mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-03-25, 07:32   #1915
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

3·1,693 Posts
Default

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.
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 12:03   #1916
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3×1,231 Posts
Default 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.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 12:47   #1917
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

15318 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
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.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 13:45   #1918
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3×1,231 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
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.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 14:00   #1919
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3×1,231 Posts
Default

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
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 15:34   #1920
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

857 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
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
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 15:36   #1921
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·1,373 Posts
Default

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.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 17:17   #1922
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

46648 Posts
Default

The queue for 16e is long. In terms of calendar time, it would be completed more quickly in 16e_small.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-19, 17:55   #1923
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

857 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
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.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-28, 16:34   #1924
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

2,393 Posts
Default

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.
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-05-28, 17:59   #1925
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

71558 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris2be8 View Post
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.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


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

All times are UTC. The time now is 09:53.


Thu Oct 6 09:53:06 UTC 2022 up 49 days, 7:21, 0 users, load averages: 1.09, 1.03, 1.12

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