![]() |
|
|
#1090 |
|
Jun 2012
22·773 Posts |
C164_142_95 is ready for GNFS. Many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial.
Code:
n: 32890934938060467185470450398926412490830129646594398346495293383017930475501026742709484611654214989519366361761311053871763612843981840938794074662453187038378603 skew: 3661680.86 c0: -166556080295683410817374978857628274848 c1: 171385010700195577244425051033362 c2: 314976816131198926495787162 c3: 2263384440748507447 c4: -24200003644230 c5: 976140 Y0: -32026746486505785756256021923115 Y1: 3569661231148829 # norm 7.311075e-016 alpha -6.722439 e 8.426e-013 rroots 5 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10k Code:
Q=20M 29399 Q=60M 28761 Q=100M 27020 Q=140M 25386 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1091 | |
|
Jul 2003
So Cal
24×7×19 Posts |
Quote:
Fri Aug 4 09:18:10 2017 p131 factor: 15826744797120361763521929615046796483162069831324813689483008801977696882321039305213712077547518040994592711420810039672478365003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1092 | |
|
I moo ablest echo power!
May 2013
13·137 Posts |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1093 |
|
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
10011000010102 Posts |
Now that I've seen firsthand what a monster the matrix is for GNFS-195 level, I'm even more grateful Greg ran this for us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1094 |
|
Sep 2008
Kansas
26×53 Posts |
A C186 from the t550 file.
Code:
n: 144268731931503810822450632838596288499605841877229332093679947911418336317330701200146117157855605920178793744186119321490765881776162797619751437592959430355786179955858471642334407153 # 63877469^29-1, difficulty: 234.16, skewness: 19.99, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 2.41916e+18, est. time: 1151.98 GHz days (not accurate yet!) skew: 19.994 c6: 1 c0: -63877469 Y1: -1 Y0: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349 m: 1063502461347443891056690249655347258349 type: snfs rlim: 132000000 alim: 132000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 type: snfs Code:
Q Yield 20M 10423 60M 7755 100M 6971 150M 5675 200M 5543 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1095 |
|
Jun 2012
22·773 Posts |
C163_147_83 is ready for GNFS. Thanks to wombatman for nailing the poly.
Code:
n: 6454273849166708118046701901574392361706520624684969973212143218220952481744668788864244347868227573742363743418340002935811680620892852804801238389092258088912067 # norm 7.790882e-016 alpha -6.994543 e 8.654e-013 rroots 5 skew: 1362798.39 c0: -62057357458060537836573440811415776288 c1: 145992050674316985734150671718757 c2: 164497155567398800607282616 c3: -292217561612679096802 c4: -132455034514438 c5: 29026260 Y0: -11733059187170585350839114142699 Y1: 1401760836584467 rlim: 60000000 alim: 60000000 lpbr: 30 lpba: 30 mfbr: 60 mfba: 60 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 Code:
Q=20M 13179 Q=50M 13449 Q=100M 12240 Q=130M 11834 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1096 |
|
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
23×11×73 Posts |
I am on vacation by the Baltic Sea until 22nd August, so someone else will have to take on the queue-stuffing duties. Though the queues don't look likely to drain that quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1097 |
|
Jun 2012
309210 Posts |
C222_146_62 is ready for NFS, having completed a full t55 from yoyo@home, plus a bit more @B1=3e8.
Code:
n: 966388137590772139485083165067803454256006438022474201146395997825155455256798780072921353545083044067468242672697091002242686144457578658732478368702292194784550010473334632534035306902598593756916310410524927387852091229 # 146^62+62^146, difficulty: 246.01, anorm: 4.53e+039, rnorm: 8.81e+045 # scaled difficulty: 247.06, suggest sieving rational side # size = 1.779e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.886e-013, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 246 skew: 1.3304 c6: 961 c0: 5329 Y1: -4297625829703557649 Y0: 10164841037259205643277114598574606270464 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 Code:
Q=20M 7599 rels Q=60M 5881 rels Q=120M 5074 rels Q=200M 4222 rels |
|
|
|
|
|
#1098 |
|
Jun 2012
309210 Posts |
C173_129_85 is ready for GNFS, with many thanks to wombatman for the polynomial. I ended up going with a 14/31 job here, as 14/32 had yield >2.0 but took an estimated 53% longer to sieve (plus greatly increased postprocessing time and difficulty). 15/31 is likely optimal, but keeping the 14e queue fed seemed more important. Of course the mods can change it if they deem it necessary.
