mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-10-18, 12:06   #133
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3×1,283 Posts
Default

See post 143 below for final polynomial selected for sieving

12+7,256 is a SNFS 276 composite from the HCN project. It is ready for sieving on 15e.

I test sieved this job twice, first as a 33/32 job and then as a 33/33.

33/32 case:

Code:
n: 14465784763601126977599055269783270532544641304323145978534145654240633858626527220916188279798148826301966069344878797378582866606395998179336371169145932268467416189620924711821304788176380624897
skew: 0.2992
type: snfs
size: 276
c6: 12544
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 6349413173626453466517503997664984086853189632
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 32
mfbr: 96
mfba: 64
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.4
Results of test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield
35          2457
50          2441
75          2240
100         2030
150         1756
200         1648
250         1458
300         1382
350         1293
400         1268
450         1211
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 35-475M to generate 700M raw relations.


Test sieved again as a 33/33 job:

Code:
n: 14465784763601126977599055269783270532544641304323145978534145654240633858626527220916188279798148826301966069344878797378582866606395998179336371169145932268467416189620924711821304788176380624897
skew: 0.2992
type: snfs
size: 276
c6: 12544
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 6349413173626453466517503997664984086853189632
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 96
mfba: 66
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.4
Results of this test sieving, again on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield
35          3414
50          3429
75          3137
100         2881
150         2506
200         2317
250         2035
300         1947
350         1817
400         1775
450         1686
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 35-450M to generate 940M raw relations.

As the 33/33 configuration used 25M less Q and had a healthier yield, I'm going with this second job file.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-23 at 11:12
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-20, 16:38   #134
jyb
 
jyb's Avatar
 
Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

184610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
12+7,256 is a SNFS 276 composite from the HCN project. It is ready for sieving on 15e.

I test sieved this job twice, first as a 33/32 job and then as a 33/33.

33/32 case:

Code:
n: 14465784763601126977599055269783270532544641304323145978534145654240633858626527220916188279798148826301966069344878797378582866606395998179336371169145932268467416189620924711821304788176380624897
skew: 0.2992
type: snfs
size: 276
c6: 12544
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 6349413173626453466517503997664984086853189632
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 32
mfbr: 96
mfba: 64
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.4
[snip]

As the 33/33 configuration used 25M less Q and had a healthier yield, I'm going with this second job file.
Setting aside the question of large prime bounds, I'm surprised at the choice of polynomials: that leading coefficient isn't huge, but it's bigger than it needs to be. Did you look at using either of these?
Code:
c6: 49
c0: 144
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 25397652694505813866070015990659936347412758528
Code:
c6: 196
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 12698826347252906933035007995329968173706379264
The latter of these has an identical SNFS difficulty to yours, the former's is slightly higher but may nonetheless turn out better with the smaller coefficient.

Last fiddled with by jyb on 2022-10-20 at 16:40
jyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-20, 16:53   #135
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1111000010012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jyb View Post
Setting aside the question of large prime bounds, I'm surprised at the choice of polynomials: that leading coefficient isn't huge, but it's bigger than it needs to be. Did you look at using either of these?
Code:
c6: 49
c0: 144
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 25397652694505813866070015990659936347412758528
Code:
c6: 196
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 12698826347252906933035007995329968173706379264
The latter of these has an identical SNFS difficulty to yours, the former's is slightly higher but may nonetheless turn out better with the smaller coefficient.
The SNFS polynomial was provided by Yafu. Except for obligatory quartics, Yafu runs through dozens, or in some cases, over a hundred polynomials before test sieving the “best” three (two sextics and one quintic). Usually gives good results, guess things were a little messier in this case.

ETA: I’ll be happy to test sieve the other two cases you mention. If it saves 10MQ it’s worth checking.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-20 at 17:11
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-21, 20:59   #136
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

B4D16 Posts
Default

See posts 137-142 below

C190 from aliquot sequence 785232:i11573 is ready for 15e queue:

Code:
n: 4924615299710155724242041611093792534228929027833793207209717741579479862664806712426989267280154775007779415785841244751833760998628602996813364136776619527437902426854181741931202256338971
Y0: -4816798648132866790605815531348495563
Y1: 1711431772495717393
c0: -6560899350388287964076509886023554467783604240
c1: -124813949570426726344271243947893318876
c2: 5758067944148696689000856644812
c3: -32012217666497014189601
c4: 606195740080942
c5: 1899240
skew: 108308506.39
# size 1.231e-18, alpha -7.526, combined = 1.960e-14 rroots = 3
# expecting poly E from 2.55e-14 to > 2.94e-14
rlim: 266000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 3.7
type: gnfs
lss: 0
Thanks RichD for the poly!

