20071221, 00:05  #1 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2^{2}·3·23^{2} Posts 
6^383+1 by GNFS is complete. Thanks!
I think the present sieving is sufficient, and we're getting to Q values large enough to get diminishing returns; so please don't reserve any more ranges unless you have access to gnfslasieve4I15e, and in that case try things in the 20M25M range.
I think we need 200 million relations; we get slightly under two relations per Q on average, so reservations should be within the range 25M  140M (initially I estimated slightly over two relations per Q, so an upper limit of 125M, but the dropoff of relations with Q is a bit faster than I expected). Reservations Code:
[5e8,5e8] x [1,2500] linesieve fivemack [completed, 1969966 relations, see discussion below] 24M  25M fivemack @15e [completed, 4130624 relations] 25M  30M fivemack [completed, 15e sieve, 21039132 relations] 30M  55M smh [completed, 49516175 relations] 55M  60M fivemack @14e [completed, 9739894 relations] 60M  67M fivemack @14e [completed, 13204459 relations] 67M  70M bsquared [completed, 5513489 relations] 70M  72M andi47 [completed, 3628344 relations] 72M  75M jhansen [completed, 5386758 relations] 75M  80M jbristow [completed, 8814348 relations] 80M  86M andi47 [completed, 10285122 relations] 86M 100M akruppa [completed, 23176554 relations] 100M 120M akruppa [completed, 31232260 relations] 120M 122M fivemack [completed, 3034380 relations] 122M 130M smh [completed, 11836672 relations] 130M 132M bsquared [completed, 2961713 relations] 132M 135M fivemack @15e [completed, 11921570 relations] 135M 137M andi47 [completed, 2917655 relations] 137M 138M fivemack @14e [completed, 1450811 relations] 138M 140M fivemack @15e [completed, 6274349 relations] To sieve, use Code:
gnfslasieve4I14e o 55.56 a 6+383.job f 55000000 c 1000000 If your computer crashes midjob, look at the last hex number on the last full line of the output file '55.56', convert it to decimal, and use that as the 'f' when you start again; subtract from 'c' appropriately so that your range ends in the right place. (ie, if the output file ends Code:
12571943595,90442:da66c29,648802f,17455,55543,7,2B,47,3,3,B,B:11c54b27,84f9ac1,2A2D7,34565,67553,12B7B9,19CF,148D,5,5,1F,1F3,2,2,34DFF65 11386617209,23426:72c380b,4371 Code:
gnfslasieve4I14e o 55a.56 a 6+383.job f 55443301 c 556699 I reckon 1000 Q takes about eight CPUminutes on a 2.4GHz Core2, so a million takes a bit under a week on one such core. Uploading Connect by anonymous FTP to ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk, then do Code:
cd special/twomackrelations/esbjerg binary put relation.file As of 00:01 on 02 January 2008, I have in esbjerg completed relation files for 30.042.5, 6770, 7275 and additionally on my workstation 2528, 42.560.0, 6567 and 86120. I need to wait for some new hard drives to arrive before I can decompress and merge everything and get a really good idea of percentage completion, and my supplier's been a bit incompetent: maybe by the 9th? Collaborators, start your sieves! 6+383 file Code:
n: 230380135646168002240144238096238189782429580465812519176892278271650463794969643225877877269156894108094881082195219664775471894182470295616143804362949333632033489 skew: 210886.76 c5 11472718320 c4 3795305047120954 c3 2612363701552248486716 c2 107677876784557388243547221 c1 33277562211750204806364306268284 c0 547440910672314203689898814059115360 Y1 2391424041494417171 Y0 7253635851193924156735160443739 rlim: 50000000 alim: 50000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20080119 at 19:29 Reason: finish stats 
20071224, 15:45  #2 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2^{2}·3·23^{2} Posts 
I should have an upload mechanism in place by New Year  it requires a friend of mine to fiddle about with the filesystem configuration on his colocated machine, which will have to wait until after Christmas, and then you can upload the files by FTP. Until then, if you have web space that you can put files on, I can pull them down without trouble.

