mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Msieve

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-06-01, 17:58   #23
Andi47
 
Andi47's Avatar
 
Oct 2004
Austria

46628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
I don't think it makes a difference for current projects, because for 2801^79-1 we have alim=2^27, and 2.6 * 27 is already greater than mfba; for the aliquot job alim=2^26, and 2.6*26 is also large enough.

Whilst in this case alim=2^20, and 2.6*20 is substantially less than 66.
Hmmm...

Lambdas 2.6
Code:
C:\F_Fun\Wissenschaft\Mathe\GGNFS\BIN>gnfs-lasieve4I15e -r 2801_79-.poly -o 2801_79-_test2.out -f 19900000 -c 1000
 Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 19899999.
total yield: 2106, q=19901029 (0.34393 sec/rel)
Lambdas 3.2
Code:
C:\F_Fun\Wissenschaft\Mathe\GGNFS\BIN>gnfs-lasieve4I15e -r 2801_79-b.poly -o 2801_79-_test3.out -f 19900000 -c 1000
 Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 19899999.
total yield: 2128, q=19901029 (0.36133 sec/rel)
So there is a slight difference, but I think it's not worth taking higher lambdas.
Andi47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-01, 19:09   #24
jrk
 
jrk's Avatar
 
May 2008

3×5×73 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
I had thought that the cutoff was 2^(lpba*lambda), not alim^lambda !
This is strange. The ggnfs siever appears to use a cutoff of fblim^lambda, if I understood the code correctly, but the cado nfs siever (as it exists in the most recent svn) indeed does use 2^(lpb * lambda).
jrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-06-01, 19:14   #25
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(3,3^1118781+1)/3

2×23×197 Posts
Default

A couple of weeks ago, I checked the lambda efficiency for a large project: starting from 4.0 down until relations start getting lost significantly and sec/rel gets worse rather than better. Unsurprisingly, I found that the optimum is indeed somewhere at 2.5 and 2.6, so these settings are both good.
(The bottom is flat and to make any conclusions a lot of sieving is needed, but I got a not-so-well founded suspicion that 16e may run slightly better with 2.5, while 15e with 2.6. But the difference is tiny, so both values are just fine - and better than 2.4 or 2.7, 2.8. Caveat: this most probably depends on a CPU family. YMMV.)
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where do I send my PRP primes with large k? Trilo Riesel Prime Search 3 2013-08-20 00:32
lots of large primes Peter Hackman Factoring 2 2008-08-15 14:26
NFS with 5 and 6 large primes jasonp Factoring 4 2007-12-04 18:32
Why only three large primes fivemack Factoring 18 2007-05-10 12:14
What is the use of these large primes Prime Monster Lounge 34 2004-06-10 18:12

All times are UTC. The time now is 10:51.

Tue Jul 14 10:51:01 UTC 2020 up 111 days, 8:24, 0 users, load averages: 2.92, 1.96, 1.60

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.