mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-02-05, 03:31   #1
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

133478 Posts
Default Comparison of NFS tools

I'm curious how CADO-NFS and GGNFS compare. Does one dominate the other, or are there regions where each is better than the other? Are there other tools which are useful?
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-05, 03:53   #2
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

19·223 Posts
Default

I've been working on tuning CADO parameters, and have found settings that run 15-30% faster than the 2.3.0 release defaults on numbers from c95 to c125. With these faster settings, I timed CADO 2.3.0 vs factmsieve.py on RSA-120.

CADO took 73,000 CPU-seconds on a 6-core i7 using 12 threads for all stages. Wall-clock time was roughly 10,500 seconds (I neglected to set a timer, so accurate within a couple minutes). Dividing the two times shows that hyperthreading is worth approx. one core's worth of work, as CPU time is 7x wall clock time.

CADO spent 3500 thread-seconds on poly select, so I allowed msieve the same time on a single-threaded process. I don't have an msieve-functional GPU presently. I then set factmsieve with 12 threads of sieve and 6 threads of post-processing; 80 minutes of sieve and 20 min postprocessing later, the factorization was complete. If we imagine that poly select could be conveniently run 6-threaded, that's 110 minutes for GGNFS vs 175 minutes CADO.

From 97 to 133 digits, a sample of best-result CADO times shows the software scaling as every 5.9 digits = a doubling of total time. I haven't recorded a similar map of GGNFS times, though the rule of thumb has always been 5 digits = doubling of sieve time, so perhaps CADO catches up in speed at higher difficulties.

I am not confident that I've found strong parameters for C140 on CADO yet, but I may repeat the test on RSA-140 once I think I've made the best of CADO.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-05, 05:57   #3
CRGreathouse
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
Aug 2006

11×13×41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
I've been working on tuning CADO parameters, and have found settings that run 15-30% faster than the 2.3.0 release defaults on numbers from c95 to c125.
That sounds great, are those available?
CRGreathouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-02-05, 14:55   #4
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

19×223 Posts
Default

PM me your email, and I'll send them along.

They've been sent to Paul Z, and may appear in the development version shortly.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
APRCL implementations comparison ldesnogu Computer Science & Computational Number Theory 11 2015-10-28 12:54
Murphy's Law and other tools Uncwilly Lounge 5 2014-07-07 22:36
Comparison Page Not Working wblipp Operation Billion Digits 0 2012-11-24 06:33
PFGW vs LLR comparison discussion henryzz Conjectures 'R Us 37 2010-02-19 07:42
Pollard's Algorithm & That of Devaraj-a comparison devarajkandadai Miscellaneous Math 22 2005-06-10 11:13

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:15.

Sat Aug 8 18:15:44 UTC 2020 up 22 days, 14:02, 2 users, load averages: 1.61, 1.58, 1.58

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.