mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Msieve

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-09-23, 14:51   #144
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3,541 Posts
Default

Did you compile this using MSVC or use one of Jeff Gilchrist's precompiled windows binaries? If yes, there's a bug in the linear algebra that Brian Gladman fixed a few days ago, and as a stopgap you can use the v1.47 windows binary from the sourceforge page (which doesn't have the bug because it's compiled with gcc).
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-06, 05:19   #145
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

46628 Posts
Default c145: 86 cpu-hours of -np and not any poly found

I am currently GNFSing a c145 (a cofactor of the latest iteration of aliquot sequence 10212) and now I am ~86 cpu-hours (i7 @ 2.8 GHz) into poly search using Msieve 1.46 (CPU-version): So far I have not found any polynomial.

the screen output looks like this:

Code:
random seeds: 36047390 94219475
factoring 3732013142391051119910921824210118145697203242752440325707923031128358903935348233134692108821450288
107857802781290883472699630382457381898449683 (145 digits)
searching for 15-digit factors
commencing number field sieve (145-digit input)
commencing number field sieve polynomial selection
time limit set to 97.75 hours
searching leading coefficients from 1 to 564255
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 60-600 64433833 83763983 83763984 108893179 lattice 8388832
p 64433833 83763983 83763984 108893179 lattice 8388832
batch 5000 78318761
batch 2042 83763991
p 49564486 64433832 108893183 141561139 lattice 4963806
batch 5000 64180301
batch 80 64433857
p 38126527 49564485 141561141 184029484 lattice 2937163
batch 3638 49564499
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 660-1200 71074014 92396218 92396219 120115084 lattice 10944462
p 71074014 92396218 92396219 120115084 lattice 10944462
batch 5000 84281851
batch 3189 92396303
p 54672318 71074013 120115088 156149613 lattice 6476013
batch 5000 68482951
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 1260-1800 74609853 96992808 96992809 126090651 lattice 13014213
p 74609853 96992808 96992809 126090651 lattice 13014213
batch 5000 88614661
batch 3102 96992813
p 57392194 74609852 126090653 163917849 lattice 7700718
batch 5000 72343651
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 1860-2400 77077762 100201090 100201091 130261418 lattice 14772180
p 77077762 100201090 100201091 130261418 lattice 14772180
batch 5000 90092381
batch 3996 100201403
p 59290586 77077761 130261421 169339846 lattice 8740934
batch 5000 72667501
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 2460-5400 81894218 106462483 106462484 138401229 lattice 22469046
p 81894218 106462483 106462484 138401229 lattice 22469046
batch 5000 87016351
batch 5000 92079131
batch 5000 97056511
batch 5000 101986741
batch 4529 106462487
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 5460-8400 86645227 112638795 112638796 146430434 lattice 26947936
p 86645227 112638795 112638796 146430434 lattice 26947936
batch 5000 91657651
batch 5000 96525151
batch 5000 101427731
batch 5000 106228921
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 8460-11400 89806889 116748956 116748957 151773644 lattice 30747693
p 89806889 116748956 116748957 151773644 lattice 30747693
batch 5000 94835621
batch 5000 99771211
batch 5000 104644391
batch 5000 109495361
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 11460-14400 92202823 119863670 119863671 155822772 lattice 34086455
p 92202823 119863670 119863671 155822772 lattice 34086455
batch 5000 97129031
batch 5000 102034411
batch 5000 106879141
batch 5000 111671281
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 14460-17400 94142778 122385611 122385612 159101295 lattice 37092613
p 94142778 122385611 122385612 159101295 lattice 37092613
batch 5000 99029701
batch 5000 103906051
batch 5000 108716941
batch 5000 113481551
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 17460-20400 95778395 124511913 124511914 161865488 lattice 39845592
p 95778395 124511913 124511914 161865488 lattice 39845592
batch 5000 100656431
batch 5000 105529351
batch 5000 110355061
batch 5000 115103551
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 20460-23400 97195678 126354381 126354382 164260696 lattice 42397991
p 97195678 126354381 126354382 164260696 lattice 42397991
batch 5000 102106021
batch 5000 106951661
batch 5000 111813571
batch 5000 116551601
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 23460-26400 98448290 127982777 127982778 166377611 lattice 44786612
p 98448290 127982777 127982778 166377611 lattice 44786612
batch 5000 103333511
batch 5000 108128021
batch 5000 112930151
batch 5000 117655361
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 26460-29400 99572048 129443662 129443663 168276761 lattice 47038336
p 99572048 129443662 129443663 168276761 lattice 47038336
batch 5000 104386031
batch 5000 109166501
batch 5000 113933591
batch 5000 118596601
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 29460-32400 100592086 130769712 130769713 170000626 lattice 49173485
p 100592086 130769712 130769713 170000626 lattice 49173485
batch 5000 105465691
batch 5000 110300051
batch 5000 115003591
batch 5000 119711881
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 32460-35400 101526751 131984776 131984777 171580210 lattice 51207842
p 101526751 131984776 131984777 171580210 lattice 51207842
batch 5000 106323361
batch 5000 111124841
batch 5000 115872161
batch 5000 120587381
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 35460-38400 102389853 133106808 133106809 173038851 lattice 53153956
p 102389853 133106808 133106809 173038851 lattice 53153956
batch 5000 107232101
batch 5000 112004171
batch 5000 116687111
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 38460-41400 103192057 134149674 134149675 174394577 lattice 55021991
p 103192057 134149674 134149675 174394577 lattice 55021991
batch 5000 107974381
batch 5000 112731391
batch 5000 117443231
batch 5000 122118671
batch 5000 126764951
batch 5000 131375731
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 41460-44400 103941779 135124313 135124314 175661608 lattice 56820314
p 103941779 135124313 135124314 175661608 lattice 56820314
batch 5000 108780781
batch 5000 113579161
batch 5000 118309141
batch 5000 123015041
batch 5000 127655951
deadline: 400 seconds per coefficient
coeff 44460-47400 104645781 136039515 136039516 176851370 lattice 58555909
p 104645781 136039515 136039516 176851370 lattice 58555909
batch 5000 109526671
batch 5000 114322441
batch 5000 119052331
batch 5000 123759101
batch 5000 128477861 <-- last line as of now
compared to this, a GPU-run using ver. 1.45 (running overnight, ~8 hours) gives hundreds of these lines in the screen output (as expected; search range is 60000 - as far as it comes, currently approx. 65000)...

