mersenneforum.org Parameter explorations for CADO 165-170 digits
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-05-19, 02:22 #12 charybdis     Apr 2020 37410 Posts For what it's worth, here are the 95^128+1 factors: Code: p61 factor: 6257613858583898709261755903084673553330399368418555296798721 p109 factor: 8402352391630827885506737623084809472170424349385439829494702478551900066063207448078203277908726932399787521 I've submitted these to cownoise and factordb - not sure if there's anywhere else they should be sent.
 2020-05-19, 15:57 #13 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2·3·349 Posts cownoise and factordb are the only places I would submit it to. Thanks for the factors. Chris
 2020-06-28, 19:00 #15 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2×3×349 Posts I've decided to do 86^131-1 via NFS@Home. I've found the following poly (9 hours msieve-gpu searching): Code: n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001 # norm 1.306001e-16 alpha -8.871987 e 2.977e-13 rroots 3 skew: 162345250.84 c0: -577062733978460861005241440490749355102976512 c1: -12260826936151352820546357994499780916 c2: 178538325918319471247024945044 c3: 958590300841474414947 c4: -4423011255032 c5: 11844 Y0: -1770910298352749710979419014235215 Y1: 613792628360770487 type: gnfs The record e-score for 171 digits is 3.730e-13 so this is not too bad for a first try. If Max could see if he can spin it up I would be very grateful. Also is anyone interested in 24^179+1 ? If not I'll put it through NFS@Home in a week or so. Chris
2020-06-29, 01:32   #16
charybdis

Apr 2020

1011101102 Posts

Here are a couple better polys for 86^131-1:

Code:
n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001
skew: 41437836.858
c0: -5389519387337140565345516459794841317758000
c1: -143043284702103460455094028784037830
c2: 2239398228891059427583897507
c3: -889691908139885268641
c4: 3496913201934
c5: 95760
Y0: -1659129166378730128203133792666517
Y1: 1742363546744996502291193
# e 3.392e-13

n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001
skew: 3357702.047
c0: -112975106982991917173660977635799247400
c1: 111002282144221726406217931664406
c2: -64145260501719297021407541
c3: -30825474695526305746
c4: 4452459053820
c5: 543690
Y0: -823750842791353826106062726508889
Y1: 34863622316774006451893
# e 3.334e-13
Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 Also is anyone interested in 24^179+1 ? If not I'll put it through NFS@Home in a week or so.
I'll do it.

2021-05-10, 02:31   #17
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

32×541 Posts

Bur requested a 165 params file, so I attach a draft here.

If you use this file, please report:
1. Did filtering work the first time, or did CADO bounce back and forth between filtering and sieving? If filtering ran multiple times, how many relations were needed for sieving to finish?
2. What was the final-Q sieved?
3. What was the matrix size, in dimensions or "total weight"?

I'm still not sure if 3LP is useful in 165-170 digit range; CADO uses 3 large primes starting at 145 or 150 digits in the default files, so I ought to explore it. One of these days....
Attached Files
 params.c165.txt (2.1 KB, 42 views)

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2021-05-10 at 18:50

 2021-05-10, 06:06 #18 bur     Aug 2020 22×3×52 Posts Ok, I started the factorization. I think final q and the matrix properties can be looked up in the log file? Should I have cado do the linear algebra or doesn't it matter?
 2021-05-10, 14:35 #19 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 32·541 Posts Doesn't matter whether msieve or cado does the matrix; I use matrix size as a marker for whether target_relations was set too high or too low. Final Q can be found in the log, though it's not in the summary. It's easiest to find by scrolling up on the terminal window to find the last Q sieved before filtering.
 2021-05-10, 17:18 #20 bur     Aug 2020 22·3·52 Posts Currently sieving ETA is already saturday, 15th, but it usually increased significantly after a while. I report back once the factorization is finished.
 2021-05-17, 06:36 #21 bur     Aug 2020 22×3×52 Posts LA is still running, but everything seems to have gone fine: 1) the initial 220,000,000 relations were enough, no going back to sieving after the first filtering 2) last q-range was 66,450,000-66,460,000 3) Merged matrix has 5579102 rows and total weight 836915933 (150.0 entries per row on average) ETA for krylov is 8 hours from now, mksol will also take a while but I expect a total of less than 8 days. That's fast compared to the ~75 hours a C153 and a C154 took on the same machine. And a question: How do number of relations, matrix weight/density and time for LA depend on each other? From some posts it seems to me that having more relations allows for a matrix with higher density and those will result in shorte LA times. Is it like that? So increasing target_density will increase the number of required relations but decrease LA time?
 2021-05-17, 12:14 #22 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 32×541 Posts Having more available relations allows filtering to work harder, generating a smaller matrix. Setting target density higher explicitly tells filtering to work harder, but even holding target density fixed you'll get a smaller matrix from more relations. The catch is that it usually takes more time to gather those extra relations than one saves in LA phase. There's a productive amount of oversieving- when one is right at the cusp of building a matrix, a small number of extra relations has a fairly strong effect on matrix size, but diminishing returns sets in rather quickly. My previous GGNFS/msieve jobs around C165 have had matrices around 9M in size, so this job was rather strongly oversieved. We should cut rels_wanted to 210M for this file and see what matrix comes out. If you are interested in seeing the effect of the extra relations, zcat all your 220M relations out to a single file, and run msieve's filtering on the file to see what size matrix comes out. Then, restrict the number of relations msieve uses (via a filtering flag, see the -h option list for msieve) to 215, 210, 205 and let us know what size matrices pop out. I suggest a TD of 100 or so for msieve, but you might enjoy trying 100/110/120 on the full dataset to see how target_density affects matrix size. tasks.qmin can be changed down to 10M. I target a qmin-to-qmax ratio of 7 to 8; your final-Q of 66.5M suggests the chosen qmin of 17M was a little high. Smaller Q sieve faster but yield more duplicate relations, so changing tasks.qmin to 10M should make jobs run a little bit faster because 10-17M will produce more relations (and faster) than 59-66M. Since this job ran faster than expected (based on your ~155 digit experience) and Q is smaller than I expected, you may have found a lucky poly for this job. Thanks for your data report!

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post EdH CADO-NFS 127 2020-10-07 01:47 storm5510 Information & Answers 4 2019-11-30 21:32 ksteczk PrimeNet 6 2018-03-26 15:11 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 14 2010-09-29 19:56 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 11 2006-03-06 18:46

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:52.

Tue Aug 3 22:52:12 UTC 2021 up 11 days, 17:21, 0 users, load averages: 3.06, 3.20, 3.30