mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   CADO-NFS (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=170)
-   -   Some CADO-NFS Work At Around 175-180 Decimal Digits (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=25479)

VBCurtis 2020-04-18 20:45

1 Attachment(s)
Changes to this file versus the last file of the same name:
Added 25% to poly select range (because c177, same range I used for Charybdis' C177).
Reduced both lim's by 10M. You had Q-final of 93M while using I=15, and smaller lim's often yield a smaller matrix. If someone uses A=28 instead, they would choose bigger lim's (as we did for Charybdis). Yield drops a tiny bit when lim's are reduced, effect of sec/rel unclear (there's a fastest choice for lim, we don't know what it is).
Increased both lambdas by 0.015. This will improve yield quite a bit, but will increase the number of relations needed because the added yield comes from splitting larger cofactors. It's unclear whether that tradeoff improves or hurts sieve time- that's why we test!
Set rels_wanted to 265M. Just a few posts ago I said 260 would be enough, but then I increased lambdas.

charybdis 2020-04-18 21:12

[QUOTE=EdH;543090]Thanks. I've reserved 5+2,415 (12586...71 <177 dd>) for this next run.[/QUOTE]

Might want to check you've got the right number, those digits don't match what I'm [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000642546194"]seeing[/URL]?

Currently at 287M relations on my 32/32LP run, should reach the initial target of 325M tomorrow. If 325M at 32/32 is indeed comparable with 250M at 31/32, then it looks like 32/32 may be very slightly better, but I'll hold off on giving a full opinion on that until I've got a matrix.

EdH 2020-04-18 21:25

[QUOTE=charybdis;543097]Might want to check you've got the right number, those digits don't match what I'm [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000642546194"]seeing[/URL]?

Currently at 287M relations on my 32/32LP run, should reach the initial target of 325M tomorrow. If 325M at 32/32 is indeed comparable with 250M at 31/32, then it looks like 32/32 may be very slightly better, but I'll hold off on giving a full opinion on that until I've got a matrix.[/QUOTE]
Quite right! Thanks! I've reserved 5+2,415, but the composite is:
[code]
572104397924416007907491497280028964417584573249344846496494935688320410664593694835173261723655611747846299032109095649324060656666752385406703309173809568221352517003465647761
[/code]I don't think I'll bother trying to cover the mistake with edits.:smile:

EdH 2020-04-18 21:28

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;543095]Changes to this file versus the last file of the same name:
Added 25% to poly select range (because c177, same range I used for Charybdis' C177).
Reduced both lim's by 10M. You had Q-final of 93M while using I=15, and smaller lim's often yield a smaller matrix. If someone uses A=28 instead, they would choose bigger lim's (as we did for Charybdis). Yield drops a tiny bit when lim's are reduced, effect of sec/rel unclear (there's a fastest choice for lim, we don't know what it is).
Increased both lambdas by 0.015. This will improve yield quite a bit, but will increase the number of relations needed because the added yield comes from splitting larger cofactors. It's unclear whether that tradeoff improves or hurts sieve time- that's why we test!
Set rels_wanted to 265M. Just a few posts ago I said 260 would be enough, but then I increased lambdas.[/QUOTE]
Thanks! I will keep you posted. What density should I initially try? Or, should I just let msieve choose its default?

VBCurtis 2020-04-19 01:28

I'd try msieve density 100, failing that 90. I would sieve more on a job this size before I'd run a matrix that didn't build at 90. My personal standard is density 84 above GNFS140, 90 above GNFS150, 100 above 160, .... up to density 120 for big jobs.

EdH 2020-04-19 02:52

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;543119]I'd try msieve density 100, failing that 90. I would sieve more on a job this size before I'd run a matrix that didn't build at 90. My personal standard is density 84 above GNFS140, 90 above GNFS150, 100 above 160, .... up to density 120 for big jobs.[/QUOTE]
Thanks!

I've forgotten (again) what to do about this. I could go find my notes on it, but for now I'm going to leave it to see what it looks like in the morning.

