View Single Post
Old 2020-05-13, 14:58   #4
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×133 Posts
Default

I would say that both observations are correct- lims are too big, and 3LP may not be suitable. It's also likely that I=14 is better than A=28; it may be that these even A-values are only faster in unusual cases (say, a low-yielding poly that would normally be a size to use I=14).

That said, 20% slower for 1 digit larger isn't a huge miss; clearly not faster, but not slower-enough to rule out 3LP as still possibly a good idea. The larger-than-your-c167 matrix tells us you didn't oversieve, and we know 3LP matrices turn out bigger.

If we go 2LP on both sides, I suggest also using lambda0 & lambda1 of 1.85 or so to reduce the number of relations needed.

So, possible changes:
I=14
lim's of, say, 50M and 70M
2LP

My notes include a C167 sent to nfs@home 14e queue, in which I used lim's of 67M on both sides. ggnfs likes power-of-2 lim's, but that indicates 50/70 are more likely correct than 80/110.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote