20150129, 10:03  #12 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
18EB_{16} Posts 
Another data point
C178 (aliquot 8352:1764), e=1.194e13
Sieved most of 45M135M with 15e, 32bit LP, alim=rlim=135M 295833904 relations, 260362638 unique Clique removal starts with 90079615 relations and 87419001 unique ideals Ends with 66639026 relations and 66080931 ideals 2way merge gets 37025791 relation sets and 36467696 unique ideals Full merge fails at density=120 Trying with lower densities, since rampup and rampdown times are a bit long just to throw more sieving at it; average yield here was 2.3 million relations per hour. So would be inclined to target 340M for next C178/32/15e. 
20150129, 13:23  #13 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6,379 Posts 
8352_1764: back into the pot
Density 110 gave the same 'found 256154 cycles, need 7678292' message at the fullmerge stage as density 120, so I queued up an extra 15MQ (hopefully an extra 50M relations)
However, density 100 did produce a matrix 2way merge gets 37025791 relation sets and 36467696 unique ideals Full merge gets 17477896 cycles, weight is about 1748071808 (100.02/cycle) ETA (three threads i7/2600) is around 373 hours, so in this case it's definitely worth waiting for the extra relations ... Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20150130 at 16:23 
20150131, 13:04  #14 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6,379 Posts 
170 digits, 14e
This is XYYXF_133_125, E=3.628e13
334275782 relations is not enough to generate a matrix at target density 120, though is enough for 110. Code:
td cycles 110 10586238 ETA 76 hours 100 10932238 90 11348238 80 11846238 70 12484238 
20150204, 23:18  #15 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6,379 Posts 
Oversieving results for XYYXF_133_125
At target density 120, adding more and more relations produces final matrix size
Code:
340M 10124877 360M 9575206 380M 9247366 400M 8942603 420M 8709511 440M two attempts, 10532521 w=87.41 460M three attempts, 11293415 w=66.44 467M four attempts, 10235253 w=90.61 
20150206, 05:06  #16 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11021_{8} Posts 
This work shows 32bit lp is reasonable for GNFS165 and up, if not lower. I've done a little trialsieving to locate the 3233 bit transition on 15e, and it is also much lower than standard procedure previously indicated. However, I have never solved a 10M+ matrix; do the larger matrices produced by using 33bit lp outweigh the time saved in sieving?
Can we have NFS@home run a 15e/33 GNFS178? I believe 33bit will require 5% less sieving, or better, at this size. I suppose the quantity of data produced by 33 bit jobs may not be worth the singledigit sievetime savings, but I think it's valuable to find the correct cutoffs if speed is the only concern. It may be possible to build matrices for 33bit jobs at this size with well under 600M relations. For the smaller case, I am about to try a SNFS220 with 31 bit lp, to compare with a SNFS219/30 bit I just completed. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20150206 at 05:09 Reason: fixed 500M > 600M, and noted GNFS178/32bit already done in this thread 
20150412, 07:13  #17  
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6,379 Posts 
Quote:
Never ask for extra sieving (as opposed to widening the range of an existing sieving job): the corollary of this is not to move numbers to queuedforpostprocessing or postprocessing stage until you actually have the timer counting down from an acceptable ETA on the box where you're running the linear algebra. Asking for extra sieving on the same polynomial under a different project name also appears to confuse the relationaccounting. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20150412 at 07:14 

20160105, 09:37  #18 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
18EB_{16} Posts 
Another data point
C260_131_97 (SNFS 260.3; 15e, 32): 318.7 million relations (249.8 unique) isn't enough to get to the cliqueremoval stage of filtering.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
GNFS targets which need more ECM  XYYXF  XYYXF Project  295  20171027 12:38 
3,697+ (GNFS 220.9)  pinhodecarlos  NFS@Home  0  20141224 19:13 
3,766+ (GNFS 215.5)  pinhodecarlos  NFS@Home  34  20140401 21:27 
64bit gnfslasieve*  mklasson  Factoring  81  20120506 21:30 
c97 GNFS not possible?  Andi47  Msieve  5  20090126 18:19 