![]() |
|
|
#12 | |
|
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
22·5·72·11 Posts |
Quote:
Paul |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Feb 2004
4028 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Mar 2004
Belgium
34916 Posts |
Hi!
Does anybody know into which numbers this composite (and other ones) splits? Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Account Deleted
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA
426710 Posts |
Quote:
http://factorization.ath.cx/ Here's its entry on this number: http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?query=M859 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Jun 2008
1108 Posts |
I ran into the badsched bug...
Note the drop in yield for 67.5M to 68M: Code:
A00670a: total yield: 72908, q=67050043 (0.70423 sec/rel) A00670b: total yield: 74765, q=67100009 (0.62354 sec/rel) A00671a: total yield: 72979, q=67150001 (0.62131 sec/rel) A00671b: total yield: 74502, q=67200011 (0.71199 sec/rel) A00672a: total yield: 76703, q=67250021 (0.62796 sec/rel) A00672b: total yield: 75435, q=67300027 (0.70644 sec/rel) A00673a: total yield: 76052, q=67350029 (0.62942 sec/rel) A00673b: total yield: 76986, q=67400009 (0.71050 sec/rel) A00674a: total yield: 76340, q=67450013 (0.62818 sec/rel) A00674b: total yield: 76363, q=67500007 (0.70336 sec/rel) A00675a: total yield: 71028, q=67550009 (0.62990 sec/rel) A00675b: total yield: 72257, q=67600003 (0.71044 sec/rel) A00676a: total yield: 2086, q=67650043 (5.48700 sec/rel) A00676b: total yield: 0, q=67700011 (inf sec/rel) A00677a: total yield: 14293, q=67750021 (1.23527 sec/rel) A00677b: total yield: 12991, q=67800001 (1.24436 sec/rel) A00678a: total yield: 35928, q=67850011 (0.77824 sec/rel) A00678b: total yield: 36948, q=67900003 (0.75815 sec/rel) A00679a: total yield: 62312, q=67950013 (0.63421 sec/rel) A00679b: total yield: 60444, q=68000003 (0.63617 sec/rel) Total time estimation: 10.3M sec. This is from summing completion times of dualcore jobs. Actual time should therefore be doubled, I guess. Even better: subtract a few percent, because when one core finishes its 50K range, it remains idle until the other core finishes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
3·2,141 Posts |
I've been a bit slow at keeping this updated; had quite a full weekend.
We're two-thirds of the way through the sieving; can I inspire people to a swift race to the finish-line and beyond? |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
22×3×293 Posts |
I'll take 48M-54M both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Jun 2003
24410 Posts |
I've got 2 machines free and I can contribute to the sieving for a couple of weeks. Can someone provide the command that needs to be ran to sieve this number? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
351610 Posts |
Assuming you have the ggnfs binaries (if not, you can get them from here), create a poly file, say 2-859.poly and copy the [code] stuff from the first post into it. reserve a range (2 cpus for 2 weeks could probably do 1M both sides; 91M is open ...). then get into a command prompt (windows or linux shell) and type:
Code:
gnfs-lasieve4I15e -r 2-859.poly -f 91000000 -c 1000000 -o 91M-92M-rat.dat -c controls how many special-q to do. If you need to shut down your PC, I believe the new binaries have a resume option, else, there are other ways to determine manually where it left off. Is that enough to get you started? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Jun 2003
F416 Posts |
Thanks bsquared! Thats perfect. I'll take 91M - 92M a+r.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
22·3·293 Posts |
Taking 96M-100M.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NFS sieving? | Dubslow | Factoring | 8 | 2012-09-28 06:47 |
| Line sieving vs. lattice sieving | JHansen | NFSNET Discussion | 9 | 2010-06-09 19:25 |
| 10^420 + 1 sieving | juno1369 | Factoring | 20 | 2010-04-28 01:11 |
| Sieving | OmbooHankvald | Prime Sierpinski Project | 4 | 2005-06-30 07:51 |
| Sieving | robert44444uk | Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 | 8 | 2005-04-02 22:30 |