mersenneforum.org What's next?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2004-08-13, 01:16 #1 scottsaxman     Aug 2004 way out west 2·13 Posts What's next? So, by the looks of things, we'll have reached the goal for 3_491P easily by the end of the month. Then what? Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.
2004-08-13, 04:58   #2
axn

Jun 2003

5·1,039 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by scottsaxman Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.
They have been factorized. Check the sticky threads at the top of the forum.

2004-08-13, 13:03   #3
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

164448 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by scottsaxman So, by the looks of things, we'll have reached the goal for 3_491P easily by the end of the month. Then what? Also, out of curiousity, how are things going with the factorization of 10_223P and 11_206P? The nfsnet website home page said the linear algebra could be done by the middle of June, but I haven't found any more current info.
I'd like to see some numbers from the 2+ table(s) done. These tables
have lagged behind others. Possible targets include

2, 709+, 2,716+, 2, 719+, 2,736+, 2,764+, 2,772+ although the first 3 may be a little small.

Other possibilities include the first two holes in the 2- table: M739, & M743.

I intend to do 2,667+, 2,689+ and 2,697+ as soon as I finish 2,1238L (80%
sieved) and 2,1262L. But I only have a very small number of machines (6).

There are also 3 numbers on the 'Most Wanted' list that have been there
for quite a while: 7,232+, 7,233+, and 6,251+, although these may be
a little small as well. Paul Leyland is doing the last number with exponent
less than 200: 11,199-.

2004-08-13, 13:36   #4
Wacky

Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country

100010000012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Silverman Paul Leyland is doing the last number with exponent less than 200: 11,199-.
Actually, Paul reserved that number for NFSNET. It is going to be our next number.

2004-08-13, 14:16   #5
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wacky Actually, Paul reserved that number for NFSNET. It is going to be our next number.
Hi,

Will you use x^5 - 11 or 11x^6 - 1? The latter should be better.

Bob

 2004-08-13, 15:12 #6 Wacky     Jun 2003 The Texas Hill Country 32·112 Posts Yes, we will be using the 6th degree polynomial.
2004-08-13, 16:18   #7
JHansen

Apr 2004
Copenhagen, Denmark

22×29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Silverman I'd like to see some numbers from the 2+ table(s) done. These tables have lagged behind others. Possible targets include 2, 709+, 2,716+, 2, 719+, 2,736+, 2,764+, 2,772+ although the first 3 may be a little small.
I'm currently doing 3,437+.c190, but I only have 5 machines to help sieving. Nevertheless I should finish that in about 3 weeks. After that I would like to have a swing at 2,709+

Jes Hansen

2004-08-13, 16:41   #8
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JHansen I'm currently doing 3,437+.c190, but I only have 5 machines to help sieving. Nevertheless I should finish that in about 3 weeks. After that I would like to have a swing at 2,709+ Jes Hansen
Hi,

What machines are you using? They seem a lot faster than mine. (1 GHz
Pentium III's).

Bob

2004-08-13, 21:19   #9
JHansen

Apr 2004
Copenhagen, Denmark

22×29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bob Silverman Hi, What machines are you using? They seem a lot faster than mine. (1 GHz Pentium III's). Bob
I'm not sure they are.

I'm using the idle time on our servers at the math dept. As far as I can recall they are a two-processor 1GHz and a four-processor 2GHz machine (I'm using the last processor for a ECM run ). Usualy there are a lot of other using them, so my available processing power is very fluctuating. However, since our summer holliday lasts until september, there aren't that many users right now.

I'm using Frankes lattice sievers with CWI post-processing tools, maybe that has some influence too?

Jes

Last fiddled with by JHansen on 2004-08-13 at 21:21

 2004-08-16, 11:29 #10 junky     Jan 2004 13310 Posts what's the estimated time for 11,199- ? in what using the 6th degree polynomial is better then the 5th ? it takes less time ?
2004-08-16, 11:47   #11
xilman
Bamboozled!

"πΊππ·π·π­"
May 2003
Down not across

11,027 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by junky what's the estimated time for 11,199- ? in what using the 6th degree polynomial is better then the 5th ? it takes less time ?
Estimated time: I don't know at the moment.

Now that we no longer have access to the cluster at Microsoft Research to run the linear algebra, I chose parameters for 11,199- which will make the matrix much smaller than would normally be the case but at the cost of requiring more sieving effort. There is no point in sieving rapidly if as a result we would have a matrix that could not be processed with the resources available.

The sextic polynomial does indeed make for less sieving than the quintic. This holds true irrespective of whether one optimizes for matrix size of sieving effort.

Paul

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:02.

Sun Dec 5 12:02:36 UTC 2021 up 135 days, 6:31, 0 users, load averages: 1.04, 0.98, 1.01