20180529, 18:28  #34 
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
2^{3}·3·7^{2} Posts 
C222_44611351_31 factors
C222_44611351_31
= (44611351^311)/4724683554106950 Code:
p100 factor: 3129736754265434313115385777531815325426379555658941464347144096700868465629359448106263791728036343 p122 factor: 91817635573267857528245872303927479264638420438204782306659976328499199398619817645407854972158808897698702806939508021431 Mon May 28 02:07:00 2018 elapsed time 01:38:14 Truncated log attached and at https://pastebin.com/rMC9HYfA 
20180530, 03:16  #35 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California
46D_{16} Posts 
C202_M127_k9 factored
Code:
p89 factor: 28671472257842829465286850812061976846241333899857562772650872397788535503540554845502783 p113 factor: 37619677089167213926945303294913340200839420719711647589426226438636403067966427468055116925715974269789294823587 Factors added to factordb. 
20180530, 08:36  #36 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
14324_{8} Posts 
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 Log attached and at https://pastebin.com/Hi9RsY7w 
20180530, 17:32  #37 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
2^{2}·11·107 Posts 
Taking C193_194xx723_13.

20180530, 18:10  #38 
Sep 2009
977 Posts 
For C193_194xx723_13, the generated WUs cover the 6M36M range, but the management form suggests an upper bound of 40M. I'll raise it to at least 38M.

20180531, 16:32  #39 
Sep 2008
Kansas
6024_{8} Posts 
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 228236M for a 31bit job. A matrix can be built at TD=110 which requires just under a week, instead of 1.52.0 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 32bit jobs but it seems 450460M might be the sweet spot. Therefore, C176_M127_k24 could use a little bit more also. 
20180531, 16:49  #40  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×5×431 Posts 
Quote:
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 gridsieved 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 Qrange). I'll have time to take it on in 10 days or so if nobody jumps before then. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20180531 at 16:57 

20180531, 20:29  #41 
Sep 2009
977 Posts 
* 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 postprocessing, 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 ? 
20180531, 20:42  #42 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2^{2}×773 Posts 
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. 
20180531, 20:54  #43  
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
2^{3}·3·7^{2} Posts 
Quote:


20180531, 23:50  #44 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×5×431 Posts 
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 20180531 at 23:50 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
2018 15e postprocessing reservations and results  fivemack  NFS@Home  221  20190104 13:08 
16e Post Processing Progress  pinhodecarlos  NFS@Home  8  20181128 13:45 
Crash doing large postprocessing job  wombatman  Msieve  22  20131204 01:37 
Update on 7^254+1 post processing  dleclair  NFSNET Discussion  4  20050405 09:51 
Post processing for 2,757  xilman  NFSNET Discussion  3  20031106 14:23 