[QUOTE=VBCurtis;513798]Fixed! I simply commented out the N value, as CADO itself does for the c90 default file.
Also, the line to add to a work file to *not* use /tmp for all work is tasks.workdir = ./{jobfoldername}
If you don't use work files, you can pass any param flag to CADO on the command line by prepending with double-dash: ./cado-nfs.py {input number} --tasks.workdir=./{jobfoldername}
Default CADO behavior is to use /tmp directories for all job data; a power loss during a job eradicates all progress. The downside to using your own directories within /cado-nfs is that you must remember to delete the data after jobs finish, else you'll run out of disk space.[/QUOTE]
I had to comment out the value for a C90 run. That's how I discovered it. CADO-NFS told me of the conflict. I have a fixed job directory in my scripts so I can find the log file for the factors. I also concatenate the log into a compiled file for data retrieval and reuse the fixed job directory.

Some Timing Comparisons
 

I've attached a file of comparisons based on composite sizes. Here's a sample:
[code]
Unmodified Modified

Digits CPU (s) WCT (s) Digits CPU (s) WCT (s)
...
128 283924 10981 128 188998 4265
128 301283 11037
129 304850 10683
129 307423 10926
130 374315 9931 130 294086 7241
130 317382 6831
131 418847 14040 131 312883 7090
131 354817 8030
...

[/code]

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;513162]Attached are my best effort at parameters for C90, C95, and C100. These files all use Gimarel's excellent development with tight lambda settings near 1.80 combined with loose large-prime bounds and very low Q values.
Timing data: For C90, I ran single-threaded. The stock CADO git-install from Feb '19 took 2236 seconds, while my params took 941 seconds.
For C95 on 6 threads of an otherwise busy 6-core i7-haswell, CADO-default takes 1008 seconds while this params file takes 625 seconds.
For C100 on 6 threads, CADO-default takes 1904 seconds while this params file takes 1288 seconds. Poly-select time should probably be reduced a bit on this file, as I just noticed poly select takes 10% of sieving time.
Running multi-threaded, I believe the YAFU-CADO crossover is somewhere near 90 digits! Please run your own tests and report back here.
Edit 15 Apr: C90 file fixed to comment out the input value N. The c90 file is the one that CADO chose to explain all the parameters, so they included a sample N; I do the same.[/QUOTE]

Just curious what version of yafu was used in this comparison, and how it was run (always nfs, or siqs for the c90 and c95 and nfs elsewhere, or factor, or something else)?

[QUOTE=bsquared;514726]Just curious what version of yafu was used in this comparison, and how it was run (always nfs, or siqs for the c90 and c95 and nfs elsewhere, or factor, or something else)?[/QUOTE]

Yafu 1.34 linux-64, running siqs for both c90 and c95 as I don't have GGNFS on that machine.

That is ok, yafu siqs vs nfs crossover is somewhere over 100 digits on most of the machines i played with (like 101-106 digits).

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;514753]Yafu 1.34 linux-64, running siqs for both c90 and c95 as I don't have GGNFS on that machine.[/QUOTE]

Ok, thanks.

I tried out the various versions on a new skylake X processor; looks like AVX-512 helps to the tune of about 25%. This instruction set will someday be more commonplace.

[CODE]
4 threads, (Xeon 5122 Gold)
c90 = 308204495124600567361475233684732529849778775819664070284023650219790546206058182493911073
sse41 207
avx2 197
avx512 167

4 threads, (Xeon 5122 Gold)
c95 = 38105527381517286355640997328621412161117687510374225914020362885840036150320501125450844393617
sse41 748
avx2 721
avx512 608

[/CODE]

I'll try to get CADO configured on a virtualbox to compare. Excited to test out all your improvements to the parameters!

Hey Curtis,

Have you ever gotten anywhere with modified params for c125 and c135? I'm compiling lots of these ranges with default params, but none with modified

Ed

I have files that are decent, but not yet fast enough to match the trend set by the smaller files. I'll email the drafts to you soon (I'm in finals at work, might be a day or two).

RichD and I have close-to-trend c140 and c145 files, hopefully posted in the next couple weeks. Our first c150 job was *below* trend! We're running a couple more to see if it was a fluke, but c150 might get posted before the smaller ones.

My hobby time the past month has been spent on the 2330L factorization setup in the cunningham forum. If you haven't had a peek, we're using CADO to run a c207!

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;518919]I have files that are decent, but not yet fast enough to match the trend set by the smaller files. I'll email the drafts to you soon (I'm in finals at work, might be a day or two).

RichD and I have close-to-trend c140 and c145 files, hopefully posted in the next couple weeks. Our first c150 job was *below* trend! We're running a couple more to see if it was a fluke, but c150 might get posted before the smaller ones.

My hobby time the past month has been spent on the 2330L factorization setup in the cunningham forum. If you haven't had a peek, we're using CADO to run a c207![/QUOTE]
Thanks Curtis,

I looked a little at 2330L in the beginning and have noticed your activity for the thread, but haven't delved into the finer details. Not ready to commit to a long term project ATM. All my current stuff is day-to-day only. The machines have their nights off.

Ed

It took much more than a couple of weeks, but C140 params have finally been added to post #4. This file is about 25% faster than CADO default.

I hope to have c125 and c135 up in October, while RichD continues to help me work on c145 and c150.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;526290]It took much more than a couple of weeks, but C140 params have finally been added to post #4. This file is about 25% faster than CADO default.

I hope to have c125 and c135 up in October, while RichD continues to help me work on c145 and c150.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, Curtis. If I run composites >142, would the new c140 be better with those than the default files?