C190_149_91 survived 18000 curves @B1=110M with no factors found. Releasing number.

Throwing 20000@1e8 at C177_148_94

I'll take C188_140_113 up to t55. Thanks.

Added C188_149_78 to the table.

[QUOTE=fivemack;411577]Throwing 20000@1e8 at C177_148_94[/QUOTE][QUOTE=swellman;411636]I'll take C188_140_113 up to t55. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Marked them as done, right?

[QUOTE=XYYXF;413860]Added C188_149_78 to the table.
[/quote]

Thanks. I've identified 14 other likely GNFS candidates. I'll post them another day.

[quote]
Marked them as done, right?[/QUOTE]

No, still running ECM on C188_140_113. t55 strains my resources (and truth be told, my patience at times) but it is cranking away.

Anyway, there's still work to do at 260M before sieving, so there's no much confusion in the "done" mark. Take it this way: the distribution of the t55 task is done :-)

Hope a factor will fall out soon.

Supplemental list of GNFS candidates
 

Based on comments made by [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=407837&postcount=151"]fivemack[/URL] and others, I have identified the following possible additional GNFS candidates using test sieving:


C173_145_56
C173_139_59
C174_136_69
C174_136_75
C175_128_97
C177_132_91*
C178_133_71
C178_131_81*
C179_136_87
C181_147_62
C181_133_103
C181_130_109
C183_144_73
C184_135_106
C188_149_78 (t55 done)

*Difference between GNFS and SNFS sieving times is marginal. Needs more detailed GNFS test sieving.


Since I don't have a GPU rig, the estimated GNFS sieving times were based on extrapolation of previous work, i.e. sieving time doubling every 5 digits in length. However the estimates for GNFS for most of these ended up being 1/5-1/2 of the time for SNFS (with the two noted exceptions).

I could not find any other likely GNFS candidates. A graph of some SNFS ETAs is attached. Very noisy indeed.

C173_145_56 still needs t50.

[QUOTE=XYYXF;414111]C173_145_56 still needs t50.[/QUOTE]

No, I reported running it to t50 [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=394244&postcount=105"]here[/URL].

Of course all but one need t55 or more!

Oops, my fault. Thanks for pointing out :-)

I've done 64 Xeon core-days of polynomial selection on C185_142_141; just doing the post-processing to find the one that sieves best.