Suggesting sieving range is 40M-300M.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-22 at 15:39
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-21, 21:39   #137
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23·3·5·47 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unconnected View Post
C190 from aliquot sequence 785232:i11573 is ready for 15e queue:

Code:
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 3.7
type: gnfs
lss: 0
Thanks RichD for the poly!
-
Suggesting sieving range is 40M-300M.
Why are lambdas so high? Specifically, rlambda- with lim that large and 32LP, I think you'd sieve faster at 2.5 without losing relations. See https://mersenneforum.org/showpost.p...&postcount=110 and the dozen or so posts afterward.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 03:42   #138
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

B4D16 Posts
Default

Sorry i missed this discussion regarding lambdas. My choose of lambdas based mostly on previous experience of similar-sized jobs (f.e. see here or here).
However I've no objections, let it be rlambda=2.5. As for alambda 96*log(2)/log(134000000)=~3.55 and looks OK. Should I redo test-sieve with new parameters?
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 03:50   #139
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

23×3×5×47 Posts
Default

My tests with too-big lambdas vs a smaller non-sieve-side lambda show no difference in relations found (like 0-50 relations in a test-range that finds 5000), but a useful speed improvement like 10+%.

I wouldn't change the sieve-side lambda without test-sieving, because the effective lim is so much smaller for low Q so the needed lambda is higher for low Q. Maybe next job test 3.7 against 3.6?
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 07:41   #140
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

11·263 Posts
Default

Ok, got it.
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 12:42   #141
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

74118 Posts
Default

QUEUED AS C190_785232_11573

So to confirm everything, we are enqueuing the following:

Code:
n: 4924615299710155724242041611093792534228929027833793207209717741579479862664806712426989267280154775007779415785841244751833760998628602996813364136776619527437902426854181741931202256338971
Y0: -4816798648132866790605815531348495563
Y1: 1711431772495717393
c0: -6560899350388287964076509886023554467783604240
c1: -124813949570426726344271243947893318876
c2: 5758067944148696689000856644812
c3: -32012217666497014189601
c4: 606195740080942
c5: 1899240
skew: 108308506.39
# size 1.231e-18, alpha -7.526, combined = 1.960e-14 rroots = 3
# expecting poly E from 2.55e-14 to > 2.94e-14
rlim: 266000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.5
alambda: 3.7
type: gnfs
lss: 0
And sieving over the original stated range of q: 40-300M, correct?

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-22 at 15:38
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-22, 13:26   #142
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

11×263 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
So to confirm everything, we are enqueuing the following:
<snip>

And sieving over the original stated range of q: 40-300M, correct?
Yes. This should produce 650M raw relations.
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-23, 00:14   #143
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

74118 Posts
Default 12+7,256 revisited

QUEUED AS 12p7_256

Quote:
Originally Posted by jyb View Post
Setting aside the question of large prime bounds, I'm surprised at the choice of polynomials: that leading coefficient isn't huge, but it's bigger than it needs to be. Did you look at using either of these?
Code:
c6: 49
c0: 144
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 25397652694505813866070015990659936347412758528
Code:
c6: 196
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 12698826347252906933035007995329968173706379264
The latter of these has an identical SNFS difficulty to yours, the former's is slightly higher but may nonetheless turn out better with the smaller coefficient.
Ran additional test sieving on 12+7,256 based on @jyb's suggestions, one SNFS polynomial is clearly better than the rest:

Code:
n: 14465784763601126977599055269783270532544641304323145978534145654240633858626527220916188279798148826301966069344878797378582866606395998179336371169145932268467416189620924711821304788176380624897
type: snfs
size: 276
skew: 0.5984
c6: 196
c0: 9
Y1: -2183814375991796599109312252753832343
Y0: 12698826347252906933035007995329968173706379264
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 96
mfba: 66
rlambda: 3.65
alambda: 2.45
Results of test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield
35          3692
50          3708
75          3321
100         2995
150         2659
200         2384
250         2184
300         1955
350         1938
400         1802
450         1780
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 35-430M to generate 950M raw relations, i.e. 20M less Q than previously submitted. We'll go with the above poly on this job.

Thanks to @jyb for righting the ship.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-10-23 at 11:11
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queue management for 14e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 170 2023-01-02 15:27
2022 - queue management for 15e_small swellman NFS@Home 186 2022-12-29 17:58
Queue management for 16e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 154 2022-12-23 21:35
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues VBCurtis NFS@Home 254 2022-01-02 01:59
Improving the queue management. debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:47.


Sun Feb 5 07:47:30 UTC 2023 up 171 days, 5:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.82, 0.87, 0.86

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