20110912, 12:41  #1 
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Slow Down?
I find it interesting that no new factor has been added to the 'top 10'
since June. Has ECM work slackened off? I've been running 1000 curves on the 2LM tables. I am up to C248. So far, no luck. (but I only have ~20 cores, most of which are 32 bits). I am also surprised at how relatively few factors EPFL found in their search of the 2+ tables. It seems that kudos should be given to (especially to Bruce) prior efforts. 
20110914, 13:07  #2 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
100110100011_{2} Posts 
I think it's two reasons mostly, 1. a lot of ECM has been done on Cunningham numbers before so the easy pickings are long gone, and 2. using NFS has become so easy and so wellorganized that there are a lot more people devoting their cpu cycles to NFS rather than ECM than there used to be – gotta blame Jason, the GGNFS and NFS@HOME guys.

20110914, 14:03  #3 
Sep 2009
977 Posts 
The yoyo@home BOINC grid is doing significant ECM work for several other projects, e.g. OddPerfect, XYYXF and Nearrepdigit, and therefore the RSALS BOINC grid

20110920, 14:26  #4  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
2^{10} Posts 
Quote:
recently past 1M curves with B1 = 900M (that's 1003058 curves, not counting the current pass). The pc/grid is still running just when the public sites are closed, but that's offset by the speed of the 64bit windows binaries, and 4curvesatonce on the icore3's. Much/most of c185c233 is near/at t60. Likewise, most of the firstfiveholes above c233 are at 3t55. The last of the undertested ranges is now above c270. In particular, c234c270 has gotten 2t55. Uhm, that includes 2LM's, 10800 curves with B1 = 400M or 7600 curves with B1 = 600M, through c270. The exception being 2 and 2+, where I don't know which of these has PS3 runs, and haven't attempted any new curves. The new NFS@Home numbers got t60 (first), which does include 2p1000. Also, I'm still working from appc311, plus Sam's few new additions to the official lists (filling in first holes). Sam and PaulZ appear to have done quite well on the rest of the new 3 and 3+ extensions, which I haven't been running. So with p55's "removed" to 80% with 2t55, I expect fewtoveryfew p53/p54's in the regular list, c185c270. I'm less optimistic about p58p61's, anywhere, and especially above c233. On the range p63andabove (the current top10), I still consider this to be in the "black swan" range. Yes, we do see one, onceinawhile; but so unlikely as to have (nearly) zero expectation. In particular, the new PS3 range B1=1e9 and my local approximation at B1=900e6, while theoretically p65optimal  given sufficiently many curves  appears to perform more like the t60s, at B1=260M, than like the B1=3e9's of the first PS3 runs. Bruce @Alex ("AKruppa") Both BatlovDodson and the part of NFS@Home running the 15e siever are nearly out of snfs candidates from the regular Cunningham lists. Likewise, if you've scanned the status of "c197 Womack+mersenneforum gnfs", mersenneforum appears to have retired from extended runs with the 64bit 16e siever. 

20110920, 14:46  #5 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
13·491 Posts 
The rather high resource usage and rather low rate of relation production for doing a G197 clearly put people off. We're getting there, but three CPUweeks with 600MB of memory usage per million relations, knowing we'll need six hundred million, turns out not to be attractive.

20110920, 17:11  #6  
Oct 2004
Austria
4662_{8} Posts 
Quote:


20110920, 18:43  #7 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
18EF_{16} Posts 
I don't know  I haven't got one to try with  but I expect it would work. The 64bit binary would be the one to use; copy down the polynomial from the G197 thread, try to sieve 100M .. 100M+1k, and let's see if it segfaults and how long it takes.
Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20110920 at 18:43 
20110920, 21:03  #8 
Jun 2003
11·449 Posts 
Unless the 64 bit asm has been ported to windows, 32bit binary will give better performance under Win 7.
Last fiddled with by axn on 20110920 at 21:03 Reason: getter > better 
20110920, 22:15  #9  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:


20110921, 01:58  #10  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
1024_{10} Posts 
Current Curve counts (RE: Slow Down?)
I appear to have hijacked my own post to this thread on ECMNET, and
in particular, my reply to Bob's question. Here's a repost. Quote:


20110921, 08:28  #11 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
1100011101111_{2} Posts 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Slow progress!  Xyzzy  Miscellaneous Math  62  20170302 00:35 
How hot is too hot? Slow is too slow?  petrw1  Hardware  13  20081110 23:25 
Slow computer  Housemouse  Hardware  7  20080215 18:18 
Celeron 2.40 too slow?  rudi_m  Hardware  14  20051011 03:31 
Web server slow  HackMaster  PrimeNet  28  20050621 21:01 