mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Aliquot Sequences

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-10-04, 09:48   #617
garambois
 
garambois's Avatar
 
Oct 2011

24×23 Posts
Default

OK, page updated.
Many thanks to all for your help !

Note : I don't specify merges for sequences that end on a prime number, like 29^50. Because anyway, all the sequences that end merge with another one towards the end, as Happy5214 says in post #613 !
garambois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-06, 17:42   #618
richs
 
richs's Avatar
 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California

2×32×5×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richs View Post
Taking 439^20 at i2157.
439^20 is now at i2253 (added 96 iterations) and a C128 level with a 2^9 * 3^2 driver, so I will drop this reservation. The remaining C102 term is well ecm'ed and is ready for siqs.

Taking 439^40 at i39.
richs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 11:09   #619
Happy5214
 
Happy5214's Avatar
 
"Alexander"
Nov 2008
The Alamo City

25×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richs View Post
439^20 is now at i2253 (added 96 iterations) and a C128 level with a 2^9 * 3^2 driver, so I will drop this reservation. The remaining C102 term is well ecm'ed and is ready for siqs.

Taking 439^40 at i39.
SIQS for a C102? The "official" cutoff (according to yafu) on my Linux Core 2 box is 98-99 digits, though I've noticed recently that 99-digit GNFS jobs actually take less time than 98-digit SIQS jobs.

In actual progress news, I'm finished with 21^82 and 21^84, and those are released.

Last fiddled with by Happy5214 on 2020-10-09 at 11:11
Happy5214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 13:22   #620
richs
 
richs's Avatar
 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California

2×32×5×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy5214 View Post
SIQS for a C102? The "official" cutoff (according to yafu) on my Linux Core 2 box is 98-99 digits, though I've noticed recently that 99-digit GNFS jobs actually take less time than 98-digit SIQS jobs.
Using the tune function of yafu on my i3 results in a siqs/gnfs crossover at C104 for that laptop. On my i7, the yafu crossover is C106.
richs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 14:41   #621
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

3,461 Posts
Default

The table elements for base 72 through exponent 88 are complete (although the table is not shown due to corrupted sequences within the db).

For all of the corrupted sequences, index 1 and beyond has been entered into the db, so when the initial terms are fixed all will be available as normal. In the meantime, for anyone maintaining a local set of .elfs for their study, I have attached a correct set of the corrupted sequences.
Attached Files
File Type: gz base72dbCorrupts.tar.gz (65.6 KB, 7 views)
EdH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 16:23   #622
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

11·409 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richs View Post
Using the tune function of yafu on my i3 results in a siqs/gnfs crossover at C104 for that laptop. On my i7, the yafu crossover is C106.
Those cutoffs are nuts! maybe try timing a C102 both ways to see if tune is accurate? Is gnfs via factmsieve.py?

For CADO vs siqs, my cutoff is 93 digits. CADO is over twice as fast as yafu by 99 digits.
Doesn't help windows users, alas.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 16:57   #623
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22·2,239 Posts
Default

Yafu siqs is very fast / fine tuned. Except for very old versions and CPU, the cutoffs were always around 100 digits, a bit over. I also get 103..106 depending on what else the computer does.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2020-10-09 at 16:58
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 16:57   #624
Mr. Odd
 
Mar 2010

5·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
CADO is over twice as fast as yafu by 99 digits.

Wow, really? Is there anything in your setup that makes it so, or do you think that's true across the board?
Mr. Odd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 18:23   #625
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

449910 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Odd View Post
Wow, really? Is there anything in your setup that makes it so, or do you think that's true across the board?
I hand-tuned the CADO params files for speed- they're posted in the CADO subforum https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24274. Most of my files are 20-30% faster than the factory defaults, but the C100 file in particular is slow by default (quartic poly, for one). I think non-hyperthreaded machines will not be quite as fast running CADO as HT-enabled.

Similar work can be done for factmsieve/GGNFS, particularly on the relations-wanted values that trigger the first filtering run. I haven't run factmsieve in quite a while, but I think the stock settings filter a whole bunch of times, stalling sieving quite a bit. Edit- I've never run GGNFS controlled by Yafu, so I can't comment on its efficiency.

My best CADO C100 timing is a tick under 6 minutes wall-clock time, on a single-socket Xeon 12x2.5Ghz. On an haswell-i7 (6x3.3ghz), I have 9.5 minutes for C101 on CADO.

On C93, I have 226 sec on CADO, 229 sec on siqs (both 12-threaded on 12 cores).

EDIT: As noted in the above-referenced thread, Skylake-yafu using AVX-512 is much faster, with a crossover to CADO around 97-98 digits.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-10-09 at 18:34
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-09, 18:49   #626
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

100010111111002 Posts
Default

Yafu siqs on 93 digit semiprime (p47*p47) on 10 cores, 10 threads, ~84k relations needed, 166 seconds.

NFS on the same number is about 30 40 seconds slower.

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2020-10-09 at 18:50
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-10-11, 08:27   #627
garambois
 
garambois's Avatar
 
Oct 2011

24·23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
The table elements for base 72 through exponent 88 are complete (although the table is not shown due to corrupted sequences within the db).

For all of the corrupted sequences, index 1 and beyond has been entered into the db, so when the initial terms are fixed all will be available as normal. In the meantime, for anyone maintaining a local set of .elfs for their study, I have attached a correct set of the corrupted sequences.

Thanks a lot Ed !

garambois is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Broken aliquot sequences fivemack FactorDB 45 2020-05-16 15:22
Broken aliquot sequences schickel FactorDB 18 2013-06-12 16:09
A new theorem about aliquot sequences garambois Aliquot Sequences 34 2012-06-10 21:53
poaching aliquot sequences... Andi47 FactorDB 21 2011-12-29 21:11
New article on aliquot sequences schickel mersennewiki 0 2008-12-30 07:07

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:12.

Wed Dec 2 22:12:07 UTC 2020 up 83 days, 19:23, 2 users, load averages: 2.79, 2.73, 2.54

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.