100M 4970
150M 4305
200M 4363
250M 4032
300M 3931
350M 3835[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED[/b] C249_134_85 is ready for SNFS on 15e.
[code]
n: 343298038334621725041535006239467272110849299344434385672541607524204068786677894261274719230105124114165229190337039226491637498020045300758495138084244766537942512865580402507109474109288600086829711819494749962464848467385375937850037572860093941
# 134^85+85^134, difficulty: 260.67, anorm: 1.97e+039, rnorm: -3.90e+048
# scaled difficulty: 262.22, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 3.180e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 5.256e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 260
skew: 1.9437
c6: 134
c0: 7225
Y1: -2800376120856162211833149645328521728515625
Y0: 601820777068902739508172046336
rlim: 134000000
alim: 200000000
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 5K
[code]
Q=20M 6822
Q=80M 5235
Q=150M 4417
Q=250M 3805
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-265M with a target # relations = 235M.

[b]QUEUED AS C190_229xx861_5[/b] C190 from the OPN t1200 file for the 14e queue.
( a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_3(Phi_5(Phi_11(617341) . . . ) )
[CODE]n: 5384873169174688033484914627416258502782704006038543660161218857340297520352400003716518901625026146841528974192690243079422963158159059754414222277185764554172465817418680726205097549486861
# 6591064979223121842783091913720467836620027635880327917^5-1, difficulty: 219.28, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 7.24717e+17, est. time: 345.10 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6591064979223121842783091913720467836620027635880327917
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 92
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6[/CODE]
Trial sieving 5K blocks.
[CODE] Q Yield
20M 8626
60M 10026
100M 10651
150M 9345[/CODE]

[b]QUEUED AS C192_988xx249_11[/b] C192 from the OPN t550 file.
( a.k.a. Phi_11(Phi_7(70841)/7/29/6301)) )
[CODE]n: 736033411843927532874541011889721787974120141832859285750152847908319284958801778620596305667873143812335983666843864896845774596470682723801165663206018586501644778788886082838758317036468959
# 98811777493935291929249^11-1, difficulty: 229.95, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
# cost: 1.72818e+18, est. time: 822.94 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: -4
c2: -3
c1: 3
c0: 1
Y1: -98811777493935291929249
Y0: 9763767371510977081057776544178432316421704002
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 8653
60M 8635
100M 8099[/CODE]

Queued 226741^43-1 again with the right polynomial. Not quite sure how I screwed that up, thanks to RichD for pointing it out!

[b]QUEUED ON 14e; AWAITING YIELD ESTIMATE[/b] C166 from aliquot sequence 11040:i10075

[CODE]# norm 4.842117e-16 alpha -6.386566 e 6.660e-13 rroots 3
n: 2551866496142796205194568169329050899278937865114244895973054888348809197050044923560369430165888035215055871309580662671238395950373968027390712562466183225011292407
skew: 7780729.92
c0: 1052102815123603697416958023552029918720
c1: 783092726395247432218104971505272
c2: -15526014291945706673885210
c3: -87643615010505497547
c4: 513904181620
c5: 246480
Y0: -100696703391936382577037265134733
Y1: 48212383385190019
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
lss: 0
[/CODE]I'll run LA (hope it fits in 8Gb).

[b]QUEUED[/b] C237_136_71 is ready for SNFS on 14e.
[code]
n: 226867121961471320466554389043428488841117878347682003565090726384403590053944207998485912922645347099000660909341463247501704357813985698539206560904863990194583347776379037285991950927765364234327900806880512334411447597580389647030373
# 136^71+71^136, difficulty: 256.70, anorm: 1.66e+039, rnorm: 1.98e+048
# scaled difficulty: 258.22, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 4.777e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.065e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 256
skew: 3.6520
c6: 17
c0: 40328
Y1: -20018747638593417063170048
Y0: 3792643488006829893221399440992214604544311
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 8836
Q=80M 6765
Q=150M 6342
Q=250M 5296
Q=350M 5146
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-390M with a target # relations = 450M.

[b]QUEUED[/b] C237_131_86 is ready for SNFS on 14e.

[code]
n: 194155222910734476310770655821239661329156825847036276818686599217585615678615557316526674268882929752874664978900596196076651301154601467840474515424017536585106602187698630077911956486065629873010301322274499608385334736088001455609647
# 131^86+86^131, difficulty: 255.35, anorm: 2.43e+039, rnorm: 1.11e+048
# scaled difficulty: 256.80, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 5.499e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 7.856e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 255
skew: 10.6702
c6: 1
c0: 1475846
Y1: -438326915318176225182722457721
Y0: 3622145797004077275761664476965378610692096
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 9054
Q=80M 6930
Q=150M 6319
Q=250M 5415
Q=350M 5141
[/code]
suggesting a sieving range for Q of 20M-400M with a target # relations = 460M