View Single Post
Old 2020-06-29, 21:40   #8
patrickkonsor
 
Oct 2008

2×5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsquared View Post
Have you done similar crossover studies? I'd be interested in the parameters data you gathered for RSA 100, 110, 120, etc, as well, if you still have that available. Public data for TLP QS parameters, as far as I know, consists of this thread, Paul's paper, and a few threads of mine.
In my experiments 2LP is clearly faster for RSA-100 and RSA-110. I've done a lot of experiments with RSA-120 and 3LP has always seemed faster, but I'm going to run some more tests to see if I can get 2LP to be competitive. Beyond 120 digits I'm confident that 3LP is faster.

Here are the parameters I've used with the fastest factorizations of each size, but they're not necessarily optimal:

RSA-100
FB Size: 100K
Sieve Size: 2MB
Large Primes: 2
Large Prime Bound: 200x
Sieve Cutoff 1: 104 bits
Sieve Cutoff 2: 59 bits

RSA-110
FB Size: 200K
Sieve Size: 4MB
Large Primes: 2
Large Prime Bound: 400x
Sieve Cutoff 1: 94 bits
Sieve Cutoff 2: 79 bits

RSA-120
FB Size: 245K
Sieve Size: 6MB
Large Primes: 3
Large Prime Bound: 100x
Sieve Cutoff 1: 116 bits
Sieve Cutoff 2: 75 bits

RSA-130
FB Size: 550K
Sieve Size: 20MB
Large Primes: 3
Large Prime Bound: 100x
Sieve Cutoff 1: 130 bits
Sieve Cutoff 2: 79 bits

RSA-140
FB Size: 1.3M
Sieve Size: 20MB
Large Primes: 3
Large Prime Bound: 99x
Sieve Cutoff 1: 146 bits
Sieve Cutoff 2: 81 bits
patrickkonsor is offline   Reply With Quote