Fast Breeding (guru management) - Page 197

RichD · 2019-09-24, 14:23

QUEUED AS 9547_67m1

C263 from the MWRB file with OPN weight 27788.
Ready for the 15e queue.

Code:

n: 46909670435707515758821011222900460956532822711460237625607599279905887633327954199062612605340264640269163500417566798218213844076097592133876722161040666973487531460154687792508894501498978632491282419012954505314607934544850214843915868409048202817775140192197
# 9547^67-1, difficulty: 266.65, skewness: 0.22, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 2.88973e+19, est. time: 13760.62 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 0.217
c6: 9547
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 60053199171047433870359986407514260895382803
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.7

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

Code:

fivemack · 2019-09-24, 17:35

Is it OK if I start sieving on F1865 when sieving on 41284013010997_19m1 finishes?

(F1865 was queued quite some time ago so will immediately be the highest-priority number; therefore I'm trying to queue one Fibonacci/Lucas at a time)

I suspect I'll finish one or two large Fibonacci numbers locally before the queue has drained enough for more submissions ... trial-sieving is indicating that 15e is still better than 16e for GNFS at log(N)=198 so I have a couple of jobs which I could either run locally or on NFS@home 15e.

I don't think it makes sense to run any more SNFS quartics at difficulty >245 on 15e, which means they probably do end up being run locally by me.

jyb · 2019-09-24, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

Is it OK if I start sieving on F1865 when sieving on 41284013010997_19m1 finishes?

(F1865 was queued quite some time ago so will immediately be the highest-priority number; therefore I'm trying to queue one Fibonacci/Lucas at a time)

I suspect I'll finish one or two large Fibonacci numbers locally before the queue has drained enough for more submissions ... trial-sieving is indicating that 15e is still better than 16e for GNFS at log(N)=198 so I have a couple of jobs which I could either run locally or on NFS@home 15e.

I don't think it makes sense to run any more SNFS quartics at difficulty >245 on 15e, which means they probably do end up being run locally by me.

Can you expand on this last point? Are such numbers more appropriate for 16e, or is there some other impediment to doing e.g. a SNFS-250 quartic on 15e?

VBCurtis · 2019-09-24, 19:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

... trial-sieving is indicating that 15e is still better than 16e for GNFS at log(N)=198 so I have a couple of jobs which I could either run locally or on NFS@home 15e.

I don't think it makes sense to run any more SNFS quartics at difficulty >245 on 15e, which means they probably do end up being run locally by me.

I fully support running 197-199 GNFS on 15e, and I'll be happy to poly select and solve a matrix in support of such an endeavor.

RichD · 2019-09-24, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

Is it OK if I start sieving on F1865 when sieving on 41284013010997_19m1 finishes?

41284013010997_19m1 is not from the Most Wanted Road Block file - it is from the t600 file. Inserting one before and one after is fine with me.

RichD · 2019-09-25, 00:45

QUEUED AS 196__841_5m1

C205 from the OPN t800 file.
[ a.k.a. Phi_5(Phi_5(Phi_7(Phi_7(4733)/7/70001/329422297)/7/324751337/p15)/5/641/24971/p34)/5/11 ]
P52^5-1

Code:

n: 273219495316974434197040939198609491490766418671811621873184255024989735292999525996233322635370317291867070304938367848690164427515391372264126719052933394821754823886485663545629052072405432232605241171
# 1968877035808798586160921053899523790197687491672841^5-1, difficulty: 205.18, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 1.45
# cost: 2.20954e+17, est. time: 105.22 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 1.000
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -1
Y0: 1968877035808798586160921053899523790197687491672841
type: snfs
rlim: 33500000
alim: 33500000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 88
mfba: 60
rlambda: 3.6
alambda: 2.6

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

Code:

  Q  Yield
 20M 15855
 50M 14482
 70M 13339

fivemack · 2019-09-25, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyb

Can you expand on this last point? Are such numbers more appropriate for 16e, or is there some other impediment to doing e.g. a SNFS-250 quartic on 15e?

