mersenneforum.org Bernoulli(200) c204
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2012-05-07, 16:15   #78
jrk

May 2008

3×5×73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz What's the difference between the different versions of lasieve? 4e, 5e, 5f, 5g?
One difference is that the f siever allows composite special_Q with prime factors greater than 256 while the others use only prime special_Q. This increases the number of lattices sieved over a given range of Q values.

 2012-05-07, 16:35 #79 jrk     May 2008 44716 Posts Over the weekend I did a trial run of Shi Bai's 3.428e-15 polynomial using lasieve4I16e. Although Greg is using the f variant of the siever now which allows composite special_Q to be sieved (thus affecting total yield), I thought the results might still be interesting to some. Code: 3.428e-15 polynomial from Shi Bai tested with lasieve4I16e and the following parameters: rlim: 400000000 alim: 400000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 33 mfbr: 64 mfba: 96 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 3.6 start Q rels in Q roots in rels per Q roots in est. rels in est. cumulative Q..Q+2k Q..Q+2k Q root Q..Q+50M Q..Q+50M rels 150000000 3359 86 39.06 2637012 1.03E+08 1.03E+08 200000000 4295 113 38.01 2603558 9.90E+07 2.02E+08 250000000 4383 117 37.46 2575156 9.65E+07 2.98E+08 300000000 4606 126 36.56 2550438 9.32E+07 3.92E+08 350000000 3421 99 34.56 2535727 8.76E+07 4.79E+08 400000000 2945 88 33.47 2514663 8.42E+07 5.63E+08 450000000 3286 100 32.86 2504409 8.23E+07 6.46E+08 500000000 3637 118 30.82 2492256 7.68E+07 7.23E+08 550000000 2778 91 30.53 2481334 7.57E+07 7.98E+08 600000000 3154 105 30.04 2467955 7.41E+07 8.72E+08 650000000 3186 109 29.23 2461102 7.19E+07 9.44E+08 700000000 3120 110 28.36 2451406 6.95E+07 1.01E+09 750000000 3068 109 28.15 2444230 6.88E+07 1.08E+09 800000000 2027 72 28.15 2437199 6.86E+07 1.15E+09 850000000 2210 84 26.31 2429513 6.39E+07 1.22E+09 900000000 2478 93 26.65 2421418 6.45E+07 1.28E+09 Assuming about 900M raw rels would be desired (judging by the number of rels gathered for 7^374+1 c197), this suggests a range of special_Q from 150M to about 700M using lasieve4I16e. Last fiddled with by jrk on 2012-05-07 at 16:37
 2012-05-07, 18:59 #80 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 100111010001012 Posts My mistake. I've been testing degree 6 for too long, and for it I played with 3LP on the other side (for some polynomials, both variants, but for this batch these were used): Code: lpbr: 33 lpba: 32 mfbr: 96 mfba: 64 alambda: 2.6 rlambda: 3.6 alim: 400000000 rlim: 400000000 Anyway, Greg's poly has 3LP on the a side and 33: Code: lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 67 mfba: 96 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 3.6
2012-05-07, 22:33   #81
frmky

Jul 2003
So Cal

72·53 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jrk One difference is that the f siever allows composite special_Q with prime factors greater than 256 while the others use only prime special_Q. This increases the number of lattices sieved over a given range of Q values.
Unfortunately there is some confusion between the e, f, & g variants of gnfs-lasieve and the applications at NFS@Home. At the time NFS@Home was established, we only had the e variant of gnfs-lasieve. In addition, the script for updating application versions would sometimes become confused if there was a number in the applications' name. Therefore, I replaced the numbers referring to the size of the sieve region with letters.

lasievea = gnfs-lasieve4I11e
lasieveb = gnfs-lasieve4I12e
lasievec = gnfs-lasieve4I13e
lasieved = gnfs-lasieve4I14e
lasievee = gnfs-lasieve4I15e
lasievef = gnfs-lasieve4I16e

The first four applications have never been used and are therefore suppressed in the app list on the website.

