|
2018-07-19, 00:11
|
#463 | |
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
23·3·72 Posts |
Quote:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...8&postcount=25 |
|
|
|
|
2018-07-19, 12:08
|
#464 |
Jun 2012
32×7×47 Posts |
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
2018-07-21, 02:11
|
#465 | |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
52×11×17 Posts |
Quote:
If msieve-matrix-solving or any other non-GPU task uses appreciably more power (say, 420W or more), I'll let you know. |
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-28, 00:49
|
#466 | |
|
Jun 2012
296110 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-10, 22:49
|
#467 |
|
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
22308 Posts |
yafu376+msieve1028 Polysearch deadine per coefficient too large on a C120?
Code:
01/10/19 23:28:35 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-X9DRL-iF, System/Build Info: Using GMP-ECM 7.0.5-dev, Powered by GMP 6.1.2 detected Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz detected L1 = 32768 bytes, L2 = 20971520 bytes, CL = 64 bytes measured cpu frequency ~= 1999.915240 using 1 random witnesses for Rabin-Miller PRP checks =============================================================== ======= Welcome to YAFU (Yet Another Factoring Utility) ======= ======= bbuhrow@gmail.com ======= ======= Type help at any time, or quit to quit ======= =============================================================== cached 78498 primes. pmax = 999983 >> nfs(227010481295437363334259960947493668895875336466084780038173258247009162675779735389791151574049166747880487470296548479) nfs: commencing nfs on c120: 227010481295437363334259960947493668895875336466084780038173258247009162675779735389791151574049166747880487470296548479 nfs: searching for brent special forms... nfs: searching for homogeneous cunningham special forms... nfs: searching for XYYXF special forms... nfs: couldn't find special form nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 8192 - 8442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 8692 - 8942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 8942 - 9192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 9192 - 9442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 9442 - 9692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 10442 - 10692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 10192 - 10442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 11442 - 11692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 11942 - 12192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 11692 - 11942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 11192 - 11442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 9942 - 10192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 12442 - 12692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 12942 - 13192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 13192 - 13442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 13692 - 13942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 13442 - 13692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 9692 - 9942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 12192 - 12442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 12692 - 12942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 10692 - 10942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 14442 - 14692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 8442 - 8692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 10942 - 11192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 14192 - 14442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 13942 - 14192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 14692 - 14942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 14942 - 15192 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 15692 - 15942 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 15192 - 15442 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 15442 - 15692 nfs: commencing polynomial search over range: 15942 - 16192 deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient deadline: 8640000 CPU-seconds per coefficient coeff 12180 specialq 1 - 72504683 other 1014 - 2433 With the default parameters: nfs(a120digitnumber) only a few coeffs are done in 15mins. Somehow the deadline per coefficient seems way too high? In the end it finds a few polys. Code:
save 1.964811e-11 -6.9653 224848.77 2.848045e-10 rroots 5 save 1.927938e-11 -6.4808 123886.85 2.845866e-10 rroots 3 save 1.903205e-11 -6.1052 113493.47 2.830937e-10 rroots 3 save 2.143278e-11 -6.6286 119879.16 3.009189e-10 rroots 5 save 2.017982e-11 -5.5322 44129.01 2.945106e-10 rroots 5 |
|
|
|
|
2019-01-12, 03:20
|
#468 | ||
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3,371 Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Is 15-20 minutes too much for a c120? I've not kept up with this as much lately so I'd be happy to adjust the deadlines if they are not right. |
||
|
|
|
|
2019-01-12, 03:39
|
#469 | |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3,371 Posts |
Quote:
Here is the deadline table: Code:
static const poly_deadline_t time_limits[] = {
// bits, seconds
{248, 1 * 60}, // 74 digits
{264, 2 * 60}, // 80 digits
{304, 6 * 60}, // 92 digits
{320, 15 * 60}, // 97 digits
{348, 30 * 60}, // 105 digits
{365, 1 * 3600}, // 110 digits
{383, 2 * 3600}, // 116 digits
{399, 4 * 3600}, // 120 digits
{416, 8 * 3600}, // 126 digits
{433, 16 * 3600}, // 131 digits
{449, 32 * 3600}, // 135 digits
{466, 64 * 3600}, // 140 digits
{482, 100 * 3600}, // 146 digits
{498, 200 * 3600}, // 150 digits
{514, 300 * 3600}, // 155 digits
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-01-12, 03:52
|
#470 |
|
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3,371 Posts |
I should maybe also (re-)mention that if you don't want to search for a fixed time, you can use the -psearch option with either min,avg, or good as a qualifier. yafu will stop when it finds a {min,avg,good} poly for the input number.
