mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-09-11, 19:04   #45
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

24×139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Does anyone envision it attempting (say) the RSA-768 effort that is
now underway?
The big restriction with BOINC is that the application needs to run on commonly deployed hardware. Today, that appears to be a dual core computer with 2-3 GB of memory. I can specify that a work unit not be sent to a computer with less than X MB of memory, so in principle it is feasible as long as the memory use of the siever can be kept in the Win32 limit of 3GB per process. Of course, though, I want to exercise the infrastructure and grow a userbase with more reasonable targets first.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-11, 20:57   #46
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

222410 Posts
Default

The first factors are in. 2,2214L factors as

87-digit prime factor:
650129030757448838848987009049036364296974617097033424890396170500076127717454884707697

104-digit prime factor:
11946827680341235646112762882603877501599655320760206302298918228497279186673314456312477897500132634593

Greg
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-11, 21:05   #47
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

2×3×163 Posts
Default

FWIW, for the 512-bit RSA keys of rsals, each WU (gnfs-lasieve4I14e, 32-bit) usually took less than 150 MB of RAM.

frmky: nice
How much raw CPU time for gnfs and for msieve ?

Last fiddled with by debrouxl on 2009-09-11 at 21:12
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-11, 21:23   #48
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

24·139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debrouxl View Post
How much raw CPU time for gnfs and for msieve ?
The community contributed about 140 days of CPU time to the sieving. msieve took 2 days to do the filtering, linear algebra, and square roots. For reference, this was about as difficult as 492-bit RSA would be, so a bit easier than RSA-512.

The sieving for 5,353+ is nearly done. For that one, the community has contributed about 2 years of CPU time. For reference, that is about as difficult as 547-bit RSA would be.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-11, 23:38   #49
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

22·32·179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
However, I don't see NFS@HOME as being a leading edge research tool.
Does anyone envision it attempting (say) the RSA-768 effort that is
now underway?
As I presume you're intending to point out, there are two hard parts of the RSA-768 effort: software development for the matrix-production step (http://cado.gforge.inria.fr/workshop...montgomery.pdf gives a decent idea of the problems involved, though with perhaps a bit much concentration on the square-root step which is likely to be practical using direct methods on the large shared-memory supercomputer that you'd need anyway for the matrix), and grantsmanship to get access to a machine big enough and fast enough (the slides mention a 256GB 64 x Power5 box at SARA and mention that that might not be enough) to solve the ~300M^2 matrix in reasonable time. If anyone can do that, the Lenstra-CADO-Montgomery-Aoki team can - it's pretty much all the people who've worked on serious-scale GNFS lined up in the same direction.

The sieving is however (as I've heard attributed, but not citably, to Churchill) a matter of applying increasingly great resources to a well-understood problem. http://ludwig-sun1.unil.ch/~hstockin/crypto/ has information about one of the grant requests for doing the sieving, on a grid;

Quote:
Resources required per job:

* x86 or x86-64 processor (preferred)
* 1GB RAM, 600MB swap, 450MB disk
* Operating system: Linux (preferred), FreeBSD, Windows
* Ownership: Jens Franke, Thorsten Kleinjung, Free Software Foundation, GPL v2, LGPL

Expected timelines: The expected timeline depends on the resources that would be available. We can start any moment. We expect that we need between 1500 and 2500 CPU years (depending on the type of processor used).
2500 CPU-years is eminently reasonable for a popular BOINC project, it would take a month or so for PrimeGrid as currently constituted.

Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2009-09-11 at 23:39
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 00:11   #50
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

59×163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
The first factors are in. 2,2214L
Too easy, Greg!
Congratulations, great stuff!
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 02:49   #51
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fivemack View Post
As I presume you're intending to point out, there are two hard parts of the RSA-768 effort: software development for the matrix-production step (http://cado.gforge.inria.fr/workshop...montgomery.pdf gives a decent idea of the problems involved, though with perhaps a bit much concentration on the square-root step which is likely to be practical using direct methods on the large shared-memory supercomputer that you'd need anyway for the matrix), and grantsmanship to get access to a machine big enough and fast enough .

The U.S. government gives access grants to large scale compute projects.
The grants are for the 80,000+ node (yes, 80,000 CPUs) supercomputer
at Oakridge. I suspect that this machine is big enough/fast enough.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 04:10   #52
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

24·139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
The U.S. government gives access grants to large scale compute projects.
I have had one small but successful NSF Teragrid grant. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to going for another.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 06:40   #53
10metreh
 
10metreh's Avatar
 
Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Could you quickly (a few hours) put an end to the c141 that is blocking aliquot sequence 4788? No-one seems to want to find a poly.
10metreh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 06:44   #54
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

134628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10metreh View Post
Could you quickly (a few hours) put an end to the c141 that is blocking aliquot sequence 4788? No-one seems to want to find a poly.
i was planning to do the poly search but i got distracted by my birthday
TBH it would take me a while to do a large enough poly search
if anyone fancies doing it quickly feel free
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-12, 14:21   #55
XYYXF
 
XYYXF's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus

24·52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by debrouxl View Post
Batalov: yeah, I'll easily admit that I haven't picked a lot of theory
Someone suggested a 149-digit xyyxf number at
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?sh...dpost&p=135938 (and later posts), so I just tried several other 150-160 digit numbers from the "wanted" list of that project, and wanted to feed them to the rsals grid so as to prevent starvation (and therefore people detaching, weakening the grid).
Hey people,

since I'm the coordinator of this project, please let me know if some new results appear :-)
XYYXF 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 13:52.


Sun Dec 5 13:52:41 UTC 2021 up 135 days, 8:21, 1 user, load averages: 1.19, 1.17, 1.30

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.