mersenneforum.org BOINC NFS sieving - NFS@Home
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-03-25, 07:32 #1915 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 23×641 Posts Just a note. Keep monitoring the less payable sievers since at least one of the big players is hitting hard on the small F, Greg too(for his post processing). Not sure if the French team is running or not for the team badges.
 2022-05-19, 12:03 #1916 swellman     Jun 2012 23·13·37 Posts SNFS 311 job for 16e_small C303_150_119 from the XYYXF project is a SNFS 311. It is one of ten remaining C3XX left in the XYYXF project, all of which have been run through ECM to t66+ by Yoyo and others, some to even higher levels. It is near (perhaps beyond?) the practical limit of the 16e_small siever. Best yield comes from a 34/34 job sieved on the rational side. Greg has agreed to let this job run, with a target of 2-2.1B relations. Code: n: 643864214334634268895374202342247423078904934597133752583128069256047803365128938205024001859004848051848833245470196507782923791701338997148666967666245375097001045160291064832511719269478532381478970673816809653020664057169299457025413360035912745471402021110752895305461548827923164133406738190535207 skew: 2.3051 type: snfs size: 311 c6: 1 c0: 150 Y1: -7738807338473109582614865884818187755242394882082999 Y0: 33252567300796508789062500000000000000000000 rlim: 225000000 alim: 225000000 lpbr: 34 lpba: 34 mfbr: 100 mfba: 68 rlambda: 3.8 alambda: 3.1 Results of test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000: Code: MQ Norm_yield Speed (sec/rel) 40 3987 0.479 60 3299 0.544 80 3046 0.576 100 2685 0.663 140 2381 0.733 180 2262 0.780 240 1881 0.902 300 1794 0.865 400 1533 0.986 500 1425 1.148 600 1343 1.155 800 1142 1.283 1000 1078 1.317 1200 1108 1.272 1400 950 1.450 1600 865 1.610 Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 40M-1610M to generate 2.1B raw relations. Which is a LOT of sieving. Any suggested improvements are welcome. I do not plan to post/enqueue this job until 16e_small digests its current tasks, as well as give other projects a chance to post. 2,2694M anyone? If something goes wrong with this job, e.g. high dup rate, we can always add relations by sieving over Q of say 40-400M on the -a side but that should be considered an emergency measure IMO. As this SNFS 311 job is roughly equivalent to a GNFS 203, I am surprised at how difficult it is to sieve. More to it than pure SNFS I suppose, the escore/awkwardness of the coefficients have an effect too.
2022-05-19, 12:47   #1917
charybdis

Apr 2020

39D16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman Any suggested improvements are welcome. I do not plan to post/enqueue this job until 16e_small digests its current tasks, as well as give other projects a chance to post. 2,2694M anyone? If something goes wrong with this job, e.g. high dup rate, we can always add relations by sieving over Q of say 40-400M on the -a side but that should be considered an emergency measure IMO. As this SNFS 311 job is roughly equivalent to a GNFS 203, I am surprised at how difficult it is to sieve. More to it than pure SNFS I suppose, the escore/awkwardness of the coefficients have an effect too.
Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that SNFS 311 is similar difficulty to GNFS 203; that would be a ratio of 0.65 rather than the more normal 0.68-0.69. Secondly, this isn't SNFS 311, it's SNFS 314 (did you forget that you multiplied up by 150?). That suggests a GNFS difficulty of 213-216, so no wonder it's probably too big for 16e-small. I'd suggest asking Greg if he could put this on the main 16e queue as it will sieve much faster there; it would hold up 16e-small for a couple of months at least.

I'm hoping to test-sieve 2,2694M in the coming days.

2022-05-19, 13:45   #1918
swellman

Jun 2012

23·13·37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that SNFS 311 is similar difficulty to GNFS 203; that would be a ratio of 0.65 rather than the more normal 0.68-0.69.
I and others use SNFS = (GNFS-30)*1.8

It’s an old rule of thumb, though I can’t speak to its accuracy. Maybe it breaks down above GNFS 200?

Quote:
 Secondly, this isn't SNFS 311, it's SNFS 314 (did you forget that you multiplied up by 150?). That suggests a GNFS difficulty of 213-216, so no wonder it's probably too big for 16e-small.
I was using the standard convention with xyyx numbers SNFS = x*log(y) for difficulty, plus 311 is what Yafu spit out for this particular polynomial (there’s an error in Yafu’s SNFS diff calculation method when Cn > 1 though that’s not the case here). Y0 is -150^20 and Y1 is 119^25. But even a SNFS 314 is ~GNFS 204 again using the above rule of thumb.

But I concede that this would be a brutally difficult job for 16e_small.

