20190205, 23:40  #1 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
117E_{16} Posts 
Matrix data for GNFS 190+ on NFS@home
I took advantage of all the pastebin'ed logs to compile a list of results for all the 15e jobs that were GNFS 190 or bigger (and one 189 because I ran it and had the data handy)
First, the 32LP jobs: Code:
Size name poly score unique rels matrix density 189 149_128 xyyx 2.47e14 360M 22.3M 128 190 HP2_4496_296 2.02e14 343M 34.1M 110 190 3270_698 1.70e14 320M 23.9M 120 191 A3408_1668 1.73e14 385M 29.0M 130 191 L5355A 1.41e14 324M 31.4M 124 192 L1438 1.31e14 425M 27.8M 146 28.5M 134 192 L3655A 1.31e14 382M 25.0M 150 26.5M 134 193 2340_742 1.50e14 320M 31.5M 120 193 L5895B 9.36e15 346M 38.5M 126 33LP jobs from the 15e queue: Code:
Size name poly score unique rels matrix density 193 143_93 xyyx 1.27e14 680M 38.3M 128 194 A4788_5236 1.22e14?* 659M 34.4M 116.7 195 148_83 xyyx 7.62e15 707M 49.1M 136 195 A3366_2180 1.02e14 695M 37.4M 134 196 135_124 xyyx 7.95e15 687M 44.4M 151.6 45.8M 134 197 A4788_12515 7.57e15 615M 51.2M 118 198 EuclidMullin 7.11e15 786M 38.4M 120 Decimal target densities reflect a requested TD higher than what filtering produced, indicating the input was oversieved and that higher TDs would not produce different matrices (but limiting number of relations might!) This data gives us an idea of how large a matrix might be expected, and can guide us in deciding whether to sieve more. With the benefit of hindsight and this comparative data, I would say the C190 HP2 should have been sieved a little more, likewise Aliquot 4788_12515. Also, the 148_83 xyyx input was a nasty, nasty matrix and I would have asked for more sieving even though 707M unique relations is more than nearly any other number here received. Later I'll do the same for frmky's 16e logs. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190206 at 00:02 
20190205, 23:56  #2 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,239 Posts 
Some conclusions:
15e tasks below GNFS190 can be solved on 16GB machines, as the matrices should be 26M or smaller. Memory footprint is around 10% larger than the reported size of the matrix in msieve, and 2526M matrices are generally reported to be 13GB or smaller by msieve. GNFS190 to 193 should use 32LP to produce a matrix smaller than 33M. If it doesn't, request some more sieving. GNFS194 to 197 should produce matrices 35M to 45M. Greg's run with EuclidMullin indicates that more relations than we've otherwise used may be helpful in keeping matrices under 45M in size. GNFS 193 and 194 should consider using 32LP, as the 33LP job using a 25% betterscoring poly produced the same size matrix as a 32LP job, while the 32LP job needed just over half the unique relations of the 33LP. If yield is good, go 32LP here. More data comparing the two would help, and NFS@home is just the place to create that data! Perhaps a 32/33 hybrid for poly scores just below 1e14? 
20190206, 00:42  #3 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,239 Posts 
Data from the 16e queue, before 1/1/2017:
Code:
Size name poly score unique rels matrix density 190 7,401 2.22e14 835M 18.0M 130 191 3,790+ 2.03e14 755M 20.5M 130 192 5,485+ 1.70e14 948M 18.7M 130 194 2.2186M 1.06e14 737M 29.1M 130 196 5,1085L 8.16e15 824M 32.8M 130 196 2.2530M skew1 866M 26.2M 130 197 10,325+ 7.24e15 830M 28.0M 130 197 147_136 xyyx 7.22e15 833M 27.6M 130 202 6,460+ 3.44e15 749M 41.9M 130 202 11,671M 3.16e15 851M 35.9M 130 204 7,373 2.47e15 709M 46.0M 130 208 3,703+ 1.21e15 765M 53.0M 130 208 10,359 1.12e15 631M 72.5M 120 212 6,490+ 6.43e16(deg5) 661M 79.1M 120 218 2.1285 2.64e16(deg5) 674M 108.5M 120 I'll post 2017's data later. 
20190207, 00:19  #4 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
10576_{8} Posts 
Data from 16e queue after 1/1/17:
Code:
Size name poly score unique rels matrix density 193 E162 1.27e14 839M 24.8M 130 198 B228 6.18e15 844M 28.0M 130 200 E192 3.99e15 771M 41.4M 130 200 Repunit507 4.53e15 735M 40.1M 130 KurtB 202 E148 2.88e15 804M 44.8M 130 206 XYYX139_123 2.11e15 792M 43.6M 134 207 HP2_4496_310 1.63e15 730M 51.6M 130 208 B248 1.15e15 723M 58.1M 130 Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190428 at 12:35 
20190427, 23:47  #5 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
117E_{16} Posts 
Added: The C206 from XYYX project. I've just finished filtering; 1165M raw 33LP relations yielded 792M unique. TD=134 produced a matrix just under 44M in size.

20190428, 05:59  #6 
"Beschorner Kurt"
Jul 2016
Germany
23_{8} Posts 
for comparison/as an addition:
our team is currently working on the repunitnumber R507,GNFS, c200 with lpb.= 33, combined = 4.526e15, TD=130, 735.4M uniques, 625.7 unique ideals andmatrixsize = 40.094968. closer: www.kurtbeschorner.de Kurt VBCurtis: Added to chart. Thanks! Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190428 at 12:36 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Connectivity Matrix  Xyzzy  Lounge  13  20170221 18:29 
GNFS matrix stage on GPU  fivemack  GPU Computing  0  20160714 15:44 
12+256 matrix job  fivemack  Factoring  11  20090818 17:39 
GF(2) Matrix request  oslik  Factoring  22  20081102 12:53 
[Need help] about Matrix Polynomial  buan  Homework Help  3  20070717 15:07 