Server:
[code]
PID7663 2020-04-18 21:55:22,267 Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Marking workunit c175_polyselect1_1406160-1407840 as ok (99.8% => ETA Sat Apr 18 21:55:53 2020)
PID7663 2020-04-18 21:55:58,329 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000260 s, found 0 WUs
. . .
PID7663 2020-04-18 22:43:02,590 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000260 s, found 0 WUs
PID7663 2020-04-18 22:44:02,680 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000253 s, found 0 WUs
[/code]Clients:
[code]2020-04-18 22:51:29,661 - ERROR:root:Download failed, URL error: HTTP Error 404: No work available
2020-04-18 22:51:29,661 - ERROR:root:Waiting 10.0 seconds before retrying (I have been waiting since 3400.0 seconds)[/code]

EdH 2020-04-19 13:42

I guess after a couple hours it figured it out:
[code]
2020-04-19 00:22:06,693 - ERROR:root:Download failed, URL error: HTTP Error 404: No work available
2020-04-19 00:22:06,693 - ERROR:root:Waiting 10.0 seconds before retrying (I have been waiting since 8830.0 seconds)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,726 - INFO:root:Opened URL http://math79.local:13531/cgi-bin/getwu?clientid=math97.math97 [B]after 8840.0 seconds wait[/B]
2020-04-19 00:22:16,726 - INFO:root:Downloading http://math79.local:13531/c175.polyselect2.raw_60 to download/c175.polyselect2.raw_60 (cafile = None)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,735 - INFO:root:Result file math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60 does not exist
2020-04-19 00:22:16,736 - INFO:root:Overriding argument -t 2 by -t 8 in command line (substitution t 8)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,736 - INFO:root:Running 'build/math97/polyselect/polyselect_ropt' -t 8 -inputpolys 'download/c175.polyselect2.raw_60' -ropteffort 35.0 -area 268435456000000.0 -Bf 4294967296.0 -Bg 2147483648.0 > 'math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60'
2020-04-19 00:22:16,737 - INFO:root:[Sun Apr 19 00:22:16 2020] Subprocess has PID 5693
2020-04-19 00:31:33,484 - INFO:root:Attaching file math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60 to upload
2020-04-19 00:31:33,484 - INFO:root:Attaching stderr for command 0 to upload
2020-04-19 00:31:33,485 - INFO:root:Sending result for workunit c175_polyselect2_60 to http://math79.local:13531/cgi-bin/upload.py[/code]

charybdis 2020-04-19 17:47

325M relations weren't quite enough to get a matrix even at TD 90, but a few million more did it:

