Fast Breeding (guru management)

[RichD]

QUEUED C191 from the OPN t550 file.

n: 20508929330948193698572470599897897516304792943826902972122198941094004036574931871066771664508847800829028047903019470182253564143086946641713384879471166102489510360704972302100259660442469
# 567661^41-1, difficulty: 242
skew: 9.099
c6: 1
c0: -567661
Y1: -1
Y0: 18994304917146663927336123812607926921221
m: 18994304917146663927336123812607926921221
type: snfs
rlim: 200000000
alim: 200000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

  Q  Yield
 20M  7669
 60M  5949
100M  5372
150M  4513
200M  4590

[RichD]

QUEUED C191 from the OPN t600 file.

n: 21750517772066764429310825826210057391453549257352013805877881343987118383585416981161422596613352446917132610877793669465789122940062574932401115917345625709274117784979612588064171198595443
# 22926121^31-1, difficulty: 228
c6: 22926121
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 6333633091927020072021010384826454601
skew: 0.0593
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
type: snfs

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

  Q  Yield
 20M  8738
 50M  6813
 80M  5538
110M  5428

[swellman]

C226_127_106 is ready for SNFS. Another possible -r and -a simultaneous sieving job?

n: 2280139691439976870568969462338718473449233379612063824087464058088350308991326968788088698275254458880939735465798971790789201177419031841268155618018789135288844404141201471594727605279414772263530156097952068024055709191881
# 127^106+106^127, difficulty: 257.21, anorm: 2.62e+039, rnorm: -1.12e+049
# scaled difficulty: 258.82, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 1.785e-013, alpha = 1.262, combined = 3.445e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 257
skew: 10.9350
c6: 1
c0: 1709674
Y1: -3399563600545615415795972563652626094227456
Y0: 73869809188743794269800200736680064769
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

Test sieving on the -a side, with Q in blocks of 10K.

total yield: 12031, q=20010017 (0.78872 sec/rel)
total yield: 9275, q=50010001 (1.33246 sec/rel)
total yield: 8401, q=80010001 (1.50232 sec/rel)
total yield: 7452, q=150010001 (1.79374 sec/rel)
total yield: 7218, q=300010001 (2.58760 sec/rel)
total yield: 5767, q=450010013 (3.05052 sec/rel)
total yield: 5404, q=530010001 (3.17532 sec/rel)

Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-750M+ for Q with a target # of relations=470M.


Test sieving on the -r side, with Q in blocks of 10K.

total yield: 10791, q=20010017 (0.82643 sec/rel)
total yield: 9420, q=50010001 (1.33603 sec/rel)
total yield: 8660, q=80010001 (1.45594 sec/rel)
total yield: 8091, q=150010001 (1.70537 sec/rel)
total yield: 6891, q=300010001 (2.62294 sec/rel)
total yield: 5452, q=450010013 (3.07939 sec/rel)
total yield: 5702, q=530010001 (3.20157 sec/rel)

Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-710M+ for Q with a target # of relations=470M.

A combined -r/-a sieving strategy would likely require a sieving range of 20M-400M.


If this job is judged to be too much for 14e/32, even if sieved on both sides simultaneously, then 15e/32 appears to work. Test sieving results on the -r side with Q in blocks of 2k.

Q=20M    rels=4691
Q=80M    rels=3465
Q=150M   rels=3141
Q=250M   rels=2994
Q=350M   rels=2549

Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-350M for Q with a target # of relations=520M.

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by swellman

C222_143_73 is ready for SNFS. It is notionally best sieved on the rational side, but the algebraic side is almost as good. Perhaps this should be sieved on both sides simultaneously? Is that command lss:0? For the gatekeeper to decide.

I have queued C222_143_73 twice on 14e, with 250MQ range (20M-270M) on each side - please post-process when that's done, and we can see what the actual duplication rates are and how much further to go.

Would it be OK if I wait to see how well that worked before deciding what to do with the harder C226_127_106 ? I think those sieving rates are just too slow for 14e for large Q and probably it's a not-too-hard 15e job.

[swellman]

Originally Posted by fivemack

I have queued C222_143_73 twice on 14e, with 250MQ range (20M-270M) on each side - please post-process when that's done, and we can see what the actual duplication rates are and how much further to go.

Of course. My only worry is combining two large files locally in a Windows environment but I'll cross that bridge later.

Would it be OK if I wait to see how well that worked before deciding what to do with the harder C226_127_106 ? I think those sieving rates are just too slow for 14e for large Q and probably it's a not-too-hard 15e job.

Sure, makes sense. Agreed these are not horribly slow/difficult 15e jobs but this entire exercise may be instructive.

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by swellman

Of course. My only worry is combining two large files locally in a Windows environment but I'll cross that bridge later.

There's a package of small executables called "CoreUtils" for windows that provide unix-shell commands such as grep or cat. You could also try the windows "type" command, which prints the contents of a file (but I'm not sure it concatenates...).

[axn]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

There's a package of small executables called "CoreUtils" for windows that provide unix-shell commands such as grep or cat. You could also try the windows "type" command, which prints the contents of a file (but I'm not sure it concatenates...).

copy file1+file2 concatenates file1 & file2 into file1.
copy file1+file2 file3 concatenates file1 & file2 and writes to file3.

Use /b switch to do binary copy.

[swellman]

Originally Posted by axn

copy file1+file2 concatenates file1 & file2 into file1.
copy file1+file2 file3 concatenates file1 & file2 and writes to file3.

Use /b switch to do binary copy.

Does it work with 20+ Gb files? DOS used to have a 1 or 2 Gb size limit on file to be manipulated but I haven't tried it in a few years. Maybe Win 10 has removed this barrier?

[axn]

Originally Posted by swellman

Does it work with 20+ Gb files? DOS used to have a 1 or 2 Gb size limit on file to be manipulated but I haven't tried it in a few years. Maybe Win 10 has removed this barrier?

Never tried it, but no reason why it shouldn't work.

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by swellman

Does it work with 20+ Gb files? DOS used to have a 1 or 2 Gb size limit on file to be manipulated but I haven't tried it in a few years. Maybe Win 10 has removed this barrier?

Provided you have an NTFS file system, it will work. On a FAT32 filesystem you can't have files of more than 2GB in any case.

[swellman]

C226_141_59 is ready for SNFS as a 15e job. (I struck out with 3LPs, 14e/32 and 15e/31.)

n: 2025646362861897392198814945044679402485649592025332378407520032228761262902577000370396079244222507758311602928401073188653433353569456404929497047954062378264983285284343488884604953578028899615702167954870062745889431097499
# 141^59+59^141, difficulty: 249.69, anorm: 1.08e+040, rnorm: -2.25e+047
# scaled difficulty: 250.91, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 6.280e-013, alpha = 0.000, combined = 8.776e-014, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 249
skew: 17.5238
c6: 1
c0: 28958439
Y1: -53653278865596927234911463541904971226579
Y0: 3105926159393528563401
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8

Test sieving with Q in blocks of 5K

Q=20M    rels=16613
Q=80M    rels=11567
Q=150M   rels=10244
Q=200M   rels=9825
Q=250M   rels=8712

Suggesting a sieving range of 20M-255M with a target # relations=520M.

For what it's worth, there are two NFS candidates posted in this thread a couple of pages back - see posts
1149 and 1152.