GNFS targets which need more ECM - Page 2

swellman · 2015-09-29, 12:01

C190_149_91 survived 18000 curves @B1=110M with no factors found. Releasing number.

fivemack · 2015-09-29, 15:54

Throwing 20000@1e8 at C177_148_94

swellman · 2015-09-30, 11:58

I'll take C188_140_113 up to t55. Thanks.

XYYXF · 2015-10-26, 21:34

Added C188_149_78 to the table.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

Throwing 20000@1e8 at C177_148_94

Quote:

Originally Posted by swellman

I'll take C188_140_113 up to t55. Thanks.

Marked them as done, right?

swellman · 2015-10-26, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by XYYXF

Added C188_149_78 to the table.

Thanks. I've identified 14 other likely GNFS candidates. I'll post them another day.

Quote:

Marked them as done, right?

No, still running ECM on C188_140_113. t55 strains my resources (and truth be told, my patience at times) but it is cranking away.

XYYXF · 2015-10-26, 22:55

Anyway, there's still work to do at 260M before sieving, so there's no much confusion in the "done" mark. Take it this way: the distribution of the t55 task is done :-)

Hope a factor will fall out soon.

swellman · 2015-10-28, 12:25

Based on comments made by fivemack and others, I have identified the following possible additional GNFS candidates using test sieving:

C173_145_56
C173_139_59
C174_136_69
C174_136_75
C175_128_97
C177_132_91*
C178_133_71
C178_131_81*
C179_136_87
C181_147_62
C181_133_103
C181_130_109
C183_144_73
C184_135_106
C188_149_78 (t55 done)

*Difference between GNFS and SNFS sieving times is marginal. Needs more detailed GNFS test sieving.

Since I don't have a GPU rig, the estimated GNFS sieving times were based on extrapolation of previous work, i.e. sieving time doubling every 5 digits in length. However the estimates for GNFS for most of these ended up being 1/5-1/2 of the time for SNFS (with the two noted exceptions).

I could not find any other likely GNFS candidates. A graph of some SNFS ETAs is attached. Very noisy indeed.

XYYXF · 2015-10-28, 19:12

C173_145_56 still needs t50.

swellman · 2015-10-28, 19:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by XYYXF

C173_145_56 still needs t50.

No, I reported running it to t50 here.

Of course all but one need t55 or more!

XYYXF · 2015-10-29, 07:04

Oops, my fault. Thanks for pointing out :-)

fivemack · 2015-10-29, 14:48

I've done 64 Xeon core-days of polynomial selection on C185_142_141; just doing the post-processing to find the one that sieves best.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ready GNFS targets	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	86	2020-03-07 16:23
SNFS targets which need more ECM	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	57	2017-07-04 19:15
Ready SNFS targets	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	25	2016-11-20 21:35
3,697+ (GNFS 220.9)	pinhodecarlos	NFS@Home	0	2014-12-24 19:13
3,766+ (GNFS 215.5)	pinhodecarlos	NFS@Home	34	2014-04-01 21:27

2015-09-29, 12:01	#12
swellman Jun 2012 2²·13·59 Posts	C190_149_91 survived 18000 curves @B1=110M with no factors found. Releasing number.

2015-09-29, 15:54	#13
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 14423₈ Posts	Throwing 20000@1e8 at C177_148_94

2015-09-30, 11:58	#14
swellman Jun 2012 2²×13×59 Posts	I'll take C188_140_113 up to t55. Thanks.

2015-10-26, 22:55	#17
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 110010000₂ Posts	Anyway, there's still work to do at 260M before sieving, so there's no much confusion in the "done" mark. Take it this way: the distribution of the t55 task is done :-) Hope a factor will fall out soon.

2015-10-28, 19:12	#19
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 400₁₀ Posts	C173_145_56 still needs t50.

2015-10-29, 07:04	#21
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 2⁴·5² Posts	Oops, my fault. Thanks for pointing out :-)

2015-10-29, 14:48	#22
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 14423₈ Posts	I've done 64 Xeon core-days of polynomial selection on C185_142_141; just doing the post-processing to find the one that sieves best.