Quote:
 I'd suggest asking Greg if he could put this on the main 16e queue as it will sieve much faster there; it would hold up 16e-small for a couple of months at least.
No doubt the main 16e siever can run this considerably faster. The point of the exercise is to define the upper limit for 16e_small. But you’ve pointed out the ugly part of a job this size - it will definitely hold up things for 8-10 weeks.

Quote:
 I'm hoping to test-sieve 2,2694M in the coming days.
Excellent.

 2022-05-19, 14:00 #1919 swellman     Jun 2012 1111000010002 Posts I’m not trying to finesse this past anyone here - if folks voice their discontent about enqueuing a job this difficult then I won’t do it. @charybdis does not seem in favor of the idea. Greg has agreed to let 16e_small sieve it but perhaps it is a bridge too far, sucking up too many community resources for a single outlier data point. We could sneak up on the upper SNFS limit for 16e_small with say SNFS 295, 300, 395 etc jobs. Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-05-19 at 17:20 Reason: Misspelling
2022-05-19, 15:34   #1920
charybdis

Apr 2020

52·37 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman I and others use SNFS = (GNFS-30)*1.8 It’s an old rule of thumb, though I can’t speak to its accuracy. Maybe it breaks down above GNFS 200?
I think that must have been intended for smaller, personal-size jobs. It breaks down well below GNFS-200; for example, it suggests GNFS-185 = SNFS-279, and having run both, I can tell you that SNFS-279 is close to twice as hard. NFS@Home data will tell a similar story. A ratio of 0.685 is about right for the numbers I've run in the GNFS 175-190 and SNFS 260-280 range.

For SNFS-310+ you can start directly comparing e-scores for sextics against degree 6 GNFS polynomial scores, which again suggests your XYYX number is comparable to roughly GNFS-216.

Quote:
 I was using the standard convention with xyyx numbers SNFS = x*log(y) for difficulty, plus 311 is what Yafu spit out for this particular polynomial (there’s an error in Yafu’s SNFS diff calculation method when Cn > 1 though that’s not the case here). Y0 is -150^20 and Y1 is 119^25.
SNFS difficulty = log(Y1^d * f(Y0/Y1)) where f is the algebraic poly and d is its degree. Your poly isn't really for 150^119 + 119^150, it's for 150^120 + 150*119^150, which gives the correct difficulty.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2022-05-19 at 15:36 Reason: added log

 2022-05-19, 15:36 #1921 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 2×5×563 Posts I don't see a hard limit as a concept for any of the sievers- before the era of f-small, we showed that 15e can handle GNFS-198 and similar-sized SNFS. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, because there are faster ways to handle those jobs. The same seems true here- f-small *can* handle this job, but why choose a slower queue when a faster one exists? By the time we're below yield 2.0 on 34LP, there's no doubt that larger lim's are desirable. That said, my disposition (beyond nfs@home or this forum) is to prioritize efficiency over "can I do this?", so maybe that's why I think this job isn't a great idea on f-small.
 2022-05-19, 17:17 #1922 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 72×53 Posts The queue for 16e is long. In terms of calendar time, it would be completed more quickly in 16e_small.
2022-05-19, 17:55   #1923
charybdis

Apr 2020

92510 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by frmky The queue for 16e is long. In terms of calendar time, it would be completed more quickly in 16e_small.
...but many other numbers would be completed 10 weeks later in calendar time as a result. If this was some "high-priority" number - for example, if an original base-2 Cunningham had been knocked down to c215 after an ECM hit - then there would be a case for getting it done quickly, but as it stands I don't see why this number should be given special treatment.

 2022-05-28, 16:34 #1924 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2·1,213 Posts Is something wrong with escatter11.fullerton.edu? Code: $ping escatter11.fullerton.edu ping: escatter11.fullerton.edu: Temporary failure in name resolution I can connect to other sites such as here so I think it's not my internet connection. 2022-05-28, 17:59 #1925 swellman Jun 2012 384810 Posts Quote:  Originally Posted by chris2be8 Is something wrong with escatter11.fullerton.edu? Code: $ ping escatter11.fullerton.edu ping: escatter11.fullerton.edu: Temporary failure in name resolution I can connect to other sites such as here so I think it's not my internet connection.
It’s offline for me as well.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post thomasn NFS@Home 1 2013-10-02 15:31 debrouxl NFS@Home 621 2012-12-14 23:44 masser Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5 1 2009-02-09 01:10 KEP Twin Prime Search 212 2007-04-25 10:29 bebarce Software 3 2005-12-15 18:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:55.

Mon Jan 30 21:55:14 UTC 2023 up 165 days, 19:23, 0 users, load averages: 2.16, 1.49, 1.25