View Single Post
2012-02-07, 12:28   #27
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted

"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jrk My results differ from yours. Here are the timings from the trial I did: Code: total yield: 1475, q=7001003 (0.06635 sec/rel) total yield: 1448, q=9001001 (0.06850 sec/rel) total yield: 1431, q=11001007 (0.07258 sec/rel) total yield: 1949, q=13001029 (0.06811 sec/rel) total yield: 1498, q=15001001 (0.07250 sec/rel) total yield: 1253, q=17001007 (0.07443 sec/rel) total yield: 1148, q=19001011 (0.07987 sec/rel) total yield: 1490, q=21001021 (0.08335 sec/rel) total yield: 1281, q=23001007 (0.07738 sec/rel) total yield: 1617, q=25001029 (0.08253 sec/rel) total yield: 987, q=27001003 (0.08689 sec/rel) That's not quite as drastic a change over the range as the 0.12 to 0.2 you reported. This was done on a C2D@3.4GHz using the 64bit Linux gnfs-lasieve4I14e.
Thanks for the info. I must have been reading that 0.2 number from a worker that had to share part of a core.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jrk Re: the efficiency of sieving smaller Q... You must also consider that you will encounter a greater rate of duplication overall when you start sieving at smaller Q, and this will reduce the speed gain. I can provide real data to show this, but you can test it for yourself with the data you have now.
Ah, that's what I was forgetting! Thanks again.