mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-01-01, 01:37   #1893
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

2×1,301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos View Post
Can't reach the server, Greg?
Works for me.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-01, 01:44   #1894
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

120138 Posts
Default

It's up and down, just keep an eye since we have more than 100k wus to upload..lol
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-01, 02:30   #1895
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

A2A16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos View Post
It's up and down, just keep an eye since we have more than 100k wus to upload..lol
Just don't save them until the very end and overload the validator. If they validate after the deadline, then they don't count!
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-03, 19:52   #1896
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·52·7·11 Posts
Default

Is it ok to download files for LA now, or is it better to wait until the challenge is over?
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-03, 21:15   #1897
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

7·733 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Is it ok to download files for LA now, or is it better to wait until the challenge is over?

It's fine now, thank you.
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-14, 12:03   #1898
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1111000010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Haven't test-sieved this but I agree that the octic should be looked at too. From a small amount of test-sieving on 7,395+/- (diff. 268, the smallest remaining Cunningham quartics before the base-2 extension), the quartic appears to have a slight edge over the octic, but this is partly because the octic has larger coefficients, the largest being 7^4 = 2401. For 2,2622L, the quartic and octic have the same non-zero coefficients.

By the time you get to 2,1180+ (diff. 285), the octic is ~3 times faster than the quartic.
Bumping this topic back to the surface. Can someone post the octic? I am willing to run comparative testing on the quartic vs octic for 2,2622L.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-14, 15:17   #1899
jyb
 
jyb's Avatar
 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

2·13·71 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
Bumping this topic back to the surface. Can someone post the octic? I am willing to run comparative testing on the quartic vs octic for 2,2622L.
Code:
n: 3505977787209285091968931818986424997941305592162629858046013444282658804478379353491428452055056465267944599831189031983991025125888045576382102814280868751028405287402991369503492629479884494160042055556595085696787940484104369
skew: 0.84090
c8: 4
c6: -4
c4: 2
c2: -2
c0: 1
Y1: 1
Y0: -649037107316853453566312041152512
jyb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-25, 22:25   #1900
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

7×733 Posts
Default

Good to check this year at least for the 16eV5 Siever more CPU is allocated. Hope it is not cycled but instead upgrades from Christmas. Was wondering when we would achieve a steady 100k wus per day, this would be awesome.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2022-01-25 at 22:26
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-15, 18:03   #1901
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2×52×7×11 Posts
Default

I've completed test sieving of 2,2622L, the next Cunningham job suggested by Sam Wagstaff. Based on discussions in this forum, I ran some comparative tests between the quartic and octic. Initial tries used 34-bit but ultimately I found 33-bit to be feasible.

For the quartic, the best performance was on the rational side came from using this set of parameters:

Code:
n: 3505977787209285091968931818986424997941305592162629858046013444282658804478379353491428452055056465267944599831189031983991025125888045576382102814280868751028405287402991369503492629479884494160042055556595085696787940484104369
skew: 1.414
type: snfs
size: 263
c4: 1
c3: -2
c2: 2
c1: -4
c0: 4
Y1: 1
Y0: -842498333348457493583344221469363458551160763204392890034487820288
rlim: 225000000
alim: 225000000
lpbr: 34
lpba: 34
mfbr: 100
mfba: 68
rlambda: 3.8
alambda: 3.1
When sieved on the rational side over a Q block of 1000 (with Q0=100M) using a version of ggnfs with the lpb limit of 33 removed, the following results were realized

Code:
Total yield: 3393
53 Special q
0.575 sec/ral
Normalized yield: 3475

And for the octic, using the following poly file on the algebraic side:

Code:
n: 3505977787209285091968931818986424997941305592162629858046013444282658804478379353491428452055056465267944599831189031983991025125888045576382102814280868751028405287402991369503492629479884494160042055556595085696787940484104369
skew: 0.84090
type: snfs
size: 263
lss: 0
c8: 4
c6: -4
c4: 2
c2: -2
c0: 1
Y1: 1
Y0: -649037107316853453566312041152512
rlim: 225000000
alim: 225000000
lpbr: 34
lpba: 34
mfbr: 68
mfba: 100
rlambda: 3.1
alambda: 3.8
Again using the modified ggnfs siever with Q in a block of 1000 (with Q0=100M) on the algebraic side:

Code:
Total yield: 8912
76 Special q
0.356 sec/rel
Normalized yield: 6366
While the yield of each job listed above could be slightly improved, the octic seems the better choice by far. So I ignored the quartic going forward.


I then worked in the 33-bit arena in an attempt to make this job a smaller monster. Running it as a 32/33 job, the yield dropped below 1.0 at the higher Q so in the end I went with 33/33.

Please note that I was testing with my Yafu rig, using the "standard" ggnfs sievers. I was forced to use mfba = 96, but NFS@Home will likely get better yield since it can use mfba = 97. Not sure how big a difference this fact will ultimately make.

Code:
n: 3505977787209285091968931818986424997941305592162629858046013444282658804478379353491428452055056465267944599831189031983991025125888045576382102814280868751028405287402991369503492629479884494160042055556595085696787940484104369
skew: 0.84090
type: snfs
size: 263
lss: 0
c8: 4
c6: -4
c4: 2
c2: -2
c0: 1
Y1: 1
Y0: -649037107316853453566312041152512
rlim: 316000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 66
mfba: 96
rlambda: 3.0
alambda: 3.7
Results of test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield      Speed (sec/rel)
50          3009              0.845
60          2985              0.834
100         2733              0.940
150         2468              1.034
200         1732              1.363
300         1555              1.394
400         1446              1.651
500         1165              1.913
600         1055              1.874
Suggesting a sieving range of 50-620M to produce 950M raw relations.

Greg tells me he prefers a target # of raw relations ~1 billion when sieving 33/33 jobs, but I suggest using mfba = 97 with Q=50-620M in the enqueued job - we can later bump up Q if it proves necessary.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-02-15 at 18:05 Reason: Added Q0 values
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-15, 18:37   #1902
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

11101000012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
While the yield of each job listed above could be slightly improved, the octic seems the better choice by far. So I ignored the quartic going forward.
When test-sieving a quartic against an octic, it is absolutely essential to compare a wide range of Q values. As you observed here, the yield from the octic drops off massively at higher Q. This doesn't happen nearly as much with a quartic. Picking a single low Q value for the comparison will always make the octic look better and the quartic worse than they really are.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-15, 19:15   #1903
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23·3·5·47 Posts
Default

Neither a large quartic nor a "small" octic should sieve with the same lim/LP size on both sides. Comparing the two is interesting, since the side to imbalance reverses for octic vs quartic; I wonder if a total mirror-image of params, like 32/34 vs 34/32, is the way to compare the two.

You should pick the LP size that best avoids the low-yield large Q for the octic- it's not like 33/34 is going to make a notably larger matrix than 33/33, but it could shrink max-Q by 10%. I wonder if 32/34 is faster than 33/33, too.
VBCurtis is offline   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 15:33.


Mon Feb 6 15:33:52 UTC 2023 up 172 days, 13:02, 1 user, load averages: 1.08, 1.17, 1.19

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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