Code:
poly 11 p 135152767 q 145304629 coeff 19638322667258443
poly 11 p 135208399 q 145270709 coeff 19641819985484891
poly 30 p 135198403 q 145148233 coeff 19623809299871899
poly 33 p 135226127 q 145130767 coeff 19625471529949409
poly 30 p 135228749 q 145321849 coeff 19651691842636901
poly 10 p 135217013 q 145174349 coeff 19630041835999537
...and has found dozens of polys.

Have the parameters been changed between 1.45 and 1.46, so that 1.46 only outputs superkalifragelistigexpialigoric polynomials? Or was it just bad luck with 1.46 and good luck with the 1.45 GPU-run?
Andi47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-06, 17:37   #146
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

67258 Posts
Default

None of the degree-5 code has changed between v1.45 and v1.46; the GPU code got somewhat faster, but I think most of the difference is the performance gap between CPU and GPU.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-06, 17:54   #147
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

1001101100102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
None of the degree-5 code has changed between v1.45 and v1.46; the GPU code got somewhat faster, but I think most of the difference is the performance gap between CPU and GPU.
So it is just a strange fortune that I have found not a single poly after 86 CPU-hours (coeff. 1 to 47000), and approx. hundred of them (coeff. 60000 to ~67000) within 8 GPU-hours? Or is the GForce GTS 250 that much faster than an Intel i7?

