20210912, 23:58  #45 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
10010110010001_{2} Posts 
8p3_930M is in LA; small; just a 2days worth job. Can be moved to 'Post processing'.
Fib 1409 will finish first (ETA tomorrow) 
20210917, 12:43  #46 
Jun 2012
2^{4}·7·29 Posts 
83,341
QUEUED AS 8m3_341
The HCN 83,341 is ready for GNFS. As a c193, this job definitely belongs on 16f_small but I ended up splitting the lpbr/a into a 31/32 after extensive (and intentionally naive) test sieving of 24 parameter sets. The values of r+alim = 402M, presumably under Greg’s limit. Code:
n: 2336386891136426579841809323098919425924681423702856026805990165735188655301084082303702367027719152311847987495284282076422827038922824223850944481171524784632058160171821029378539494253139241 skew: 38641852.276 type: gnfs # HCN 83_341 lss: 0 c0: 4406550827068543220574899900566398752743379 c1: 10635304037567138410619541930862659352 c2: 257904586189613106859667691910 c3: 15641949562904209308151 c4: 61790529410960 c5: 1466640 Y0: 17395768516108913114178572748025422408 Y1: 2981515822618563517895267 # MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 1.255e08 # msieve gives skew 38641852.28, size 7.543e019, alpha 4.910, combined = 1.480e014 rroots = 5 rlim: 134000000 alim: 268000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 32 mfbr: 62 mfba: 94 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 3.5 Code:
Q(M) Corrected Yield 50 22799 100 23198 150 20997 200 19610 250 18449 I'll do the LA. Last fiddled with by swellman on 20211004 at 16:45 
20210930, 23:18  #47 
Jun 2012
2^{4}·7·29 Posts 
C199_M31_k35
From the kosta project, caching this SNFS 261 here. The GNFS 199 was a contender for this factorization but ultimately went with the quartic.
Code:
n: 4950036370987531796596777020435431752821658735009564665203032637182311299258729058872170618265983042169789410985851232822128958988972946232939020745222679656170411937888556774248091592015827689480701 skew: 2.04458 type: snfs size: 261 c4: 1 c3: 1 c2: 1 c1: 1 c0: 1 Y1: 1 Y0: 210624582650556372047028295576838759252690170086892944262392971263 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 96 mfba: 66 alim: 225000000 rlim: 225000000 rlambda: 3.7 alambda: 3.0 Polynomial and skew both courtesy of cownoise. Test sieving results on the rational side with Q in blocks of 5000: Code:
Q0(M) Adjusted_yield 60 7333 100 8430 200 9681 300 9295 400 8658 500 8297 600 7925 I hope others will propose jobs for the 16f_small queue. It is not my intent to monopolize it  my recent postings are a a buffer for those occasions when work runs low. Please post away! 
20211001, 17:23  #48 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
13CF_{16} Posts 
Don't large quartics benefit strongly from asymmetric lim's and LP bounds?
I wager 32/34 will be much more effective than 33/33, and I think lim's of e.g. 200/250 would also help compared to 225/225. 
20211001, 17:33  #49 
Jun 2012
3248_{10} Posts 
I always check 2/2, 2/3, 3/2 LPs but I didn’t consider shifting to 32/34(!) or asymmetry in the lims. Will msieve even run with a value of 34 lpbr/a?

20211001, 20:48  #50  
Apr 2020
547 Posts 
Quote:
Msieve is fine with 34bit large primes; it's the siever that is the issue. The standard 16e siever is limited to 33bit but while it's apparently very easy to remove this restriction, I don't know whether this has been done for the NFS@Home version. Even if it has, the siever will still be unable to handle mfbr/a > 96. The 16fv5 siever used for the huge NFS@Home jobs can handle larger mfb values. 

20211001, 21:02  #51 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
5071_{10} Posts 
Sorry for transposing the lpb's.
My understanding of the 16e queue is that it's the same siever as the "big" queue, so I thought 34LP and 99MFB would be fine. If I'm wrong about the siever, I think 32/33 would still be preferable to 33/33 I don't mind doing the testsieve to see if I'm right? Msieve is definitely fine with 34/32LP, since it'll need about the same number of relations as 33/33 so filtering should work just fine. Edit: Posts 25 in this thread discuss a 261 quartic, and observe that maybe that's too big for fsmall. Are you sure GNFS199 isn't the easier solution for this job? Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20211001 at 21:25 
20211001, 22:10  #52  
Jun 2012
2^{4}×7×29 Posts 
Quote:
If you could run a bit of test sieving I would be grateful. All my machines are currently tasked but there’s certainly no hurry on this job. I was surprised how well behaved this quartic was in test sieving but of course it’s nowhere near the speed of a S261 sextic. But I wanted to run a more difficult quartic, and I’m not convinced a G199 would be any faster especially adding in the poly search time. I did bounce this job off Greg and he had no issues with it, but we didn’t directly deal with the issue of GNFS vs SNFS. 

20211001, 23:41  #53 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11×461 Posts 
First sieve test with 34/32 and 250/200 lim's shows 0.61 sec/rel at Q=200M... pretty decent. I think that's a bit quicker than GNFS199 would be at 33/33, maybe equivalent to a GNFS197, though yield is lower so more Q are needed than would be for the GNFS job.
I'll do a complete testsieve of 34/32 and 33/32 by Saturday night. 
20211002, 00:15  #54 
Jul 2003
So Cal
2^{4}×139 Posts 

20211002, 00:46  #55  
Apr 2020
547 Posts 
Quote:
Never mind the parameter choice for the quartic, I'm surprised this isn't obviously better by GNFS. While it isn't a perfect reflection of difficulty, the Q range of 60570M is surely much larger than a GNFS199 would require? 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Queue management for 14e queue  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  72  20211202 17:10 
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  219  20211129 16:45 
Run down the queue on MPRIME without quitting GIMPS  Rodrigo  Software  7  20180525 13:26 
Improving the queue management.  debrouxl  NFS@Home  10  20180506 21:05 
split a prime95 queue & client installation  joblack  Information & Answers  1  20090106 08:45 