mersenneforum.org Poly select and CADO sieving for 2,1165+ C217
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-02-20, 23:03 #67 swellman     Jun 2012 22×3×227 Posts I just pointed two machines at this task. Names: DESKTOP-C5KKONV DESKTOP-B1R3FI2 All seems to be working. Happy factoring!
 2020-02-20, 23:38 #68 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 1011110001112 Posts I pointed a few cores at you for a little while, as well: math##.math## Last fiddled with by EdH on 2020-02-20 at 23:40
 2020-02-21, 00:39 #69 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 32·5·67 Posts I think I broke it. I await a verdict. . .
 2020-02-21, 03:01 #70 swellman     Jun 2012 22·3·227 Posts My machines lost contact...had to retask one of my machines as it didn’t meet recommended memory specs. DESKTOP-B1R3FI2 still active but seemingly just spinning in circles.
 2020-02-21, 03:24 #71 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 32×5×67 Posts I missed the memory requirement part. Are my machines too weak to play? I hope that wasn't what broke it. . . I have been having troubles with the latest CADO-NFS revision stopping handing out WUs. I did not have that trouble with my previous revision.
 2020-02-21, 05:08 #72 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 2·72·41 Posts Memory requirement is likely 24GB for the system, as the process takes just under 20GB according to top. Since only 80 or so workunits had been completed when we ran the job out of failed units, I decided to restart the job at Q=5.08M. I can just cat the relations from the first folder together with these when I send them to Greg. When perusing the log, I noticed that every workunit included a mention of buckets full, so I added bkmult=1.12 in an effort to reduce the number of retried/recalculated Q values. This should result in a single-digit percentage speed gain, though memory use may be marginally higher (I'll edit this post once I find out). CADO is generating free relations now, and will be ready to hand out workunits on port 44455 within ten minutes or so. This time, the port is specified, so the inevitable server-kicking won't potentially change the port. Edit: WUs available. Memory use still 19.5GB according to top. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-02-21 at 05:26
 2020-02-21, 15:26 #73 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 301510 Posts Well, sorry if I caused a lot of reissue of WUs. I had an "interesting" time, here! I typically shut down about half my farm at night. When I shut them down last night many were the ones I had tasked with this project. They went off line, but this morning, I found them back on and tying up the LAN. They were trying to get work again. I had to physically unplug, hold power buttons and reboot to get them operating normally again. I'll try to pay more attention next time. . .
 2020-02-21, 18:04 #74 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 11BA16 Posts When the time comes you can direct your efforts to mersenneforum team at NFS@Home by running BOINC client. https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs...hp?teamid=2082
 2020-02-24, 21:05 #75 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 37458 Posts OK, I realized that I'm a bit of an idiot. This is a GNFS sextic at the edge of where we should be using a sextic, so the algebraic side is going to be by far the largest. So we need to choose q's on that side, and put the 3LPs on that side. That's not what I did. So with the proper parameters, this one isn't that hard at all. Even with my usual lower-memory parameters below, q of up to 3.5 billion are enough. That's officially routine for NFS@Home. Code: alim: 250000000 rlim: 250000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 67 mfba: 96 rlambda: 2.8 alambda: 3.7 Sorry for all the inconvenience!
 2020-02-25, 05:21 #76 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 2×72×41 Posts OK, I've restarted CADO at Q=5.5M with the new lim values. Due to ignorance, I left CADO to sieve on its default side, which happened to be the algebraic side. That might explain why I was 4x faster than the -r side ggnfs test sieve! I have 3M or so relations from Q=5M to nearly 5.5M. I'm starting at 5.5M in case those relations are useful; if they're not (I don't think they are), I can run 4-5.5M if time permits. The usual address (same as C207 from last summer), port 44455. EDIT: I was paying even less attention than I thought- I also had set mfba to 96. I originally flipped side 0 and side 1 on CADO, not for the first time, so I accidentally ran the params Greg has recently specified, except for lim's at 536M rather than 250M. That lim is the only change is why I think there's a tiny chance the first 3M rels I gathered may be useful. For those watching at home: Side 0 is rational, side 1 is algebraic. See the params.c90 file for more details. Default sieve side is side 1 (if left unspecified). Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-02-25 at 05:30
 2020-02-25, 05:59 #77 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 43·47 Posts They absolutely are useful. As long as the polynomial is correct, the relations will be valid. Sieving on a different side with different limits will still produce valid relations. In fact, it's quite useful to sieve the lower q that you are doing with higher limits as long as the higher memory use isn't a problem. So you might to back to sieving on the algebraic side with 536M limits and 3 large primes on the algebraic side.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post swellman Cunningham Tables 51 2020-03-22 22:09 VBCurtis Operation Kibibit 25 2020-01-07 01:57 VBCurtis Cunningham Tables 68 2019-09-15 07:10 amphoria YAFU 22 2016-09-17 09:47 jux YAFU 5 2016-01-02 01:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:42.

Thu Apr 9 20:42:03 UTC 2020 up 15 days, 18:15, 1 user, load averages: 2.41, 2.00, 1.75