20071224, 18:03  #3 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
The 86M100M range is finished (looks like no one else is using the Grid5000 clusters over Christmas!), may I take 100M120M as well? If that's ok, I won't take more than this range as not to jeopardize the collaborative character of this effort.
Alex Last fiddled with by akruppa on 20071224 at 18:05 Reason: spelling 
20071224, 21:28  #4 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
1100011001100_{2} Posts 
That's quite spectacular performance. If I'd known there were resources on that scale available ...
[I'd have done exactly what I'm doing now  what I don't have is the parallel software for a trulylarge matrix] There's no virtue in not applying available resources; go ahead with 100M  120M. If you have resources of this scale, I presume 7269 has already succumbed ... do you feel like sieving 2^8411 ? (2x^6+1;x2^140, sp=50M lp=31, q_alg=25M175M ought to suffice ...) 
20071224, 22:04  #5 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
9A3_{16} Posts 
The problem is predicting availability. Yesterday and today there was almost no one else using the cluster in Bordeaux. That's about 400 Opteron cores I can use. If I use nodes at other locations as well it might be 1000 or more, enough to sieve a decent size project in a day. However, if other users start running their own jobs again I might not get an awful lot of cpu time for weeks. It's a gamble.
I'm not using those machines for NFS very much yet, mostly because I couldn't do all the postprocessing work. But if someone else is willing to handle the messy part... 7,269 is sieved and the matrix is running. I'm preparing 3,533 for sieving at the moment. Both are easy enough that I can do the postprocessing with the CWI tools I'm familiar with. The sq < 120M for 6^383+1 are finished as well, I'm trying to think of somewhere to put them for download. If you'll do the filtering and matrix and only need the relations for a bigger project, I'd gladly join and see how much cpu time I can grab. 2,841 is fine with me. Does it need more ECM first? Alex 
20071224, 22:51  #6 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2^{2}·3·23^{2} Posts 
Well, I've got a quadcore on order, and might as well go for 8GB memory for it  there are two 2G sticks sitting on my desk at work  at which point 2,841 shouldn't be an impossible filtering and matrix job, though the relations will be a cumbersome amount of data to move around. I don't know how much it's been ECMed, if you're in a position to start ECM tonight and switch to sieving in the morning, that might be the right combination.
Go for it; at worst I'll have to organise another phalanx of mersenneforum people in 2008 to mop up such relations as couldn't be done over xmas on the Grid. 
20071228, 21:05  #7 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2^{2}·3·23^{2} Posts 
This is now set up; instructions in the head post. Remember to set 'binary' when uploading compressed files. If you have any problems PM me. I have already got 86120 and 42.555, as well (obviously) as the regions I've sieved.

20071230, 12:20  #8 
Oct 2004
Austria
2×17×73 Posts 
Just a little statistics:
Code:
relations found so far: 90,508,868 completed size of search range: 52.5 million Q Relations per Q (average): 1.724 Range Size Relations Relations/Q 41M5  55M 13M5 26360160 1.953 55M  60M 5M 9739894 1.948 86M  100M 14M 23176554 1.655 100M  120M 20M 31232260 1.562 
20080101, 20:50  #9 
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
29×41 Posts 
Should we do any line sieving using msieve?

20080101, 23:25  #10 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2^{2}·3·23^{2} Posts 
Line sieving might not be a bad idea. I'm not at all sure about parameter choice; (10..90)thpercentile range of A and 5thpercentile range of B is a=10^10 .. 10^10, b=0..3000, but I've not done line sieving at all so I don't know how long that would take.

20080102, 00:01  #11  
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
2×3×587 Posts 
Quote:
A single line should take maybe a half hour, though very small b (< 100) could take a really long time. The siever will switch dynamically between two and three large primes, and to save time will perform a lot of precomputation up front. I've tested the code with 28bit large primes but using 31bit large primes could chew up a lot of memory. Note also that when the polynomial skew is very large then a huge portion of the relations found will be duplicated by the lattice siever, if b is chosen too large Feel free to PM me any generated logfiles if you'd like me to verify that things are behaving as expected. Last fiddled with by jasonp on 20080102 at 00:08 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
6^383+1 by GNFS (polynomial search; now complete)  fivemack  Factoring  20  20071226 10:36 
f14 complete  masser  Sierpinski/Riesel Base 5  2  20060423 16:05 
Complete Factorization???  Khemikal796  Factoring  13  20050415 15:21 
Factoring 1.#J% complete  Peter Nelson  Software  4  20050406 00:17 
61.5 thru 62m complete to 2^60  nitro  Lone Mersenne Hunters  0  20031207 13:50 