C321_149_146: Ready for SNFS

swellman · 2018-01-17, 15:41

C321_149_146 has survived years of ECM @B1=850M
by yoyo, plus additional work by Ryan Propper at higher levels.

Is it time to ask Greg to consider it for the 16e V5 SNFS queue?

VBCurtis · 2018-01-17, 18:29

Is this a spot where Ryan might do the sieving and Greg the matrix?

Should we be test-sieving for params? 34LP?

swellman · 2018-01-17, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Is this a spot where Ryan might do the sieving and Greg the matrix?

Should we be test-sieving for params? 34LP?

Ryan is out of the game for awhile. This would be an all 16e V5 effort, if Greg chooses to take it on.

eta: the SNFS poly is straightforward but I cannot test sieve above 33-bits.

swellman · 2018-01-17, 20:38

Forgive my earlier terse reply but I was running errands. Here are the best SNFS polynomials I could find, from hand calcs to YAFU to snfspoly.

Code:

n: 193722964580742095193679112018400904880033366451349783906408872285588397308741963455534137488539382992365208104296998636547195946612823276455827294598394515413146914770645305621675529776146314670471095698267793278948438037457917636834231422611091488453785250279215613653077320648102696969467657304169791933238400575470823
# 149^146+146^149, difficulty: 324.65, anorm: 3.60e+039, rnorm: 3.18e+059
# scaled difficulty: 327.98, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.329e-016, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.268e-016, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 324
skew: 12.1652
c6: 1
c0: 3241346
Y1: -14337401323057856516844082686459887664364975087706401
Y0: 1284758189202133190947305919985473587873306082726117376
rlim: 536000000
alim: 536000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 66
mfba: 66
rlambda: 3.0
alambda: 3.0

------------------------------------------------------------

skew: 12.0014
c6: 22201
c0: 66338290976
Y1: 8799713624672145143474698082092284848447301936480256
Y0: -14337401323057856516844082686459887664364975087706401

-------------------------------------------------------------

skew: 7.371
c5: 1
c0: 21754
Y1: 1052935537988784885549647673691227628754695148931129696191869349
Y0: -85228662589089972900969749203283720565502083938995901803817598976

--------------------------------------------------------------

skew: 19.8082
c5: 149
c0: 454371856
Y1: 583757962938972417129929789063587127160973177664355491806969856
Y0: -1052935537988784885549647673691227628754695148931129696191869349

At SNFS 324, lpb is at least 34 though I can’t run above 33.

To my mind the quintics are unlikely to yield well enough to be considered but what do I know.

pinhodecarlos · 2018-01-17, 20:54

NFS@Home never tried a SNFS324.

swellman · 2018-01-17, 21:48

True, though 2,1061- was a SNFS 319.7 factored back in 2012. C321_149_146 is a very difficult factoring job I admit.

pinhodecarlos · 2018-01-17, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by swellman

True, though 2,1061- was a SNFS 319.7 factored back in 2012. C321_149_146 is a very difficult factoring job I admit.

Can you ask Greg if it is possible? If so he still has more than 10 Cuningham composites to post-process and when this composite is added to the 16e V5 queue I advise people not to queue 14e and 15e composites since the former can easily be sieved in under two weeks. I will also help and try to bring more sievers from different teams.

From last three weeks when the 14e/15e queue was empty more than 16eV5 120k wus were daily processed.

VBCurtis · 2018-01-18, 04:02

What's the hurry? I mean, why alter any other work/queues/teams, when there's a large backlog waiting for postprocessing anyway? Who benefits if this is sieved in two weeks rather than six, if we're going to wait until April for a machine capable of LA to open up?

This job will be about twice as hard as 2,1061-, perhaps a bit worse because the poly coeffs are larger. I'll have a look at 34LP and 34/35 later this week and report my estimates.

swellman · 2018-01-18, 04:30

@pinhodecarlos, I’ve sent a note, let’s wait for Greg’s response. He may have no interest in such an extended effort. Thank you for offering to rally more sievers.

@VBCurtis, thank you for poking at the polys. I tried to run comparative testing using 16e and lpb=33 but performance was too far down in the mud to be conclusive.

pinhodecarlos · 2018-02-14, 21:41

Sean, any updates with regards to your last message? Let me know if I need to escalate.

About the LA backlog I can guarantee it will be cleanup as you can see from the status page.

swellman · 2018-02-14, 23:22

No word from Greg on my query. I just assumed he was busy/not interested in pursuing this job.

2018-01-17, 15:41	#1
swellman Jun 2012 BFC₁₆ Posts	C321_149_146: Ready for SNFS C321_149_146 has survived years of ECM @B1=850M by yoyo, plus additional work by Ryan Propper at higher levels. Is it time to ask Greg to consider it for the 16e V5 SNFS queue?

2018-01-17, 20:54	#5
pinhodecarlos "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 3·17·97 Posts	NFS@Home never tried a SNFS324. Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2018-01-17 at 20:57

2018-02-14, 21:41	#10
pinhodecarlos "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 3×17×97 Posts	Sean, any updates with regards to your last message? Let me know if I need to escalate. About the LA backlog I can guarantee it will be cleanup as you can see from the status page. Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2018-02-14 at 21:43

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ready GNFS targets	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	86	2020-03-07 16:23
Ready SNFS targets	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	25	2016-11-20 21:35
New ECM Effort Tables for Cunningham Composites Ready	garo	Factoring	12	2005-09-06 07:53
New Cunningham Tables are ready. Please see sample and comment	garo	Factoring	9	2005-08-02 16:52
Getting ready for news	only_human	Lounge	4	2004-05-16 23:36

2018-01-17, 18:29	#2
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	Is this a spot where Ryan might do the sieving and Greg the matrix? Should we be test-sieving for params? 34LP?

2018-01-17, 21:48	#6
swellman Jun 2012 5774₈ Posts	True, though 2,1061- was a SNFS 319.7 factored back in 2012. C321_149_146 is a very difficult factoring job I admit.

2018-01-18, 04:02	#8
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 4,861 Posts	What's the hurry? I mean, why alter any other work/queues/teams, when there's a large backlog waiting for postprocessing anyway? Who benefits if this is sieved in two weeks rather than six, if we're going to wait until April for a machine capable of LA to open up? This job will be about twice as hard as 2,1061-, perhaps a bit worse because the poly coeffs are larger. I'll have a look at 34LP and 34/35 later this week and report my estimates.

2018-01-18, 04:30	#9
swellman Jun 2012 101111111100₂ Posts	@pinhodecarlos, I’ve sent a note, let’s wait for Greg’s response. He may have no interest in such an extended effort. Thank you for offering to rally more sievers. @VBCurtis, thank you for poking at the polys. I tried to run comparative testing using 16e and lpb=33 but performance was too far down in the mud to be conclusive.

2018-02-14, 23:22	#11
swellman Jun 2012 2²×13×59 Posts	No word from Greg on my query. I just assumed he was busy/not interested in pursuing this job.