mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > CADO-NFS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-04-22, 02:30   #23
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

10011111101112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Here's my 3LP settings for params.c165, tested exactly once:
. . ..
Sorry for my 3LP ignorance, but will these params tell it to use 3LP or do I need to add something else?

Also, do you need the full 175M relations? If Msieve successfully filters earlier than 175M, do you still want the rest?

BTW, I found a c164 candidate. I think it has a 6 leading digit. The current c164 should be done tomorrow, so I can start the 3LP job after that.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 03:07   #24
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10101101101102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Are you sure that swapping the lims won't improve yield? I thought larger lim on the 2LP side was pretty well established by now. Too lazy to dig up an old polynomial and test-sieve it myself.
Definitely not sure. With GGNFS that's clear, but CADO sieves below the factor base so I didn't make any assumptions.

Ed-
Nothing else needs to be changed. mfb at 88 is the key setting that causes 3LP (any setting larger than 3 * log_2(lim) will do it).

I don't mind if you don't get to 175M; whatever your scripts do is just fine with me- all the better to compare to a previous run with your script. May wish to swap lim's per Charybdis' suggestion, though.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 10:51   #25
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

53×7 Posts
Default

Haven't done any big GNFS jobs myself for a while, but larger lims on the 2LP side definitely sieve better for the big SNFS jobs I've been doing instead. I think we used larger lims on the 2LP side for 3,748+ too.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 12:42   #26
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

10011111101112 Posts
Default

Here's the first c164 (note: A=28 and adjust_strategy=2):
Code:
N = 345... <164 digits>
tasks.lim0 = 50000000
tasks.lim1 = 70000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.qmin = 10000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 170.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 2.07
tasks.sieve.lambda1 = 2.17
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 61
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 529277
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 31468
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 4.6221e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 171561952
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 8.37946014e-13
Anything else I should grab before I do the next one?

Last fiddled with by EdH on 2022-04-22 at 12:49
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 12:48   #27
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

117678 Posts
Default

One last question:

Should I have a tasks.sieve.lambda1 value?

I currently have 2.17 (as can be seen above). Should I just keep that?

Last fiddled with by EdH on 2022-04-22 at 13:14
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 14:01   #28
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·7·397 Posts
Default

No lambda- if you did use one, it would have to be close to 3 for 3LP. Best leave it default.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 14:22   #29
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

19×269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
No lambda- if you did use one, it would have to be close to 3 for 3LP. Best leave it default.
Thanks! It is in work. Here are the significant parts of the snapshot:
Code:
N = 685. . .<164 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 60000000
tasks.lim1 = 40000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.qmin = 10000000
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 175000000
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-23, 12:24   #30
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

19·269 Posts
Default

Here is the latest c164:
Code:
N = 685... <164 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 60000000
tasks.lim1 = 40000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.qmin = 10000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 170.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 526394
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 31614.9
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 4.67967e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 175012772
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
 cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 8.31589954e-13
I don't see too much difference. Murphy_E is lower and sieving took a little bit longer. However, the previous c164 used strategy 2, while this one did not. What effect would that have had at this size?

If you like, provide some changes and I'll put them in the params file for the next ~c165 composite. It may not be real soon, but maybe this upcoming week.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-23, 14:20   #31
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·7·397 Posts
Default

Try with strategy2, please? I don't use that setting because it seems to trigger errors with CADO postprocessing, so I forgot to include it for you.
My guess is 4% faster from strat-2? Your next data point will tell us. :)

Was the resulting matrix notably bigger than your previous C164?
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-23, 14:54   #32
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

19×269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Try with strategy2, please? I don't use that setting because it seems to trigger errors with CADO postprocessing, so I forgot to include it for you.
My guess is 4% faster from strat-2? Your next data point will tell us. :)

Was the resulting matrix notably bigger than your previous C164?
I'll run the next one with A=28 and strategy 2, then.* I didn't bring up strategy 2 because you used I=14. Here are the matrix sections from the two logs - first c164:
Code:
Thu Apr 21 08:30:37 2022  matrix is 9822977 x 9823172 (3015.8 MB) with weight 932199937 (94.90/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:30:37 2022  sparse part has weight 672685141 (68.48/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:32:25 2022  filtering completed in 2 passes
Thu Apr 21 08:32:27 2022  matrix is 9792967 x 9793156 (3013.3 MB) with weight 931103496 (95.08/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:32:27 2022  sparse part has weight 672400393 (68.66/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:33:10 2022  matrix starts at (0, 0)
Thu Apr 21 08:33:11 2022  matrix is 9792967 x 9793156 (3013.3 MB) with weight 931103496 (95.08/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:33:11 2022  sparse part has weight 672400393 (68.66/col)
Thu Apr 21 08:33:11 2022  saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Thu Apr 21 08:33:12 2022  matrix includes 64 packed rows
Thu Apr 21 08:33:13 2022  matrix is 9792919 x 9793156 (2895.1 MB) with weight 745879127 (76.16/col)
and, the second c164:
Code:
Sat Apr 23 07:29:12 2022  matrix is 10949079 x 10949259 (3349.2 MB) with weight 1042919866 (95.25/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:29:12 2022  sparse part has weight 746571916 (68.18/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:32:13 2022  filtering completed in 2 passes
Sat Apr 23 07:32:17 2022  matrix is 10934410 x 10934588 (3348.1 MB) with weight 1042422445 (95.33/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:32:17 2022  sparse part has weight 746467122 (68.27/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:33:16 2022  matrix starts at (0, 0)
Sat Apr 23 07:33:19 2022  matrix is 10934410 x 10934588 (3348.1 MB) with weight 1042422445 (95.33/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:33:19 2022  sparse part has weight 746467122 (68.27/col)
Sat Apr 23 07:33:19 2022  saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Sat Apr 23 07:33:21 2022  matrix includes 64 packed rows
Sat Apr 23 07:33:23 2022  matrix is 10934362 x 10934588 (3228.6 MB) with weight 832280012 (76.11/col)
Yes, the matrix is a little bit larger, but is that just due to when Msieve happened to succeed in its filtering tests?

* I'm guessing that's the only change you would like for the next ~c164 run (I don't have another c164 handy just yet), or do you want something else modified, too?
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-23, 23:49   #33
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×7×397 Posts
Default

Please try A=28 separately from strat 2. I'd like to know the speed gained from start 2 on I=14.
I expect A=28 would be slower than I=14 here, anyway; perhaps we can test-sieve that rather than run a full job.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CADO help henryzz CADO-NFS 6 2022-09-13 23:11
CADO NFS Shaopu Lin CADO-NFS 522 2021-05-04 18:28
CADO-NFS Timing Data For Many Factorizations EdH EdH 8 2019-05-20 15:07
CADO-NFS skan Information & Answers 1 2013-10-22 07:00
CADO R.D. Silverman Factoring 4 2008-11-06 12:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:59.


Wed Dec 7 06:59:25 UTC 2022 up 111 days, 4:27, 0 users, load averages: 0.88, 0.92, 0.90

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