mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2018-05-29, 18:28   #34
VictordeHolland
 
VictordeHolland's Avatar
 
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands

23·3·72 Posts
Default C222_44611351_31 factors

C222_44611351_31
= (44611351^31-1)/4724683554106950

Code:
p100 factor: 3129736754265434313115385777531815325426379555658941464347144096700868465629359448106263791728036343
p122 factor: 91817635573267857528245872303927479264638420438204782306659976328499199398619817645407854972158808897698702806939508021431
Mon May 28 02:07:00 2018  elapsed time 01:38:14
Factors uploaded to factordb.

Truncated log attached and at https://pastebin.com/rMC9HYfA
Attached Files
File Type: log 2018-05-28 C222_44611351_31.log (31.1 KB, 61 views)
VictordeHolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-30, 03:16   #35
richs
 
richs's Avatar
 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California

46D16 Posts
Default C202_M127_k9 factored

Quote:
Originally Posted by richs View Post
Reserving C202_M127_k9
Code:
p89 factor: 28671472257842829465286850812061976846241333899857562772650872397788535503540554845502783
p113 factor: 37619677089167213926945303294913340200839420719711647589426226438636403067966427468055116925715974269789294823587
44.6 hours on 8 threads i7-5500U with 8 GB memory for a 6.13M matrix at TD = 70. Log attached and truncated log at https://pastebin.com/9rBxRU2v

Factors added to factordb.
Attached Files
File Type: log msieve.log (653.3 KB, 220 views)
richs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-30, 08:36   #36
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

143248 Posts
Default C242_137_78 done

Code:
Wed May 30 08:07:13 2018  p81 factor: 212964755526353370590207528158400933000546039169480153256299393636587955035281223
Wed May 30 08:07:13 2018  p161 factor: 61183247576207084139117138075248634109518882435883583354592418681686857383102917177003213130369956245433740861835480483736679555168049838813731566460891903680881
About 277 hours on 7 threads E5-2650v2 for 22.42M matrix at density 124 (126 didn't work)

Log attached and at https://pastebin.com/Hi9RsY7w
Attached Files
File Type: log C242_137_78.log (84.3 KB, 137 views)
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-30, 17:32   #37
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

22·11·107 Posts
Default

Taking C193_194xx723_13.
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-30, 18:10   #38
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

977 Posts
Default

For C193_194xx723_13, the generated WUs cover the 6M-36M range, but the management form suggests an upper bound of 40M. I'll raise it to at least 38M.
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 16:32   #39
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

60248 Posts
Default

While we are talking Q ranges, the following might be considered.

C221_691xx579_7 could use just a touch. The sweet spot seems to be about 228-236M for a 31-bit job. A matrix can be built at TD=110 which requires just under a week, instead of 1.5-2.0 weeks for something must less.
Likewise,
C169_203xx091_19
C217_69655517_29
C172_115xx057_17
could use a little bit more to get into that range.

I'm not too familiar with 32-bit jobs but it seems 450-460M might be the sweet spot. Therefore,
C176_M127_k24
could use a little bit more also.
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 16:49   #40
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×5×431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichD View Post
I'm not too familiar with 32-bit jobs but it seems 450-460M might be the sweet spot. Therefore,
C176_M127_k24
could use a little bit more also.
In my experience with 32LP, 450M relations is always oversieved, and sometimes the matrix-building collapses. The number of relations needed scales with the difficulty of the candidate; something like 360M + 7M*(GNFS size - 170) is likely pretty close to optimal for TD-120+ matrix building.
Data points, all 32LP:
GNFS 170 275M relations 9.9M matrix (run on 15e -J 13, so 14.5e)
GNFS 166 274M relations 8.9M matrix TD 104
GNFS 165 265M relations 10.3M matrix TD 96
I sieved these all myself, so I used fewer relations and lower TD than I would for grid-sieved work. I don't think more than 25% oversieving is needed to build TD 120+ matrices.
Data points for 15e/33LP:
GNFS 172 529M relations 9.0M matrix TD 104
GNFS 175 556M relations 10.7M matrix TD 112
Two points is not a trend, particularly since I used different TDs, but based on these I'm using 510M + 10M* (GNFS size -170) for 15e/33 tasks. I'm running GNFS 179 right now, but using 15f and 16f for some of the sieving so the number of relations won't provide useful data.
EDIT: That C176 didn't have good parameters, and the sieving has already run to Q=750M. That suggests duplicate rate will be lousy too, but with Q already over twice the lim's we may collectively just have to eat the large matrix awaiting us (or sieve a little with 15e or 16e at the low end of Q-range). I'll have time to take it on in 10 days or so if nobody jumps before then.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2018-05-31 at 16:57
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 20:29   #41
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

977 Posts
Default

* I have adjusted the ranges for C169_203xx091_19 and C172_115xx057_17 to match the ending Q values currently recommended by the management page. The latter will probably have to be adjusted again.
* the range for C217_69655517_29 matched the recommended range, but sieving hadn't reached 90% yet, and the grid's starving, so I expanded the range by 5M.
* the range for C221_691xx579_7 slightly exceeds the recommended range, and there were zero pending WUs, so I've let that sieving job RIP, and I've reserved it for post-processing, as I can't see another reservation in this topic.


Technically, the recommendations made by the management page could be adjusted if enough people agree that this is the right thing to do, and we can borrow a bit of time from Greg. Tom ? Others ?
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 20:42   #42
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

22×773 Posts
Default

I don't have enough data points for a recommendation. This is the job that recently came to mind.
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...postcount=2700
It will be interesting to see how your job plays out as each job is unique in its own right.
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 20:54   #43
VictordeHolland
 
VictordeHolland's Avatar
 
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands

23·3·72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
In my experience with 32LP, 450M relations is always oversieved, and sometimes the matrix-building collapses. The number of relations needed scales with the difficulty of the candidate; something like 360M + 7M*(GNFS size - 170) is likely pretty close to optimal for TD-120+ matrix building.
...
...
Those are raw relations with normal duplicate rate I assume?
VictordeHolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2018-05-31, 23:50   #44
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×5×431 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictordeHolland View Post
Those are raw relations with normal duplicate rate I assume?
Yes, raw relations under 14e (with its higher dup rate than 15e). I really really think 32LP should be used more instead of 31LP, with much lower than 400M relations targeted.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2018-05-31 at 23:50
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2018 15e post-processing reservations and results fivemack NFS@Home 221 2019-01-04 13:08
16e Post Processing Progress pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 8 2018-11-28 13:45
Crash doing large post-processing job wombatman Msieve 22 2013-12-04 01:37
Update on 7^254+1 post processing dleclair NFSNET Discussion 4 2005-04-05 09:51
Post processing for 2,757- xilman NFSNET Discussion 3 2003-11-06 14:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:49.

Sun Sep 20 11:49:58 UTC 2020 up 10 days, 9 hrs, 0 users, load averages: 1.33, 1.37, 1.36

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.