[code]Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020 commencing relation filtering
Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020 estimated available RAM is 15845.4 MB
Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
(errors)
Sun Apr 19 17:19:51 2020 found 102448637 hash collisions in 330667512 relations
Sun Apr 19 17:20:12 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Sun Apr 19 17:26:36 2020 found 139709136 duplicates and 190958376 unique relations
Sun Apr 19 17:26:36 2020 memory use: 2387.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:26:37 2020 reading ideals above 179765248
Sun Apr 19 17:26:37 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Sun Apr 19 17:41:48 2020 memory use: 5512.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:41:48 2020 reading all ideals from disk
Sun Apr 19 17:42:05 2020 memory use: 3105.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:42:10 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:42:14 2020 begin with 190958376 relations and 190440858 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:42:49 2020 reduce to 67714925 relations and 46908602 ideals in 18 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:42:49 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 18
Sun Apr 19 17:42:54 2020 reading ideals above 720000
Sun Apr 19 17:42:54 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Sun Apr 19 17:52:48 2020 memory use: 1506.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:52:48 2020 reading all ideals from disk
Sun Apr 19 17:53:02 2020 memory use: 2712.7 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:53:08 2020 keeping 66505989 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 362159
Sun Apr 19 17:53:13 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:53:17 2020 begin with 67714927 relations and 66505989 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:54:20 2020 reduce to 66898598 relations and 65688193 ideals in 15 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:54:20 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 200
Sun Apr 19 17:54:45 2020 removing 4307227 relations and 3912077 ideals in 395150 cliques
Sun Apr 19 17:54:46 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:54:50 2020 begin with 62591371 relations and 65688193 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:55:33 2020 reduce to 62380577 relations and 61563592 ideals in 11 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:55:33 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 196
Sun Apr 19 17:55:57 2020 removing 3199408 relations and 2804258 ideals in 395150 cliques
Sun Apr 19 17:55:58 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:56:02 2020 begin with 59181169 relations and 61563592 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:56:35 2020 reduce to 59051063 relations and 58628363 ideals in 9 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:56:35 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 191
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 0 large ideals: 1246
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 1 large ideals: 1656
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 2 large ideals: 24589
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 3 large ideals: 240980
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 4 large ideals: 1367864
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 5 large ideals: 4791557
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 6 large ideals: 10864030
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 relations with 7+ large ideals: 41759141
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020 commencing 2-way merge
Sun Apr 19 17:57:36 2020 reduce to 34679367 relation sets and 34256667 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:57:36 2020 commencing full merge
Sun Apr 19 18:05:41 2020 memory use: 4120.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:05:43 2020 found 17244214 cycles, need 17220867
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 weight of 17220867 cycles is about 1550339153 (90.03/cycle)
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 distribution of cycle lengths:
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 1 relations: 2022334
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 2 relations: 1926744
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 3 relations: 1913590
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 4 relations: 1730002
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 5 relations: 1548025
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 6 relations: 1328489
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 7 relations: 1121823
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 8 relations: 968705
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 9 relations: 819466
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 10+ relations: 3841689
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020 heaviest cycle: 28 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:05:50 2020 commencing cycle optimization
Sun Apr 19 18:06:11 2020 start with 110652123 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:19 2020 pruned 2790485 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 memory use: 3551.9 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 distribution of cycle lengths:
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 1 relations: 2022334
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 2 relations: 1972975
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 3 relations: 1982743
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 4 relations: 1771497
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 5 relations: 1583946
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 6 relations: 1341882
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 7 relations: 1131207
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 8 relations: 965861
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 9 relations: 810926
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 10+ relations: 3637496
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020 heaviest cycle: 28 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:46 2020 RelProcTime: 4985
Sun Apr 19 18:08:51 2020
Sun Apr 19 18:08:51 2020 commencing linear algebra
Sun Apr 19 18:08:52 2020 read 17220867 cycles
Sun Apr 19 18:09:17 2020 cycles contain 58542363 unique relations
Sun Apr 19 18:16:26 2020 read 58542363 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:17:36 2020 using 20 quadratic characters above 4294917295
Sun Apr 19 18:21:21 2020 building initial matrix
Sun Apr 19 18:29:34 2020 memory use: 8134.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:29:47 2020 read 17220867 cycles
Sun Apr 19 18:29:49 2020 matrix is 17220690 x 17220867 (6464.0 MB) with weight 2013780097 (116.94/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:29:49 2020 sparse part has weight 1487861006 (86.40/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:32:21 2020 filtering completed in 2 passes
Sun Apr 19 18:32:24 2020 matrix is 17217913 x 17218089 (6463.8 MB) with weight 2013661326 (116.95/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:32:24 2020 sparse part has weight 1487837862 (86.41/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:43 2020 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020 matrix is 17217913 x 17218089 (6463.8 MB) with weight 2013661326 (116.95/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020 sparse part has weight 1487837862 (86.41/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Sun Apr 19 18:33:48 2020 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020 matrix is 17217865 x 17218089 (6281.6 MB) with weight 1663992024 (96.64/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020 sparse part has weight 1474515316 (85.64/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020 using block size 8192 and superblock size 884736 for processor cache size 9216 kB
Sun Apr 19 18:34:30 2020 commencing Lanczos iteration (6 threads)
Sun Apr 19 18:34:30 2020 memory use: 6059.7 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:35:10 2020 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 123h21m[/code]

This will need a fair amount more sieving to get a good matrix I imagine; 17M is a fair bit larger than any of the matrices I got on my 31/32LP job.

charybdis 2020-04-20 01:30

Better, but still not ideal:

