Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788 - Page 40

Andi47 · 2009-09-08, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by henryzz

if someone could provide parameters for poly51m0b and poly51opt i will put some effort into poly selection

According to my records:

pol51m0b -b <inputfile> -p 6 -n 3.42E21 -a <start of range> -A <end of range>

where the inputfile must be named something like "inputfile.data".

and

pol51opt -b <inputfile (the same as for pol51m0b)> -n 6.05E19 -N 2.16E17 -e 1.08E-11

According to one of fivemacks pearls of wisdom, an excellent poly would be Murphy E 1.75315E-11.

smh · 2009-09-12, 08:52

OK. I'll spend a cpu day or so on a poly search using pol51.

I started at a=1000.

Best so far (15 minutes) Murphy E 1.48E-11

Greebley · 2009-09-12, 15:10

The best from the file I posted was 1.687E-11

smh · 2009-09-12, 19:22

Will this do?

10metreh: Looks all right, comparing it to the poly for the c140.

Code:

n: 161818370141252907391386685666692953983163029128862580047588960936905659626354555038482327603399885860070700423649548753039700027221666945941
skew: 218408.79
# norm 6.29e+019
c5: 1345500
c4: 903520513230
c3: 950442088171805794
c2: -39197370380948423635871
c1: -12819943941628451031444312634
c0: -18634757145877289097221229821275
# alpha -7.30
Y1: 11907265150855129
Y0: -654678024469607953754065014
# Murphy_E 2.03e-011

Haven't got the time to do any parameter testing at the moment.

I can let the poly search run overnight or start sieving if someone gets some good parameters and siever to use.

Andi47 · 2009-09-13, 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by smh

Will this do?
# alpha -7.30
# Murphy_E 2.03e-011

This looks *very* good.

my guess for the params would be:

r/alim around 15-18M
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

siever: 14e(?)

henryzz · 2009-09-13, 06:11

for the other one we used 16M for alim and rlim

10metreh · 2009-09-13, 06:34

Could someone do a test? I expect the siever will be 14e.

smh · 2009-09-13, 09:11

Haven't found anything better after another 12 hours. I'll quit the poly search

jrk · 2009-09-13, 19:30

I did some testing.

rlim & alim = 7.5M vs 9M vs 12M vs 16M with siever 13e:

Code:

rlim: 7500000
alim: 7500000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Code:

$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 617, q=2000503 (0.02741 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 736, q=4000511 (0.02538 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 783, q=6000503 (0.02547 sec/rel)
total yield: 1041, q=8000507 (0.02598 sec/rel)
total yield: 677, q=10000511 (0.02985 sec/rel)
total yield: 493, q=12000509 (0.03221 sec/rel)
total yield: 682, q=14000507 (0.02977 sec/rel)
total yield: 524, q=16000507 (0.03265 sec/rel)
total yield: 442, q=18000527 (0.03464 sec/rel)
total yield: 431, q=20000503 (0.03956 sec/rel)
total yield: 526, q=22000501 (0.03821 sec/rel)
total yield: 499, q=24000517 (0.03661 sec/rel)

Code:

rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Code:

$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 629, q=2000503 (0.02820 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 750, q=4000511 (0.02605 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 797, q=6000503 (0.02610 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1089, q=8000507 (0.02632 sec/rel)
total yield: 736, q=10000511 (0.02990 sec/rel)
total yield: 547, q=12000509 (0.03165 sec/rel)
total yield: 749, q=14000507 (0.02939 sec/rel)
total yield: 583, q=16000507 (0.03199 sec/rel)
total yield: 483, q=18000527 (0.03443 sec/rel)
total yield: 462, q=20000503 (0.04015 sec/rel)
total yield: 577, q=22000501 (0.03785 sec/rel)
total yield: 535, q=24000517 (0.03725 sec/rel)

Code:

rlim: 12000000
alim: 12000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Code:

]$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 645, q=2000503 (0.03006 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 774, q=4000511 (0.02739 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 820, q=6000503 (0.02756 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1114, q=8000507 (0.02782 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 9999999.
total yield: 792, q=10000511 (0.03072 sec/rel)
total yield: 620, q=12000509 (0.03245 sec/rel)
total yield: 834, q=14000507 (0.03068 sec/rel)
total yield: 665, q=16000507 (0.03256 sec/rel)
total yield: 536, q=18000527 (0.03599 sec/rel)
total yield: 529, q=20000503 (0.04079 sec/rel)
total yield: 665, q=22000501 (0.03821 sec/rel)
total yield: 609, q=24000517 (0.03798 sec/rel)

Code:

rlim: 16000000
alim: 16000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Code:

$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 24000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I13e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 664, q=2000503 (0.03256 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 796, q=4000511 (0.02959 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 844, q=6000503 (0.02942 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 1141, q=8000507 (0.02967 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 9999999.
total yield: 807, q=10000511 (0.03281 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 11999999.
total yield: 633, q=12000509 (0.03449 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 13999999.
total yield: 892, q=14000507 (0.03259 sec/rel)
total yield: 721, q=16000507 (0.03538 sec/rel)
total yield: 591, q=18000527 (0.03858 sec/rel)
total yield: 594, q=20000503 (0.04286 sec/rel)
total yield: 728, q=22000501 (0.04140 sec/rel)
total yield: 691, q=24000517 (0.03961 sec/rel)

Looks like alim & rlim = 9M will yield enough relations (estimating it needs about 26~28M raw relations with 28-bit) in the shortest time, narrowly faster than 7.5M and a few % faster than 12M.