Code:
n: 16432623607473574219758563585400708524378818125206904056185988551457839250312821323878324356918801650702586763199236947949550568517635374514910417505008392250111636215513873 # norm 8.440626e-017 alpha -7.132528 e 2.296e-013 rroots 3 skew: 5870867.97 c0: 25419121017344360577864617013788268281760 c1: 28857530855456147761173668461688476 c2: 631397788691506677770489927 c3: -2664694777806407733134 c4: 223010337756792 c5: 14302440 Y0: -1028156805787591556952709321595503 Y1: 7449870672504553 rlim: 120000000 alim: 120000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 62 mfba: 62 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 Code:
Q=20M 11058 Q=60M 10562 Q=100M 10791 Q=150M 10918 Q=200M 9900 Q=250M 8316 |
|
|
|
|
|
#1099 | |
|
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,437 Posts |
Quote:
I did a quick test-sieve at Q=60M: 14e/31 yield 1.03 sec/rel 0.2276 14e/32 yield 1.93 sec/rel 0.1139 14e/33 yield 3.37 sec/rel 0.0606 15e/32 yield 4.29 sec/rel 0.1163 (15e included to show the 14e queue isn't foolish for this job) Using your test-sieve data, looks like you plan to get 260-270M relations from Q=20M-280M. A 32LP job will take no more than 70% add'l relations; I would target 420M myself, but even using 440M as target I think Q=20-250M will work with 32LP, with about 15% less sieving time (assuming the sec/rel ratio of 31LP to 32LP remains nearly constant throughout Q range). For 14e/33, I would target 640M rels, which ought to require Q=20-210M. I don't have much experience with 33LP yet, so 640M may not be very accurate (I intend to find out this Fall!). All of my target relations numbers are intended to build a matrix with TD = 120 to 130. Also, I suggest changing alim and rlim to 134M; I don't know if it's worth staying under 2^27, but I do know yield drops off pretty badly near double alim, and changing alim from 120M to 134M means the sieving should use only Q's below alim x 2 without adding much to sec/rel. I was too lazy to test-sieve alim = 134M vs alim = 230M (chosen to roughly match expected maximum Q used). tl;dr version: Let's go with 14e/32, Q = 20-250M, and alim = rlim = 134M. If so, I'll do the LA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1100 |
|
Jun 2012
22·773 Posts |
Simple answer - I used alim=240M when I jumped to 32 LP. Speed was slower and total ETA went up over 50%, which did seem odd. Usually when one jumps from 31 to 32 LP, the speed about doubles, as does the required number of relations, yielding a total estimated time on par with the lower LP. Didn't seem to happen in this case. Your analysis seems sound, with only alim being different between us if I'm reading you correctly. Submitting this as a 14/32 job is fine with me, though we probably need to increase alim to 240M (or perhaps 268M).
Last fiddled with by swellman on 2017-08-14 at 17:18 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| System management notes | kriesel | kriesel | 7 | 2020-10-21 18:52 |
| Improving the queue management. | debrouxl | NFS@Home | 10 | 2018-05-06 21:05 |
| Script-based Primenet assignment management | ewmayer | Software | 3 | 2017-05-25 04:02 |
| Do normal adults give themselves an allowance? (...to fast or not to fast - there is no question!) | jasong | jasong | 35 | 2016-12-11 00:57 |
| Power Management settings | PrimeCroat | Hardware | 3 | 2004-02-17 19:11 |