mersenneforum.org Oversieving
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2009-11-14, 14:06 #1 chris2be8     Sep 2009 7E916 Posts Oversieving Roughly how much oversieving is needed to: 1) Minimize total time if all the work is done on one system? 2) Minimize time taken in postprocesing? 3) Minimize peak memory use postprocessing? Thanks in advance. Chris K
2009-11-14, 14:13   #2
10metreh

Nov 2008

1001000100102 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 Roughly how much oversieving is needed to: 1) Minimize total time if all the work is done on one system? 2) Minimize time taken in postprocesing? 3) Minimize peak memory use postprocessing? Thanks in advance. Chris K
Any oversieving (but not too much) will should do 2) and 3).

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-11-14 at 14:14

 2009-11-14, 20:22 #3 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 24·13·17 Posts The answer depends on the problem size, which determines how much time the linear algebra takes out of the total. For problems that fit comfortably onto one machine, you should stop sieving as soon as a matrix can be constructed. Larger problems can benefit from adding maybe 5-10% more relations past this point. By the time you get to really huge problems, 50% oversieving may be called for; you get diminishing returns from adding more relations, and if the first matrix will be very difficult then you have to reduce its size by a great deal.
 2010-03-12, 17:43 #4 xilman Bamboozled!     "πΊππ·π·π­" May 2003 Down not across 246228 Posts Too much oversieving I know this has been discussed somewhere on the forum but I can't find the discussion despite having skim-read hundreds of posts in the msieve sub-forum. A small (c175) SNFS factorization is predicted to take 12.6M relations, in line with previous factorizations of similarly sized numbers. It has already reached that and has gone well beyond it; it is currently well over 16M relations. Even so, the msievefact.py script claims that more relations are needed. Running msieve stand-alone with -nc or -nc1 hasn't yet done anything useful. Would someone please point me at the posting where this issue is resolved? Paul
2010-03-12, 17:47   #5
axn

Jun 2003

132·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman A small (c175) SNFS factorization is predicted...
Maybe it's just your prediction that is off? (somewhere between 0.7-0.8 times (pi(lpba) + pi(lpbr))

What are your large prime bounds?

2010-03-12, 19:55   #6
Andi47

Oct 2004
Austria

2·17·73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn Maybe it's just your prediction that is off? (somewhere between 0.7-0.8 times (pi(lpba) + pi(lpbr)) What are your large prime bounds?
I have seen snfs-176 which was happy with 9.5M relations (8.8M unique). I don't know which large prime bounds Bsquared used for this one.

Edit @ Xilman: With lpbr/a one bigger than Bsquared used, you might need ~18M relations.

Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 2010-03-12 at 19:58

2010-03-13, 19:29   #7
xilman
Bamboozled!

"πΊππ·π·π­"
May 2003
Down not across

2·17·313 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Andi47 I have seen snfs-176 which was happy with 9.5M relations (8.8M unique). I don't know which large prime bounds Bsquared used for this one. Edit @ Xilman: With lpbr/a one bigger than Bsquared used, you might need ~18M relations.
With each of those set to 27 bits, I expect around 12M relations to be needed. In practice, 12.06M+ relations were sufficent.

I gave up in the end and re-ran the factorization from scratch on a 64-bit RHEL box. The failing system ran 64-bit Win7. Everything went fine and the program is now in the sqrt phase, which I confidently expect to fail. When it happens, I'll transfer everything to a Windoze system to get the factors.

Luckily, I have both Linux and Windoze machines, both Perl and Python drivers available. Ho hum.

Paul

P.S. Yup, it failed ...

2010-03-13, 21:51   #8
chris2be8

Sep 2009

34×52 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman A small (c175) SNFS factorization is predicted to take 12.6M relations, in line with previous factorizations of similarly sized numbers. It has already reached that and has gone well beyond it; it is currently well over 16M relations. Even so, the msievefact.py script claims that more relations are needed. Running msieve stand-alone with -nc or -nc1 hasn't yet done anything useful. Paul
Please post the full parms you are using. Either the name.poly or (one of) the job file(s) would give us something to look at.

Chris K

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post eigma Msieve 21 2015-05-28 03:27 RedGolpe Msieve 10 2009-06-15 15:32 jasonp Msieve 18 2009-04-09 03:20 jbristow Msieve 8 2008-01-02 21:43 fivemack Msieve 1 2007-09-28 18:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:49.

Tue Apr 13 06:49:39 UTC 2021 up 5 days, 1:30, 1 user, load averages: 1.38, 1.49, 1.58

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.