min,avg,good are chosen based on Batalov's heuristic. -psearch min --> uses a multiplier of 1 to that fit -psearch avg --> uses a multipler of 1.036 -psearch good --> uses a multiplier of 1.072 Just now, with that c120, I found a "min" poly of score = 2.937000e-010 in 3 minutes (8 threads), after searching a range of only a thousand coefficients or so. That actually just barely missed being qualified "avg". On the start of the job the heuristic said the following, so the poly fits in the range expected: nfs: expecting degree 5 poly E from 2.87e-010 to > 3.30e-010 best poly: # norm 2.039066e-011 alpha -6.282017 e 2.937e-010 rroots 5 n: 227010481295437363334259960947493668895875336466084780038173258247009162675779735389791151574049166747880487470296548479 skew: 95431.04 c0: -46602088970638410228907101375 c1: 643792960629014034531255 c2: 64059317395932803683 c3: 49937622929009 c4: -7589830536 c5: 9108 Y0: -120039626008868252603764 Y1: 93171618323 Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2019-01-12 at 04:20 |
|
|
|
|
2019-02-03, 16:52
|
#471 | |
|
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
23×3×72 Posts |
Sorry, for being vague and not replying sooner.
Yes, I did indeed mean that YAFU was spending too much time in polysearch in relation to the whole factorization. This is especially prevalent for smaller composites. But this could also be caused by me using a 16core/32 threads machine (Ubuntu). For instance with RSA-120 Code:
02/03/19 14:41:16 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing nfs on c120: 227010481295437363334259960947493668895875336466084780038173258247009162675779735389791151574049166747880487470296548479 02/03/19 14:41:16 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing poly selection with 32 threads 02/03/19 14:41:16 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: setting deadline of 13500 seconds 02/03/19 14:41:16 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: expecting degree 5 poly E from 2.87e-10 to > 3.30e-10 02/03/19 14:41:16 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: searching for min quality poly E > 2.87e-10 02/03/19 15:27:25 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: completed 80 ranges of size 50 in 2768.6909 seconds 02/03/19 15:27:25 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: best poly = # norm 2.225654e-11 alpha -6.557326 e 3.097e-10 rroots 5 02/03/19 15:27:25 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:29:12 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:30:59 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:32:46 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:34:27 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:36:21 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:38:04 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:39:51 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:41:37 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:43:26 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:45:18 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:47:07 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:48:56 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:50:45 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:52:30 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:54:25 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:56:17 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:58:09 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 15:59:55 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:01:41 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:03:30 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:05:24 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:07:17 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:09:10 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:11:04 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:12:58 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:14:45 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:16:35 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:18:19 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:20:12 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:22:05 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:23:55 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:25:48 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:27:39 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:29:28 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:31:23 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:33:22 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:35:10 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:37:11 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing msieve filtering 02/03/19 16:40:33 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: raising min_rels by 5.00 percent to 10631389 02/03/19 16:40:33 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:42:24 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing lattice sieving with 32 threads 02/03/19 16:44:20 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing msieve filtering 02/03/19 16:48:21 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing msieve linear algebra 02/03/19 16:57:21 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, nfs: commencing msieve sqrt 02/03/19 16:59:22 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, prp60 = 693342667110830181197325401899700641361965863127336680673013 02/03/19 16:59:22 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, prp60 = 327414555693498015751146303749141488063642403240171463406883 02/03/19 16:59:22 v1.35-beta @ Supermicro-Xeon-E5-2650, NFS elapsed time = 8286.1046 seconds. 2769/8286 = 33.4% of the time. It should've been about 10-15% of the time. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-02-08, 16:01
|
#472 | |
May 2009
Russia, Moscow
253710 Posts |
YAFU doesn't want to work in non-interactive mode anymore
 For example, I try to run Code:
nohup ./yafu "siqs(293419538711649676999906520094386008543357306311770882385495238269039165018900436212239)" > /dev/null & nohup.out Quote:
Last fiddled with by unconnected on 2019-02-08 at 16:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
2019-11-13, 11:53
|
#473 |
|
May 2009
Russia, Moscow
253710 Posts |
While use YAFU v.1.35-beta for batch factoring it always crashes after factoring ~400 numbers.
