[QUOTE=jyb;526548]Yes, I have seen these. I'm the one who has fed these numbers to Yoyo. They're doing numbers in that order because that's the order in which I gave it to them.

<snip>
No quintics are in range.

[/QUOTE]

??? C230's ???

11+9_242 165.3 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve

11+7_242 192.6 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve

11+5_242 211.3 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve

[QUOTE]
Okay, then would you care to find polynomials for them? They're all GNFS jobs.[/QUOTE]

I have never implemented a poly search algorithm. My company does not allow
downloading outside code without some MAJOR paperwork. I have to write
a request including a business justification. My section leader, then department head,
then IT all need to approve it, etc. etc. It would be hard to give a valid business
reason. I am retiring at the end of October.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]What happened to: e.g.

11-7_245 167.0 204.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11-8_245 171.0 204.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
5-2_365 201.1 204.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
9-5_535M 181.8 204.2 Unreserved: click here to reserve
9-5_535L 182.4 204.2 Unreserved: click here to reserve
12+5_705M 194.2 204.3 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]

They all have an SNFS difficulty less than 205. You can argue about whether 205 is the best lower limit, but that's the one I've chosen for quartics.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]
10+3_260 149.2 208.0 Unreserved: click here to reserve
10+9_265 159.0 212.0 Unreserved: click here to reserve
8-7_295 159.5 213.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
8+7_295 162.2 213.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
5-2_385 143.9 215.3 Unreserved: click here to reserve
3-2_565 144.5 215.7 Unreserved: click here to reserve

11+6_260 159.3 216.6 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11+4_260 161.3 216.6 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]
All of these are already in the list I posted above.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]
12+11_245 151.1 211.5 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]
This one can be a sextic with difficulty 226.6 => too easy

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]
8+5_305 141.3 220.4 Unreserved: click here to reserve
8+7_305 148.6 220.4 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]
These are too easy by GNFS.



[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]
8-3_305 160.8 220.4 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]
Already listed above, for GNFS.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526556]
11+5_265 192.9 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11-7_265 195.1 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11+7_265 197.8 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11-9_265 206.7 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11+8_265 207.3 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
11-5_265 216.4 220.8 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]
220.8 > 220. Again, the limit may be somewhat arbitrary, but it's the one I chose.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526557]Note that some of them are also "in range" GNFS. I think that are also some
"in range" GNFS that might have been skipped, e.g.

9+7_266 153.3 217.6 Unreserved: click here to reserve

This (and several others) might be a little bit easier with SNFS, but the difference is small. Are we skipping these?[/QUOTE]

This is a SNFS-217.6 sextic. That's below the limit. So yes, we're skipping these, if by "these" you mean numbers which are outside the limits I described.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526558]??? C230's ???

11+9_242 165.3 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve

11+7_242 192.6 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve

11+5_242 211.3 229.1 Unreserved: click here to reserve
[/QUOTE]

229.1 < 230.

FWIW, I plan on working the list [url=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~twomack/homcun.pl?sortby=gnfs&show=all]here[/url], focusing on all GNFS < 150 and SNFS < 200. I hope others will join me in the effort.

I figure if I don’t have hardware to shift boulders, at least I can shovel some gravel.

[QUOTE=swellman;526570]FWIW, I plan on working the list [url=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~twomack/homcun.pl?sortby=gnfs&show=all]here[/url], focusing on all GNFS < 150 and SNFS < 200. I hope others will join me in the effort.

I figure if I don’t have hardware to shift boulders, at least I can shovel some gravel.[/QUOTE]

As soon as I finish my current ECM efforts (another month) I will shift to running
SNFS.

Based on what I can do with the resources that I have I must conclude that there
is still quite a gap between what an individual can do with NFS and the smallest
of numbers being done by NFS@Home.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526573]As soon as I finish my current ECM efforts (another month) I will shift to running
SNFS.

Based on what I can do with the resources that I have I must conclude that there
is still quite a gap between what an individual can do with NFS and the smallest
of numbers being done by NFS@Home.[/QUOTE]

It depends what you mean by an individual. I have had 128 Xeon threads in my shed (down to 32 now, the power supplies keep exploding), which was enough to do GNFS-202 in six months. I appreciate that £2000 on hardware plus £1000/yr on electricity is quite a large expenditure by an individual.

[QUOTE=fivemack;526575]It depends what you mean by an individual. I have had 128 Xeon threads in my shed (down to 32 now, the power supplies keep exploding), which was enough to do GNFS-202 in six months. I appreciate that £2000 on hardware plus £1000/yr on electricity is quite a large expenditure by an individual.[/QUOTE]My resources top out at (approximately) SNFS-260 and GNFS-180, depending on how patient I am. I am currently running GCW 11,244- by SNFS. It has a particularly nasty polynomial. Only one machine is sieving right now but another couple joined in for a couple of weeks.

How does that compare with "an individual" resource?

(Just checked in: the cado-nfserver crashed six days ago and I hadn't noticed because that system is in La Palma and I don't often ssh in from here. Now restarted. ETA appears to be May 2020 but that is undoubtedly wrong. Cado-nfs is always optimistic but, OTOH, only the one machine is sieving and the ETA will advance markedly if more clients are fired up.)

[QUOTE=swellman;526570]FWIW, I plan on working the list [URL="http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~twomack/homcun.pl?sortby=gnfs&show=all"]here[/URL], focusing on all GNFS < 150 and SNFS < 200. I hope others will join me in the effort.

I figure if I don’t have hardware to shift boulders, at least I can shovel some gravel.[/QUOTE]


Feed them to 14e and I will do the post-processing.

[QUOTE=fivemack;526575]It depends what you mean by an individual. I have had 128 Xeon threads in my shed (down to 32 now, the power supplies keep exploding), which was enough to do GNFS-202 in six months. I appreciate that £2000 on hardware plus £1000/yr on electricity is quite a large expenditure by an individual.[/QUOTE]

Where does one get 128 cores for just £2000? !!! I have priced dual mobo Xeon
based PC's and they cost a lot more than £2000. And they only had 48 cores
(plus hyperthreading). [24 cores per Xeon].

Of course to keep the cores busy one would need >=2G/core of DRAM.

I am running on a single i7 with 6 cores (plus hyperthreading). Of course, the h/w
is 6 years old.

Currently when I run NFS it runs a separate process on each core. [The code was
written when multi-core CPU's were not yet available]. When I rewrite my siever
I plan to do a pthread implementation so the threads share a lot of common data
and thus cut down on memory requirements.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;526585]Where does one get 128 cores for just £2000? !!! I have priced dual mobo Xeon
based PC's and they cost a lot more than £2000. And they only had 48 cores
(plus hyperthreading). [24 cores per Xeon].

Of course to keep the cores busy one would need >=2G/core of DRAM.

I am running on a single i7 with 6 cores (plus hyperthreading). Of course, the h/w
is 6 years old.

Currently when I run NFS it runs a separate process on each core. [The code was
written when multi-core CPU's were not yet available]. When I rewrite my siever
I plan to do a pthread implementation so the threads share a lot of common data
and thus cut down on memory requirements.[/QUOTE]


From [url]https://www.bargainhardware.co.uk/[/url]