Bottom line...the lasievef and lasieve5f applications use gnfs-lasieve4I16e, not gnfs-lasieve4I16f.

 2012-05-08, 08:19 #82 debrouxl     Sep 2009 3D316 Posts And lasieved / gnfs-lasieve4I14e would become used if RSALS were merged into NFS@Home
2012-05-08, 12:06   #83
R.D. Silverman

"Bob Silverman"
Nov 2003
North of Boston

22·1,877 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by debrouxl And lasieved / gnfs-lasieve4I14e would become used if RSALS were merged into NFS@Home
I hope not.

 2012-05-08, 14:27 #84 debrouxl     Sep 2009 11×89 Posts Well, there are obvious advantages to having a single NFS grid For instance, a single flavor of binaries, and a single server whose BOINC software needs to be updated once in a while.
2012-05-08, 15:15   #85
jrk

May 2008

100010001112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky Bottom line...the lasievef and lasieve5f applications use gnfs-lasieve4I16e, not gnfs-lasieve4I16f.
Thanks for clearing that up.

2012-05-08, 15:45   #86
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Liverpool (GMT/BST)

178F16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky Unfortunately there is some confusion between the e, f, & g variants of gnfs-lasieve and the applications at NFS@Home. At the time NFS@Home was established, we only had the e variant of gnfs-lasieve. In addition, the script for updating application versions would sometimes become confused if there was a number in the applications' name. Therefore, I replaced the numbers referring to the size of the sieve region with letters. lasievea = gnfs-lasieve4I11e lasieveb = gnfs-lasieve4I12e lasievec = gnfs-lasieve4I13e lasieved = gnfs-lasieve4I14e lasievee = gnfs-lasieve4I15e lasievef = gnfs-lasieve4I16e The first four applications have never been used and are therefore suppressed in the app list on the website. Bottom line...the lasievef and lasieve5f applications use gnfs-lasieve4I16e, not gnfs-lasieve4I16f.
So the lasieve5f application is gnfs-lasieve4I16e from lasieve5 which you have modified to input and output like ggnfs? What is the difference to the 16e siever we have been using for ages? Have you been able to compile the f or g variants(not your system of lettering) from lasieve5? Are the changes you made available in the svn or is the boinc binary the only one available?

2012-05-08, 22:56   #87
frmky

Jul 2003
So Cal

72·53 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz So the lasieve5f application is gnfs-lasieve4I16e from lasieve5 which you have modified to input and output like ggnfs? What is the difference to the 16e siever we have been using for ages? Have you been able to compile the f or g variants(not your system of lettering) from lasieve5? Are the changes you made available in the svn or is the boinc binary the only one available?
Yep. Primary changes for users are the ability to sieve larger q and lower memory usage. Neither f nor g compile out of the box. Both fail in linking due to undefined functions. I have spent no time trying to diagnose it. I've sent the patches to Serge to place in the SVN, but I don't think he's had time to do so. So I'll place them here.

The compile currently only works on Linux. Make sure cweb is installed on your computer. Then, download the original source and extract it. Then from the file attached, apply the patch lasieve5_ggnfs.patch and compile with
make gnfs-lasieve4I16e
and you should have a GGNFS compatible binary. If you wish to create a BOINC binary (which you generally wouldn't) then also apply the patch lasieve5_boinc.patch to add in the BOINC API.
Attached Files
 lasieve5patches.tar.gz (8.4 KB, 141 views)

 2012-05-23, 11:47 #88 akruppa     "Nancy" Aug 2002 Alexandria 2,467 Posts Is B200 already mostly sieved? I'm getting WUs for 2^1019-1 now, but the highest WUs for B200 I saw were about 140k.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post VBCurtis And now for something completely different 1 2015-02-08 02:45 bai Factoring 2 2012-10-22 23:16 Damian Math 2 2009-09-27 20:37 Batalov Math 5 2009-06-01 22:10 fivemack Factoring 4 2008-02-24 00:39

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:43.

Tue Jan 31 16:43:18 UTC 2023 up 166 days, 14:11, 0 users, load averages: 1.24, 1.21, 1.14