Used options: ./yafu "factor(@)" -batchfile list -pretest 25 -of out.txt -ou uf.txt -op pr.txt -threads 4 Output: Code:
=== Starting work on batchfile expression === factor(5021087590407124764178007739509945482906763851099037519643121525646762264313367379245411902455705415) ============================================= fac: factoring 5021087590407124764178007739509945482906763851099037519643121525646762264313367379245411902455705415 fac: using pretesting plan: normal fac: custom pretesting limit is: 25 fac: using tune info for qs/gnfs crossover div: primes less than 10000 fmt: 1000000 iterations rho: x^2 + 3, starting 1000 iterations on C99 rho: x^2 + 2, starting 1000 iterations on C99 rho: x^2 + 1, starting 1000 iterations on C99 pm1: starting B1 = 150K, B2 = gmp-ecm default on C99 ecm: 30/30 curves on C99, B1=2K, B2=gmp-ecm default ecm: 74/74 curves on C99, B1=11K, B2=gmp-ecm default fopen error: Too many open files could not open factor.log for appending 11/13/19 14:37:36 v1.35-beta @ supercomp, current ECM pretesting depth: 15.18 11/13/19 14:37:36 v1.35-beta @ supercomp, scheduled 74 curves at B1=11000 toward target pretesting depth of 25.00 Segmentation fault (core dumped) Code:
[65250.281298] yafu[17356]: segfault at 0 ip 00000000005eb0e4 sp 00007ffdbdb86320 error 4 in yafu[400000+38d000] [65250.281309] Code: 33 0c 25 28 00 00 00 89 f0 75 0a 48 81 c4 d8 00 00 00 5b 5d c3 e8 fc 11 05 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 90 41 54 55 53 <8b> 07 48 89 fb f6 c4 20 0f 85 a6 00 00 00 89 c2 81 e2 00 80 00 00 Code:
$ ./yafu 11/13/19 14:39:39 v1.35-beta @ supercomp, System/Build Info: Using GMP-ECM 7.0.4, Powered by GMP 6.1.2 detected Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8650U CPU @ 1.90GHz detected L1 = 32768 bytes, L2 = 8388608 bytes, CL = 64 bytes measured cpu frequency ~= 2111.997520 Last fiddled with by unconnected on 2019-11-13 at 11:54 |
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Running YAFU via Aliqueit doesn't find yafu.ini | EdH | YAFU | 8 | 2018-03-14 17:22 |
| Where to report bugs | Matt | Software | 1 | 2007-02-20 19:13 |
| Possible Prime95 bugs | JuanTutors | Software | 9 | 2006-09-24 21:22 |
| RMA 1.7 beta bugs | TTn | 15k Search | 2 | 2004-11-24 22:11 |
| RMA 1.6 fixes LLR bugs! | TTn | 15k Search | 16 | 2004-06-16 01:22 |
Thanks to all for confirming the bug is gone in later versions of Yafu.