Now siever 14e:

Code:

rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Code:

$ for i in `seq 2000000 2000000 18000000`; do ~/ggnfs/trunk/bin/gnfs-lasieve4I14e -a test.poly -f $i -c 500; done
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 1999999.
total yield: 1244, q=2000503 (0.04027 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 3999999.
total yield: 1511, q=4000511 (0.03546 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 5999999.
total yield: 1661, q=6000503 (0.03359 sec/rel)
Warning:  lowering FB_bound to 7999999.
total yield: 2285, q=8000507 (0.03277 sec/rel)
total yield: 1512, q=10000511 (0.03747 sec/rel)
total yield: 1155, q=12000509 (0.03855 sec/rel)
total yield: 1569, q=14000507 (0.03615 sec/rel)
total yield: 1244, q=16000507 (0.03862 sec/rel)
total yield: 991, q=18000527 (0.04323 sec/rel)

Siever 14e is about 15~20% slower.

So I'd say use siever 13e with this poly file and sieve from about Q=2M to Q=22M:

Code:

n: 161818370141252907391386685666692953983163029128862580047588960936905659626354555038482327603399885860070700423649548753039700027221666945941
skew: 218408.79
c5: 1345500
c4: 903520513230
c3: 950442088171805794
c2: -39197370380948423635871
c1: -12819943941628451031444312634
c0: -18634757145877289097221229821275
Y1: 11907265150855129
Y0: -654678024469607953754065014
rlim: 9000000
alim: 9000000
lpbr: 28
lpba: 28
mfbr: 56
mfba: 56
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Greebley · 2009-09-15, 01:38

So is there going to be a new thread for this so we can start?

10metreh · 2009-09-20, 10:17

We now have a c155

According to the database, kar_bon has run 800 curves at 25e4, which is nearly 2*t30. I have run another ~350 at 25e4, plus P-1 with B1=1e8 and B2=1.27e13. If you want to run ECM, it should now be with 35-digit bounds (B1=1e6), as we have done nearly 3*t30.

Stupid double-submit bug - I submitted my ~350 curves at 25e4, refreshed the page and the count increased to 700. I have only actually run about 350.

2009-09-12, 15:10	#432
Greebley May 2009 Dedham Massachusetts USA 3·281 Posts	The best from the file I posted was 1.687E-11 Last fiddled with by Greebley on 2009-09-12 at 15:12

2009-09-20, 10:17	#440
10metreh Nov 2008 912₁₆ Posts	We now have a c155 According to the database, kar_bon has run 800 curves at 25e4, which is nearly 2t30. I have run another ~350 at 25e4, plus P-1 with B1=1e8 and B2=1.27e13. If you want to run ECM, it should now be with 35-digit bounds (B1=1e6), as we have done nearly 3t30. Stupid double-submit bug - I submitted my ~350 curves at 25e4, refreshed the page and the count increased to 700. I have only actually run about 350. Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-09-20 at 10:20

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reserved for MF - Sequence 3366	RichD	Aliquot Sequences	470	2021-04-22 02:17
Reserved for MF - Sequence 3408	RichD	Aliquot Sequences	474	2021-03-07 20:28
Reserved for MF - Sequence 276	kar_bon	Aliquot Sequences	127	2020-12-17 10:05
Assignments are reserved but not showing up	prism019	GPU to 72	6	2020-09-21 22:11
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved	petrw1	Lone Mersenne Hunters	82	2010-01-11 01:57

2009-09-12, 08:52	#431
smh "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 29×41 Posts	OK. I'll spend a cpu day or so on a poly search using pol51. I started at a=1000. Best so far (15 minutes) Murphy E 1.48E-11

2009-09-13, 06:11	#435
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 13377₈ Posts	for the other one we used 16M for alim and rlim

2009-09-13, 06:34	#436
10metreh Nov 2008 2·3³·43 Posts	Could someone do a test? I expect the siever will be 14e.

2009-09-13, 09:11	#437
smh "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 2245₈ Posts	Haven't found anything better after another 12 hours. I'll quit the poly search

2009-09-15, 01:38	#439
Greebley May 2009 Dedham Massachusetts USA 3×281 Posts	So is there going to be a new thread for this so we can start?