Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2022-04-24, 00:20   #34
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

32·547 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Please try A=28 separately from strat 2. I'd like to know the speed gained from start 2 on I=14. I expect A=28 would be slower than I=14 here, anyway; perhaps we can test-sieve that rather than run a full job.
OK. I have a c164 (685...) candidate and I should be able to start it running tomorrow. I'll run I=14 with adjust_strategy=2.

(For some reason, I had it in the back of my head that strategy=2 wouldn't work with I=14.)

2022-04-24, 01:21   #35
charybdis

Apr 2020

857 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis I expect A=28 would be slower than I=14 here, anyway; perhaps we can test-sieve that rather than run a full job.
Unfortunately I don't think that's something you can figure out by test-sieving, because A=28 should have a lower duplication rate. The crossover point for "time to find rels_wanted raw relations" is probably a few digits higher than the true crossover.

@EdH: I think you might need to take a look at your script, as all your summaries seem to include
Code:
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.

2022-04-24, 02:38   #36
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

32×547 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis . . . @EdH: I think you might need to take a look at your script, as all your summaries seem to include Code: Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
Indeed! I can't find where the report gets written in any of my scripts, but I do have a file with those values from sometime, that I harvest for each run. Thanks for catching that. I will definitely have to work on it. I might have to skip remdups4 and let Msieve report duplication and harvest the values from there.

 2022-04-24, 11:36 #37 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 114738 Posts OK, I'm losing it! The new candidate is the one I just factored. It got mixed into the list because it wasn't finished yet. I need to do some more work before I get to the next candidate.
 2022-04-24, 14:21 #38 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 32×547 Posts I have a c164 underway: Code: N = 712...<164 digits> tasks.I = 14 tasks.lim0 = 60000000 tasks.lim1 = 40000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.qmin = 10000000 tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10 tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000 tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 175000000
 2022-04-25, 13:19 #39 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 32×547 Posts Here's the next c164 (I=14 and adjust_strategy=2): Code: N = 712... <164 digits> tasks.I = 14 tasks.lim0 = 60000000 tasks.lim1 = 40000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.qmin = 10000000 tasks.filter.target_density = 170.0 tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160 tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10 tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000 Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 524425 Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 30333.8 Lattice Sieving: Total time: 4.46548e+06s (all clients used 4 threads) Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 175001545 Found 122488916 unique, 45564734 duplicate, and 0 bad relations. cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 8.11818879e-13
 2022-04-25, 14:18 #40 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 10101011100112 Posts Poly score 2.5% worse, but sieve time roughly 5% better. Nice! The next settings to test are A=28 and mfb1 = 89. A=28 is more important a test (mfb should not change sieve time very much).
2022-04-25, 16:12   #41
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

10011001110112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis . . . The next settings to test are A=28 and mfb1 = 89. A=28 is more important a test (mfb should not change sieve time very much).
Are you saying I should only change to A=28 first, or go ahead and change both, and with or without strategy=2?

 2022-04-25, 16:18 #42 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 172×19 Posts I think / hope each change should be independent- that is, you have determined strat 2 is faster (really, Charybdis determined this over a year ago), now it's the default. Next, try A = 28; once we know the best setting there, try mfb's. One change at a time with A/B comparisons give us "clear" evidence for what to use; once the big settings like A and lp are set, the little settings (mfb, starting Q, lambda, target rels) can be dialed in hopes of finding a few more % of speed.
2022-04-25, 16:55   #43
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

114738 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis I think / hope each change should be independent- that is, you have determined strat 2 is faster (really, Charybdis determined this over a year ago), now it's the default. Next, try A = 28; once we know the best setting there, try mfb's. One change at a time with A/B comparisons give us "clear" evidence for what to use; once the big settings like A and lp are set, the little settings (mfb, starting Q, lambda, target rels) can be dialed in hopes of finding a few more % of speed.
I just wanted to make sure I'm on the same page. The only thing I'll change for next time is A=28.

Again, I'm out of c164 candidates, I may have some lower c165s.

2022-04-25, 17:34   #44
charybdis

Apr 2020

857 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH I just wanted to make sure I'm on the same page. The only thing I'll change for next time is A=28.
A=28 should probably have a slightly lower qmin - maybe 7M? - as you'll be sieving a smaller range of Q. We'll see what Curtis says.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post henryzz CADO-NFS 6 2022-09-13 23:11 Shaopu Lin CADO-NFS 522 2021-05-04 18:28 EdH EdH 8 2019-05-20 15:07 skan Information & Answers 1 2013-10-22 07:00 R.D. Silverman Factoring 4 2008-11-06 12:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:44.

Wed Oct 5 18:44:08 UTC 2022 up 48 days, 16:12, 0 users, load averages: 0.70, 1.09, 1.19