10+ table

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Andi_HB

juno1369 have mailed that he wants to work further with this Number.
I have only a Core2 Laptop which can be used for the sieving - and till now its working with Vista Home 32bit Version. If i wants to finish the sieving it will take till the end of the Year - so i decidet to unreserve this Number.
I have used this Polynomial:

n:  15764689982344536517771021186273406748173928006967550504357382938426798303527007683249463226418352501943599358801522375151414371266800385235667781728011088393709
skew: 10887480.70
Y0: -13968842428054971532371343005271
Y1: 406095970085689673
c0: 6396747705471302698957036275292308554400
c1: 238115329123966363474521251154152
c2: -1278255642788702958890606164
c3: 40617525259704032030
c4: 12074212525095
c5: 29640
rlim: 60000000 
alim: 26000000 
lpbr: 30 
lpba: 30 
mfbr: 60 
mfba: 60 
rlambda: 2.65 
alambda: 2.65

Sieving from 25M-33M on both sides with siever15e is done.

Okey-doke. My offer of assistance still stands.

Paul

[Andi47]

Originally Posted by Raman

The algebraic side over here is more unbalanced, so that don't you rather want to use much higher algebraic factor base limits than the rational ones? Or that I am missing out something?

I, for one, would better use off with a gnfs-lasieve4I14e siever for a GNFS 161.
26 million seems to be very low for a number of this size, I would use a bound as high as 75 to 80 million.

I partly agree:

26M for the algebraic factor base limit is indeed too low. But hence we use lpbr/a of 2^26-1 (67,108,863) *) for a c171, I think 75M-80M would be a bit high for a c161. I guess 50M-60M should be OK.

Anyway I don't appreciate re-sieving for q=26M-33M as this would not bring much more relations. (and for q-ranges below 26M the fb size limit is automatically lowered anyway.)

The 14e siever might be faster than 15e for a c161 - test sieving (run a subrange of a size of 2000) is encouraged.

*) 70M or 80M might be a bit faster than 2^26-1, but - hence the sievers are designed to allocate memory in bit levels - 2^26-1 is more memory efficient and thus also suitable for PCs which smaller RAM.

[10metreh]

alim must be below the q value when sieving on the a side, so was the 26M alim just there to lower it temporarily, or was it going to be the parameter for the whole job?

[Andi47]

Originally Posted by 10metreh

alim must be below the q value when sieving on the a side, so was the 26M alim just there to lower it temporarily, or was it going to be the parameter for the whole job?

I guess it might be the second: With "newer" versions of GGNFS it is not necessary to specify alim below the start of the sieving range in the poly file - the siever will lower alim automatically to a proper value (=<start of the q range>-1).

[frmky]

10,272+ is done by SNFS.

prp98 factor: 32834183607181658456698862190332942753904274373750127864196636481293558631166688587638325415670849
prp114 factor: 627810998673389218825263319860513240289438361646700648804034810302457438784160932972184864281054744807682885907521

[frmky]

And NFS@Home has finished 10,384+.

prp81 factor: 142018149548859447798990430842371897431582393270575475042667940048026473157944321
prp131 factor: 38425031666569023499290434804662265509189764624919574336880482034091688791929134441331363930601958862159411412508866084507001318401

[frmky]

And 10,387+ is now complete.

prp80 factor: 35037423610997086622096063353212253926195272207441939622830330161546317292588303
prp143 factor: 38889628638569601104885745910305810521309841050950415367273378889527486268283796029292760115427939721808793488543910010656122551369920766848757

[warut]

Just saw C161 of 10^286+1 available again.

[Batalov]

Yeah, that's unfortunate...

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Yeah, that's unfortunate...

Totally predictable.

I would do it, but my resources are tied up with 2,2166L.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Totally predictable.

I would do it, but my resources are tied up with 2,2166L.

Bruce has grabbed it. Excellent!