BTW: my best poly is:

Code:
R0: -8963497409556758629345860972
R1:  19683233448182377
A0:  39013925483873724802274206728137815
A1:  1062511623552559794023800147263
A2:  1519551721902671844300379
A3: -342040625795062587
A4: -273011920586
A5:  64500
skew 1953916.78, size 5.101027e-014, alpha -6.628828, combined = 1.101153e-011

Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2010-10-06 at 17:55
Andi47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-07, 02:52   #148
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3,541 Posts
Default

Well, the CPU code is not that well optimized, so a factor of 10 difference is not impossible. How many of the polynomials found have the same A5 and R1? Polynomials with matching A5/R1 are derived from the same stage 1 hit, so getting lucky once can generate hundreds to tens of thousands of polynomials.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-07, 05:20   #149
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

2×17×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
Well, the CPU code is not that well optimized, so a factor of 10 difference is not impossible. How many of the polynomials found have the same A5 and R1? Polynomials with matching A5/R1 are derived from the same stage 1 hit, so getting lucky once can generate hundreds to tens of thousands of polynomials.
see my attached msieve.dat.p file (.txt extension added to make attachment possible)
Attached Files
File Type: txt msieve.dat.p.txt (39.3 KB, 117 views)
Andi47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-10-07, 22:17   #150
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

DD516 Posts
Default

I count just over 20 hits in your file; about half the polynomials came from just one of those hits. Sounds reasonable to me...
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 16:30   #151
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

23·3·5·72 Posts
Default

I am running a polynomial selection job on a cpu for a c84 currently. I am getting loads on polynomials(too many). msieve is output loads of 7e-8 polynomials but it looks like the limit should be much higher as 8e-8 polys are common with there still being quite a few(probably plenty enough at least including >8.5e-8) polys from 9e-8-1.176e-7. Is this huge amount of extra polynomials just because I have hit a lucky number or do the params need adjusting.
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-11, 19:07   #152
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3,541 Posts
Default

Very likely the parameters need adjusting. The original parameters were derived by experiment, you pick a bound and see how many stage 1 hits you get, then adjust the bound so that only the top ~10% of polynomials are found at all. Unfortunately this method breaks down when computers get faster and/or the code is ported to use a GPU :)

The amount of testing at the very small sizes (< c90) has also been very small.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-12, 13:24   #153
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

23×3×5×72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
Very likely the parameters need adjusting. The original parameters were derived by experiment, you pick a bound and see how many stage 1 hits you get, then adjust the bound so that only the top ~10% of polynomials are found at all. Unfortunately this method breaks down when computers get faster and/or the code is ported to use a GPU :)

The amount of testing at the very small sizes (< c90) has also been very small.
What tests do you want?
I could run a few dozen cpu runs over christmas(is it based on cpu time or clock time?).
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-12-12, 14:21   #154
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3,541 Posts
Default

There's an additional constraint with c85-size numbers, in that the whole job should take 30 minutes or less with QS, so it may be easier to stop after you find 10 polynomials and just sieve with the best one. The postprocessing would probably take 2-5 minutes, since it has to read several files from disk several times, so it would be best to give over as much time as possible to the sieving.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Msieve 1.53 feedback xilman Msieve 149 2018-11-12 06:37
Msieve 1.50 feedback firejuggler Msieve 99 2013-02-17 11:53
Msieve 1.43 feedback Jeff Gilchrist Msieve 47 2009-11-24 15:53
Msieve 1.42 feedback Andi47 Msieve 167 2009-10-18 19:37
Msieve 1.41 Feedback Batalov Msieve 130 2009-06-09 16:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:47.


Sat Jul 17 00:47:43 UTC 2021 up 49 days, 22:34, 1 user, load averages: 1.61, 1.47, 1.37

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.