![]() |
|
|
#1871 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
Taking C178_187039475551_19
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1872 |
|
May 2009
Russia, Moscow
2,593 Posts |
Reserving C186_290770486991_19.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1873 |
|
Feb 2012
Paris, France
101000012 Posts |
Thanks. I was expecting a smaller matrix though; I thought I would be able to
build a matrix with a much higher target density given the 460M+ relations for a 32-bit job but even 132 failed, I had to lower it to 128. Last fiddled with by YuL on 2017-03-30 at 16:49 Reason: Cosmetics |
|
|
|
|
|
#1874 |
|
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,437 Posts |
I'll take 127^95 + 95^127 cofactor from the 14e queue.
Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2017-04-02 at 04:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1875 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
Code:
Sat Apr 1 11:45:02 2017 p86 factor: 59969606437825471092748609807267089171442385775453880240834192297102407276550682363249 Sat Apr 1 11:45:02 2017 p92 factor: 28161118831265144175724429817967381635120122727242283196157680376868720112151713622855853951 Log at https://pastebin.com/iaTHLyUC or attached |
|
|
|
|
|
#1876 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
Taking C203_125_96 (ETA Monday morning, since the linear algebra should finish just after going-home time on Friday)
Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2017-04-04 at 12:45 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1877 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23·11·73 Posts |
Taking C202_134_87 (15e)
22.8M density-120 matrix, ETA sometime in the week after Easter Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2017-04-07 at 17:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1878 |
|
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California
52816 Posts |
Reserving C237_12161_59 (14e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1879 |
|
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
10011000010102 Posts |
I forgot to add target_density to the command line, and produced a 21.8M matrix at default density. I re-ran the filtering with TD = 140, and produced the identical matrix!
I realized that meant the dataset was oversieved, so I reduced to 470M relations (from initial 495M) and ran again. This produced a 20.4M matrix at density around 100; reducing to 450M rels produced 19.7M matrix at density 125. This matrix is forecast to take 80-100 hr longer than the original matrix, so I'm solving a 21.8M matrix at density 67, forecast to take 25 days or so. Matrix-building took 8005MB, while the solving step is logged at 6500MB while top claims 7.6g used. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1880 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1881 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
Code:
Fri Apr 7 10:30:05 2017 p60 factor: 262140789711545872971063685147422871988451144802929070574027 Fri Apr 7 10:30:05 2017 p71 factor: 56035791901525658273230054058046999996742343570248151591987937037637071 Fri Apr 7 10:30:05 2017 p73 factor: 1202663914264836729954659180323840975151179663082897780688670921683426083 Log attached and at https://pastebin.com/1tVttxqP |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| restarting nfs linear algebra | cubaq | YAFU | 2 | 2017-04-02 11:35 |
| Linear algebra at 600% | CRGreathouse | Msieve | 8 | 2009-08-05 07:25 |
| Linear algebra crashes | 10metreh | Msieve | 3 | 2009-02-02 08:34 |
| Linear algebra proof | Damian | Math | 8 | 2007-02-12 22:25 |
| Linear algebra in MPQS | R1zZ1 | Factoring | 2 | 2007-02-02 06:45 |