[QUOTE=VBCurtis;513613]The current git release for CADO has a note in the params.c120 file that says they've verified experimentally that matrix density 100 is optimal at that size. I haven't tested it yet, but my files use densities of 135-155; if 100 proves faster, I'll be updating all of the files.

CADO originally used 170 for all sizes; I thought I was already using a pretty low density...[/QUOTE]I saw your files still have a densty between 135-155 and current git CADO has 100. So from your tests your density setting was still faster?

No, I just haven't updated the files in quite a few months. I continue to track my job timing data in a spreadsheet, and "one of these days" I'll post a new series of params files that is marginally faster than the ones currently public- something on the order of 5% improved for most sizes.

Now that you've reminded me, I may get C100-C130 up shortly, as I've quit developing those. I'm working on C135-155 now.

So the current public params are faster than your custom 2019 ones?

Huh? By "public" I mean "available on this thread". So, your question seems to compare the same two things. The CADO package's params files aren't very good- the ones posted in this thread are 15-30% faster across the board. You're welcome to test that claim yourself- run the same number with stock CADO, and with one of my files.

Ok, sorry, I thought by public you meant the ones bundled with CADO.


Good to know, I'll use the files you posted.

I have a comparison for CADO supplied vs. VBCurtis' in my blog area, if you're interested in how my "farm" did with comparisons.

I posted C125 and C135 files to the top-of-thread posts. I'll wait to update C120/130/140 until I compare to my old files- I changed hardware around the time Charybdis started suggesting ideas for params, so I don't have good A/B comparison timing.

C145-150-155 currently in testing. The drafts are attached as a .zip; they should be faster than stock CADO, but I believe I'll find more speed so I'll hold off on posting to the top of the thread.

Thanks to bur for nudging me to get my work posted.

Any chance a C165 file will be available shortly?

Sure, I can post a draft. There hasn't been a ton of testing at that size, but Charybdis did a few jobs. I'll track down the data this weekend and get one posted to this thread.

Thanks, I want to factor 10*102!+1 for [URL]http://oeis.org/A095194[/URL].


Judging from the factorization times so far it should take about 2 weeks, so it's certainly worth the wait.

I've posted a draft c165 file in the thread for 165-170 digit work:
[url]https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=25535[/url]

It should be decent, as it is based on the c170 file that has had a few jobs run; the main difference for c165 is to use I = 14.