For F1475, my trial sieving gave that 16e produces about 30% more relations per second than 15e, and the yield-per-Q is about a factor 2.7 higher so you can sieve a much smaller Q range and not worry about the yield drop-off at higher Q. 32-bit large primes (3 on the rational side) suffice.

I expect the effect to be even larger for harder quartics, might try timings on the phi_5(131..897) from mwrb2100.txt which has SNFS difficulty 252.47.

fivemack · 2019-09-25, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

I fully support running 197-199 GNFS on 15e, and I'll be happy to poly select and solve a matrix in support of such an endeavor.

I've devoted quite a lot of machine time to poly select (two to three thread-years for each of the ones I'm currently interested in), but help in solving matrices is always appreciated; they'll be a good deal easier than 2330L.

jyb · 2019-09-26, 19:18

QUEUED AS 10m9_253

SNFS-230.00 C216 HCN (10-9,253), ECM to t50+. For 14e.

Code:

n: 394923695545048859136128088114448035399949013892971656512582285391991854126211037458229464478916391861162408303453934162252335095282279188671911204848233792867743155779189978347086780778206088454907255644740285082039
# 10^253-9^253, difficulty: 230.00, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: 1
c3: -4
c2: -3
c1: 3
c0: 1
Y1: -886293811965250109592900000000000000000000000
Y0: 10078551672112789411833022577315290546060373041
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Trial sieving 2K blocks.

Code:

 Q		Yield
---		-----
20M		3749
50M		3427
80M		2870
110M		3466
140M		2626
170M		2295
200M		2519
230M		2436

Recommend sieving special Q on rational side, 20M - 110M.

jyb · 2019-09-26, 19:32

QUEUED AS 10p9_253

SNFS-230.00 C199 HCN (10+9,253), ECM to t50+. For 14e.

Code:

n: 5577034531754952626082977743621776075832980348143641281694044937070832423150697421651786970034298179553542277189634023831389211659951677292768658980831910856168796768970374461719680706586196800407681
# 10^253+9^253, difficulty: 230.00, skewness: 1.00, alpha: 2.22
skew: 1.000
c5: 1
c4: -1
c3: -4
c2: 3
c1: 3
c0: -1
Y1: -886293811965250109592900000000000000000000000
Y0: 10078551672112789411833022577315290546060373041
rlim: 67000000
alim: 67000000
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

Trial sieving 2K blocks.

Code:

 Q		Yield
---		-----
20M		3826
50M		3475
80M		2985
110M		3458
140M		2595
170M		2446
200M		2559
230M		2430

Recommend sieving special Q on rational side, 20M - 110M.

RichD · 2019-09-26, 21:55

QUEUED AS 55747762232143_17m1

C211 from the OPN t550 file.
[ a.k.a. Phi_17(Phi_3(Phi_3(Phi_5(263))/3/103/151/223/10651)/3/7/37)/1352891077 ]
This polynomial has a tenancy to have a higher dup rate.
Sieve on the algebraic side. Ready for 15e.

Code:

n: 6432446649433196869584178621993853438381209468616691873209478125079835403347355198902619684409591252294317066290739664182292592018264232329089032590580033849207263268026395603523547825765972888878130035122428813
# 55747762232143^17-1, difficulty: 219.95
lss: 0
skew: 1.0
c8: 1
c7: 1
c6: -7
c5: -6
c4: 15
c3: 10
c2: -10
c1: -4
c0: 1
Y1: -55747762232143
Y0: 3107812993891549481822372450
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 91
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.7
type: snfs

Trial sieving 5K blocks.

Code:

2019-09-24, 17:35	#2158
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2³×11×73 Posts	Is it OK if I start sieving on F1865 when sieving on 41284013010997_19m1 finishes? (F1865 was queued quite some time ago so will immediately be the highest-priority number; therefore I'm trying to queue one Fibonacci/Lucas at a time) I suspect I'll finish one or two large Fibonacci numbers locally before the queue has drained enough for more submissions ... trial-sieving is indicating that 15e is still better than 16e for GNFS at log(N)=198 so I have a couple of jobs which I could either run locally or on NFS@home 15e. I don't think it makes sense to run any more SNFS quartics at difficulty >245 on 15e, which means they probably do end up being run locally by me. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2019-09-24 at 17:37

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