mersenneforum.org Queue management for 16e queue
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-10-04, 13:30   #67
charybdis

Apr 2020

22316 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman However the normalized results tell a different story:
The normalized relations formula is not applicable when composite special-q are being used, as it is based on the premise that special-q have the same frequency as primes.

2021-10-04, 13:53   #68
swellman

Jun 2012

325010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis The normalized relations formula is not applicable when composite special-q are being used, as it is based on the premise that special-q have the same frequency as primes.
Thanks for this. So the actual yield when not using the -d 1 flag is very high for the quartic but then we would likely have many WUs return partial or no results. Unless Greg has a later version of ggnfs 16 which deals with the matter cleanly. Or something else entirely. [/my pointless speculation]

 2021-10-04, 14:48 #69 charybdis     Apr 2020 547 Posts Using composite special-q will also lead to a high duplication rate. It's a useful way to squeeze out a few more relations when yield is low due to suboptimal parameters (eg artificially low lpb and lims on big NFS@Home jobs) but should probably be avoided if possible.
 2021-10-04, 14:52 #70 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 3×19×89 Posts I used -d 1 because I believe that is how the f-small siever runs. I don't think you have a worry about the failed workunits, but Greg should comment before we submit the job.
 2021-10-04, 15:49 #71 frmky     Jul 2003 So Cal 2×3×7×53 Posts The NFS@Home binaries use only prime special-q.
2021-10-04, 18:33   #72
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

507310 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman Once I got the updated siever running, first thing was to duplicate your earlier results. Identical output. So then I repeated the test sieving using blocks of 10 kQ. Results below: Code: #Q=75M 34363 rels, 556 spq, 34084 norm_rels #Q=100M 31943 rels, 551 spq, 31472 norm_rels #Q=150M 29363 rels, 531 spq, 29373 norm_rels #Q=200M 28236 rels, 529 spq, 27925 norm_rels #Q=250M 26102 rels, 510 spq, 26468 norm_rels #Q=300M 26396 rels, 526 spq, 25709 norm_rels #Q=350M 25044 rels, 510 spq, 24960 norm_rels #Q=400M 24646 rels, 511 spq, 24350 norm_rels #Q=450M 22276 rels, 477 spq, 23438 norm_rels Smooth yield, but as you pointed out we don’t need to tweak the Q-range for sieving as we really don’t know our target number of relations. Greg has suggested 1B to me, but I adjusted this down to 900M with my original poly. But I agree that we can likely drop this further. Upward adjustment is always a later option.
How about Q=60-375M to start? Your yield results match mine pretty well, and Greg has confirmed prime spQ so these numbers should be accurate. I can do the matrix if Sean or Greg don't want it; I like these new-ground jobs.

2021-10-04, 18:49   #73
swellman

Jun 2012

2·53·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis How about Q=60-375M to start? Your yield results match mine pretty well, and Greg has confirmed prime spQ so these numbers should be accurate. I can do the matrix if Sean or Greg don't want it; I like these new-ground jobs.
Sure - specQ range shifted to 60-375M.

And thanks for taking on the LA! Should be fun.

 2021-10-07, 16:58 #74 jyb     Aug 2005 Seattle, WA 2·34·11 Posts C199_M31_k35 With all of the discussion about this difficult quartic and how best to sieve it, there's something I'm missing: why aren't we using the obvious sextic, which has a very reasonable difficulty of 280, instead?
 2021-10-07, 17:04 #75 swellman     Jun 2012 2·53·13 Posts AS C202_3408_1693 QUEUED AS C202_3408_1693 I was cleaning out the attic and found AS 3408:i1693 with a record setting e-score poly. It has been sitting on a shelf for almost a year. I'll place it here for enqueing at some point after the f_small siever catches up. Code: n: 7610429701878258146556615560847196204170260478136688627519823621252186450051556772508489716641675238873878778627282501333960153571054969424187320132140981530532671111226675538849711076698014563985929827 # norm 1.168186e-19 alpha -8.419964 e 4.117e-15 rroots 5 skew: 45645857.17 c0: -18098601315886851468557887762291980392541100584 c1: 4841688835906037944690945208990931966764 c2: -175894955102251933301443112313837 c3: -5578183143934717988864129 c4: 61119537791822196 c5: 908107200 Y0: -631670594992711929340967533254444051034 Y1: 75282186386799330835453 rlim: 225000000 alim: 225000000 lpbr: 33 lpba: 33 mfbr: 66 mfba: 96 rlambda: 3.0 alambda: 3.7 Test sieving results on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10k: Code: Q0(M) Norm_Yield 60 33339 100 33127 150 30001 200 28658 250 26478 300 25448 350 23827 This suggests sieving with specQ range of 60-360M should produce 850M relations. A good start at least. Last fiddled with by swellman on 2021-10-28 at 01:07
2021-10-07, 17:12   #76
swellman

Jun 2012

2·53·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jyb With all of the discussion about this difficult quartic and how best to sieve it, there's something I'm missing: why aren't we using the obvious sextic, which has a very reasonable difficulty of 280, instead?
The explanation is simple: the poly generator at cownoise did not produce a sextic. It often does for various exponents but not in this case. I assumed none existed but thank you very much for seeing it.

What is the sextic? A S280 is likely far less difficult than a S261 quartic but it likely still belongs on the f_small siever.

2021-10-07, 17:20   #77
jyb

Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

2·34·11 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman The explanation is simple: the poly generator at cownoise did not produce a sextic. It often does for various exponents but not in this case. I assumed none existed but thank you very much for seeing it. What is the sextic? A S280 is likely far less difficult than a S261 quartic but it likely still belongs on the f_small siever.
Code:
n: 4950036370987531796596777020435431752821658735009564665203032637182311299258729058872170618265983042169789410985851232822128958988972946232939020745222679656170411937888556774248091592015827689480701
skew: 1.0000
c6: 1
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: 1
Y0: -45671926060252476630107084286792841360213803007
type: snfs

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post VBCurtis NFS@Home 222 2021-12-06 17:29 VBCurtis NFS@Home 72 2021-12-02 17:10 Rodrigo Software 7 2018-05-25 13:26 debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05 joblack Information & Answers 1 2009-01-06 08:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:42.

Tue Dec 7 11:42:06 UTC 2021 up 137 days, 6:11, 0 users, load averages: 1.17, 1.48, 1.54