[QUOTE=Tyler Busby;626140]Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I saw this thread pop up on the new posts and figured I'd ask here, is there a current record of ECM done for various Cunningham numbers? Or a general rules for what can realistically be expected to have been performed?[/QUOTE]

There is no official record, but a general rule of thumb is that everything in the [URL="https://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/cun/pmain22.txt"]main Cunningham tables[/URL] (bases 2-12, upper limits depending on base but generally ~400 digits) has had at least t60. Many have had substantially more. This applies to lots of the base 3-12 numbers in that OEIS list.

Kurt Beschorner's page has some [URL="https://www.kurtbeschorner.de/ecm-efforts.htm"]data[/URL] on ECM efforts for base 10 though it looks to be incomplete.

[QUOTE=swellman;624197]2,2206L is currently sieving, personally I’m hoping for it to be factored by mid March but it’s not a race.[/QUOTE]
And it is. It involved solving a >152M matrix on eight A100's in about 70 hours. Everything went surprisingly smoothly.

[PASTEBIN]TBp0NEBE[/PASTEBIN]

2,1108+ sieving is almost done, less than a week?! Still have Wu's for a few days.

2,1108+ is done. The 159M matrix took a little under 78 hours on eight A100's.

[PASTEBIN]tTSNJQWA[/PASTEBIN]

Fantastic Greg and NFS@Home pace is great too.

FWIW, Yoyo is still working through the Gang of 31. Only 20 numbers left to process.

I now estimate completion by Yoyo in September 2024 (worst case).

Despite its title this thread seems to be used for general comments about Cunningham number status, and I will make one in reply to the last.

Is it intended that the 'Gang of 31' be the next numbers processed on the big siever, and no others? It seems this would not be possible at current memory limitations; I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now. Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s. There are plenty of other Cunninghams remaining to SNFS 335 or GNFS 220, including all but one of the non-base-2 numbers of Wagstaff's Most/More Wanted lists.

This is to be taken only as an opinion, and I won't venture to suggest any specific numbers as I'm sure I'm sure all possible candidates are known to those that would make a decision on it.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;628870] I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now. Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you think the limit has been reached, and I think your view on M1277 is in the minority- you have an amazing capacity to assume that whatever you think is what everyone else thinks, and it's often quite misguided.

Besides, if your first quoted statement is true, then M1277 is way way out of reach by Greg and is thus wholly irrelevant; in fact, the limits can be a bit higher than the jobs in progress *and* M1277 still be well beyond those limits.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;628870]Despite its title this thread seems to be used for general comments about Cunningham number status, and I will make one in reply to the last.

Is it intended that the 'Gang of 31' be the next numbers processed on the big siever, and no others?
[/QUOTE]

It will shortly become the 'gang of 24'. And I think it is obvious that the answer to your question is NO.
I am guessing that Greg will select numbers from other bases when the current two are done.

[QUOTE]
It seems this would not be possible at current memory limitations; I think the limit has practically been reached with the two base-2 numbers in progress now.
[/QUOTE]

Ask Greg. He is the expert. You have insufficient knowledge and experience to make such an assessment.

[QUOTE]
Further, the 31 combined would likely take more effort than M1277 would
[/QUOTE]

Adding roughly 7 digits doubles the run time at this level. M1277 is 27 digits more than W1187 --> 4 doubings,
thus 16 times harder. There will only be 24 numbers to do, many of which are smaller. W1123 and W1124 and
2,2246M will take less than 2% of the effort as M1277. It seems that these 24 would be easier in the aggregate,
[b]especially[/b] if one uses a factory approach.

[QUOTE]
, and based on the perennial interest I'm guessing that most people with any opinion on the matter would rather see it tackled first rather than a list set by an arbitrary limit from the 1980s.
[/QUOTE]

More ignorance. Not the 1980's. The early 1960's. This limit that [i]you[/i] call "arbitrary"
[you can't stop from making judgments based on your limited experience, can you?]
was established by Dick Lehmer and John Selfridge. I will leave it to others to decide whether their choices or yours command more respect.

And you fail to say what is so <expletive deleted> important about M1277. Is it simply because it has no known
factors?? I can name a number of other candidates with no known factors that would be easier.

Also, please specify who you think are these "most people with any opinion on the matter". The ones
whose opinions matter are the ones providing the resources to do the work. Everyone else is just
a bystander.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;628916]It will shortly become the 'gang of 24'. And I think it is obvious that the answer to your question is NO.
I am guessing that Greg will select numbers from other bases when the current two are done.

<snip>
Ask Greg. He is the expert. You have insufficient knowledge and experience to make such an assessment.

<snip>

More ignorance. Not the 1980's. The early 1960's. This limit that [i]you[/i] call "arbitrary"
[you can't stop from making judgments based on your limited experience, can you?]
was established by Dick Lehmer and John Selfridge. I will leave it to others to decide whether their choices or yours command more respect.

<snip>

And you fail to say what is so <expletive deleted> important about M1277. Is it simply because it has no known
factors?? I can name a number of other candidates with no known factors that would be easier.

Also, please specify who you think are these "most people with any opinion on the matter". The ones
whose opinions matter are the ones providing the resources to do the work. Everyone else is just
a bystander.[/QUOTE]

Are you going to answer the questions? No pithy comebacks?

Just to share with you all Yoyo ecm subproject has been chosen as one of the disciplines for the boinc penthalon. We shall see some nice boost for 14 days.