CADO NFS

[EdH]

Originally Posted by EdH

I had tried figuring out how to use --bindir= and had it wrong. I think I have it figured out now. Thanks!

This was also the issue with my ancient Debian Core 2 machine. It was trying to run the Ubuntu i7 binaries. It seems fine now that it's running its own...

It looks like I'm nearing a point where I'll run a test with RSA-130.

Thanks for all the help everyone.

[EdH]

If a moderator is near, could you remove one of my duplicates, please?

Double posting was caused by network troubles.

Thanks!

[VBCurtis]

If you do get around to running RSA130, consider running it twice; I have a draft of new parameters for C130, and would like an independent tester to confirm my settings are faster than default. If you're interested in helping, please record timings for RSA130 for poly select, sieving, and LA; then do the same for the params file I would send along

I sent settings for 95 to 120 digits in already, and my 120 file was tested to be no faster than CADO's (even though it was faster on my rig, consisting of mostly core2 Xeon cores). Before Real Life got in the way, I was building files for 125, 130, 135 digits.

[VictordeHolland]

Originally Posted by henryzz

How does that compare with the pure c version of the ggnfs siever?

I don't have a ggnfs lasieve4 for ARM

But if you want to compare yourself this was the poly

n: 1522605027922533360535618378132637429718068114961380688657908494580122963258952897654000350692006139
Y0: -767853202003767126726051
Y1: 984954475843
c0: -106889640063652703788276460
c1: -490217649256458074859
c2: 4687825801522500
c3: 2755578274
c4: 4380
skew: 375657.611
type: gnfs
# MurphyE (Bf=1.052e+06,Bg=9.191e+05,area=2.206e+12) = 1.13e-08
# f(x) = 4380*x^4+2755578274*x^3+4687825801522500*x^2-490217649256458074859*x-106889640063652703788276460
# g(x) = 984954475843*x-767853202003767126726051

And CADO used these arguments for the sieving step

-I 11
-lim0 919082
-lim1 1051872
-lpb0 24
-lpb1 25
-mfb0 49
-mfb1 50
-ncurves0 11
-ncurves1 16

Q 1051872 - 2040000

[EdH]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

If you do get around to running RSA130, consider running it twice; I have a draft of new parameters for C130, and would like an independent tester to confirm my settings are faster than default. If you're interested in helping, please record timings for RSA130 for poly select, sieving, and LA; then do the same for the params file I would send along

I sent settings for 95 to 120 digits in already, and my 120 file was tested to be no faster than CADO's (even though it was faster on my rig, consisting of mostly core2 Xeon cores). Before Real Life got in the way, I was building files for 125, 130, 135 digits.

I've run RSA-130, but I would need to run it twice more to do a valid test. For this run, I added about 5 machines along the way. For a true comparison, I need to use the same machines for the entire run. Here is today's run with my mix of many types of machines with either Debian or Ubuntu, but various versions:

Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Aggregate statistics:
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): potential collisions: 38210.8
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): raw lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 38857/38.650/46.136/49.480/0.866
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): optimized lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 38857/37.180/41.522/46.960/1.141
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 8294.25
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Aggregate statistics:
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 3615.37
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Rootsieve time: 3613.85
Info:Generate Factor Base: Total cpu/real time for makefb: 51.71/10.7454
Info:Generate Free Relations: Total cpu/real time for freerel: 308.57/40.5473
Info:Lattice Sieving: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 19266332
Info:Lattice Sieving: Average J: 7782.82 for 77739 special-q, max bucket fill: 0.628863
Info:Lattice Sieving: Total CPU time: 321572s
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Total cpu/real time for dup1: 50.69/114.322
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: CPU time for dup1: 114.2s
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, removal pass: Total cpu/real time for dup2: 265.52/215.066
Info:Filtering - Singleton removal: Total cpu/real time for purge: 177.43/140.715
Info:Filtering - Merging: Total cpu/real time for merge: 905.7/886.818
Info:Filtering - Merging: Total cpu/real time for replay: 88.94/91.873
Info:Linear Algebra: Total cpu/real time for bwc: 76793.8/0.00016737
Info:Linear Algebra: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Linear Algebra: Krylov: WCT time 6213.28
Info:Linear Algebra: Lingen CPU time 511.46, WCT time 77.63
Info:Linear Algebra: Mksol: WCT time 3433.77
Info:Quadratic Characters: Total cpu/real time for characters: 63.27/17.5241
Info:Square Root: Total cpu/real time for sqrt: 2893.31/390.914
Info:HTTP server: Shutting down HTTP server
Info:Complete Factorization: Total cpu/elapsed time for entire factorization: 415081/16661.7

Will this be enough timing info, or will you need more?

