20201030, 22:11  #12 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11·409 Posts 
jyb
Greg, the NFS@home host, has requested our 16e jobs maintain lim's that average 225M or smaller. Is it ok to edit your job to change lim's from 268M to 225M? 
20201031, 00:22  #13 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
1,597 Posts 
Sure. Can we leave the other parameters as is, and just assume that we’ll need a little extra sieving?

20201031, 01:08  #14 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1193_{16} Posts 
Yep! Yield will barely drop, I think; a 20% change in lim's isn't much.
Note for future jobs: mfb 96 with LP 32 is rarely best. usually 96 is used for 33, with 9394 used for 32. Usually, a bit of yield is lost but sec/rel improves. The idea is that splitting a 96 bit cofactor is very unlikely to generate 323232 split, so most of that effort is wasted. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20201031 at 01:12 
20201031, 04:19  #15  
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA
1,597 Posts 
Quote:


20201119, 15:13  #16 
Jun 2012
2^{4}×181 Posts 
Odd Job
C235_131_106 from the XYYXF project. A strange one to be sure.
I test sieved both the deg 5 and deg 6 SNFS polys. Neither sieves all that efficiently, I assume due to the awkward coefficients. But the quintic clearly is more efficient in sieving  not even close. Maybe the sextic coefficients are just that much more awkward? After numerous test runs, the best way I could find to submit this to NFS@Home is as a 16f/31bit job. Felt a bit counterintuitive, but what do I know. 15e struggled to get any yield on either poly, though I did not try 15e/33bit. Seemed a bit much. 16f/31 was the sweet spot. Any objections to me submitting this job? Code:
n: 1030503235456803762016167471530641995037760274197968310988179590505950995510892101498055733828425469497568921009021217030573300085480516986964919661166160134908753817168257662257684691416593544651963249784543552924184296481653156578163 # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 267.34, anorm: 2.36e+032, rnorm: 4.45e+058 # scaled difficulty: 271.72, suggest sieving rational side # size = 2.140e018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.749e014, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 267 skew: 1.0433 c5: 106 c0: 131 Y1: 290199866805246507499041077857400346603111731 Y0: 45493829629280918649510295477477883207043693313785856 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 91 mfba: 62 rlambda: 3.4 alambda: 2.7 Code:
60M 1.94 100M 1.96 150M 1.67 200M 1.67 250M 1.49 The sextic: Code:
n: 1030503235456803762016167471530641995037760274197968310988179590505950995510892101498055733828425469497568921009021217030573300085480516986964919661166160134908753817168257662257684691416593544651963249784543552924184296481653156578163 # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 269.37, anorm: 2.70e+039, rnorm: 5.51e+050 # scaled difficulty: 271.25, suggest sieving rational side # size = 6.893e014, alpha = 0.669, combined = 1.663e014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 269 skew: 2.3346 c6: 106 c0: 17161 Y1: 360353741657835234074373091747178365988110336 Y0: 129087241933376588180389974363760340041 rlim: 225000000 alim: 225000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 94 mfba: 64 rlambda: 3.5 alambda: 2.8 Last fiddled with by swellman on 20201119 at 15:15 
20201119, 16:42  #17  
Jun 2003
2×5×479 Posts 
Quote:
EDIT: Nevermind. The sextic is just ugly. Last fiddled with by axn on 20201119 at 16:50 

20201119, 16:56  #18  
Jun 2012
2^{4}·181 Posts 
Quote:
ETA: And yes, that is an ugly sextic! Last fiddled with by swellman on 20201119 at 16:58 

20201119, 17:02  #19  
Jun 2003
2·5·479 Posts 
Quote:
# 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 269.37 I don't get this part. IIUC, for getting the sextic, the number had to be multiplied by 131^2*106, whereas for the quintic, there is no such fiddling necessary. So the sextic difficulty should be 6 digits larger. 

20201119, 17:24  #20  
Jun 2012
2^{4}×181 Posts 
Quote:


20201119, 18:40  #21 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11·409 Posts 
On the quintic 16/31 as you wish to submit, I'd try bumping alim to 200M while leaving rlim alone. Both yield and sec/rel should improve slightly.
I'd also try mfba of 61 or 60 you might not gain speed, but it should reduce rels needed / final matrix size without a loss of sieve speed. 
20201119, 19:01  #22  
Jun 2012
2896_{10} Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  58  20201202 06:36 
Queue management for 14e queue  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  6  20201124 21:27 
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 