I will do another run tomorrow with a set machine list.

I am allowing cado-nfs to choose the params.c130 file and set all the defaults, except for the few (.ssl, .whitelist, .port) options I've added to the command line call. Will I be replacing the params.c130 file in my parameters/factor folder?

[VBCurtis]

It's up to you whether to replace it, or just run the factorization from a file. I'll get you the info Saturday, hopefully!

[EdH]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

It's up to you whether to replace it, or just run the factorization from a file. I'll get you the info Saturday, hopefully!

No hurry. I'm tied up for part of Saturday. I may run the first one tomorrow in the morning if I get a chance. Then I can run yours whenever. I would prefer to replace the current .c130 with your new version and use the same command line. That way I'm sure all is the same for the two runs except the parameters.

[EdH]

OK, I have a set of machines to use for the comparison. I did have a glitch - one of my core2 Quads either failed to start one process (2 threads) or dropped it early in the run. I will watch that machine for the next test and stop one process if two are running*. All else seemed to run well, finishing at just over 4 hours:

Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Aggregate statistics:
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): potential collisions: 38210.8
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): raw lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 38857/38.650/46.136/49.480/0.866
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): optimized lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 38857/37.180/41.522/46.960/1.141
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 8820.95
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Aggregate statistics:
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 3256.54
Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Rootsieve time: 3255.06
Info:Generate Factor Base: Total cpu/real time for makefb: 51.91/10.6228
Info:Generate Free Relations: Total cpu/real time for freerel: 309.8/40.0664
Info:Lattice Sieving: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 19363171
Info:Lattice Sieving: Average J: 7781.26 for 78385 special-q, max bucket fill: 0.623386
Info:Lattice Sieving: Total CPU time: 324016s
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Total cpu/real time for dup1: 51.54/108.384
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: CPU time for dup1: 108.3s
Info:Filtering - Duplicate Removal, removal pass: Total cpu/real time for dup2: 267.44/211.993
Info:Filtering - Singleton removal: Total cpu/real time for purge: 176.36/123.832
Info:Filtering - Merging: Total cpu/real time for merge: 525.71/447.307
Info:Filtering - Merging: Total cpu/real time for replay: 53.04/43.8131
Info:Linear Algebra: Total cpu/real time for bwc: 69859.5/0.000160933
Info:Linear Algebra: Aggregate statistics:
Info:Linear Algebra: Krylov: WCT time 5636.19
Info:Linear Algebra: Lingen CPU time 474.24, WCT time 72.75
Info:Linear Algebra: Mksol: WCT time 3116.54
Info:Quadratic Characters: Total cpu/real time for characters: 61.83/17.0987
Info:Square Root: Total cpu/real time for sqrt: 2834.79/384.939
Info:HTTP server: Shutting down HTTP server
Info:Complete Factorization: Total cpu/elapsed time for entire factorization: 410286/14660.9

*I am leaning toward running this as is again to see what difference one process would actually make. I might do that tomorrow AM.

[EdH]

I added more machines and ran RSA-110 this evening. I didn't have enough time to run RSA-130 again tonight. My CADO-NFS setup factored RSA-110 in just under 17 minutes and all my machines acted as they should have (including the one that didn't earlier):

Info:Complete Factorization: Total cpu/elapsed time for entire factorization: 41008.1/1005.69

[VBCurtis]

Ed-
Attached is my draft params.c130 (renamed as a txt for forum compatibility). The timings I'd like from you, for default vs this run:
CPU time for poly select (combined size and root, or each individually)
CPU time for sieve
CPU time for LA
CPU and Wall clock time for entire factorization

The CADO developer to whom I've been sending these param files wishes for both CPU time and wall clock time to be improved in order to consider the file an improvement on the default.

[EdH]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Ed-
Attached is my draft params.c130 (renamed as a txt for forum compatibility). The timings I'd like from you, for default vs this run:
CPU time for poly select (combined size and root, or each individually)
CPU time for sieve
CPU time for LA
CPU and Wall clock time for entire factorization

The CADO developer to whom I've been sending these param files wishes for both CPU time and wall clock time to be improved in order to consider the file an improvement on the default.

OK, I have it. I'm just about to make a run with the original and then, if things look good, I'll run the draft. I should have these by late today, but I'll need to be sure all the machines ran correctly.