[code]Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020 commencing relation filtering
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020 setting target matrix density to 100.0
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020 estimated available RAM is 15845.4 MB
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
(errors)
Mon Apr 20 00:54:28 2020 found 108030440 hash collisions in 347132929 relations
Mon Apr 20 00:54:50 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Mon Apr 20 01:01:34 2020 found 147518191 duplicates and 199614738 unique relations
Mon Apr 20 01:01:34 2020 memory use: 2387.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:01:35 2020 reading ideals above 179896320
Mon Apr 20 01:01:35 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Apr 20 01:17:30 2020 memory use: 5512.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:17:31 2020 reading all ideals from disk
Mon Apr 20 01:17:50 2020 memory use: 3246.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:17:54 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:17:58 2020 begin with 199614738 relations and 194861693 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:18:37 2020 reduce to 76740221 relations and 52750298 ideals in 17 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:18:37 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 18
Mon Apr 20 01:18:42 2020 reading ideals above 720000
Mon Apr 20 01:18:42 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Apr 20 01:29:35 2020 memory use: 1506.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:29:36 2020 reading all ideals from disk
Mon Apr 20 01:29:54 2020 memory use: 3078.2 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:30:00 2020 keeping 72339295 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 412697
Mon Apr 20 01:30:06 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:30:11 2020 begin with 76740226 relations and 72339295 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:31:17 2020 reduce to 76235207 relations and 71833769 ideals in 14 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:31:17 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 200
Mon Apr 20 01:31:45 2020 removing 3982395 relations and 3582395 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:31:46 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:31:51 2020 begin with 72252812 relations and 71833769 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:32:27 2020 reduce to 72108808 relations and 68106326 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:32:27 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 198
Mon Apr 20 01:32:53 2020 removing 2968133 relations and 2568133 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:32:54 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:32:59 2020 begin with 69140675 relations and 68106326 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:33:33 2020 reduce to 69052705 relations and 65449713 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:33:33 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 196
Mon Apr 20 01:33:58 2020 removing 2645270 relations and 2245270 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:33:59 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:34:03 2020 begin with 66407435 relations and 65449713 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:34:36 2020 reduce to 66332671 relations and 63129258 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:34:36 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 190
Mon Apr 20 01:35:00 2020 removing 2465553 relations and 2065553 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:35:01 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:35:05 2020 begin with 63867118 relations and 63129258 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:35:36 2020 reduce to 63798876 relations and 60995098 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:35:36 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 187
Mon Apr 20 01:36:00 2020 removing 2343003 relations and 1943003 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:36:01 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:36:05 2020 begin with 61455873 relations and 60995098 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:36:31 2020 reduce to 61391450 relations and 58987295 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:36:31 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 182
Mon Apr 20 01:36:54 2020 removing 2255365 relations and 1855365 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:36:54 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:36:58 2020 begin with 59136085 relations and 58987295 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:37:24 2020 reduce to 59074085 relations and 57069592 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:37:24 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 178
Mon Apr 20 01:37:45 2020 removing 2189740 relations and 1789740 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:37:46 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:37:50 2020 begin with 56884345 relations and 57069592 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:38:14 2020 reduce to 56823284 relations and 55218433 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:38:14 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 172
Mon Apr 20 01:38:35 2020 removing 2141324 relations and 1741324 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:38:36 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:38:39 2020 begin with 54681960 relations and 55218433 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:39:09 2020 reduce to 54621273 relations and 53416061 ideals in 9 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:39:09 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 168
Mon Apr 20 01:39:29 2020 removing 2101359 relations and 1701359 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:39:30 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:39:33 2020 begin with 52519914 relations and 53416061 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:39:56 2020 reduce to 52458873 relations and 51653274 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:39:56 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 166
Mon Apr 20 01:40:15 2020 removing 1744320 relations and 1417450 ideals in 326870 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:40:16 2020 commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:40:19 2020 begin with 50714553 relations and 51653274 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:40:40 2020 reduce to 50670954 relations and 50191970 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:40:40 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 164
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 0 large ideals: 1404
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 1 large ideals: 2464
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 2 large ideals: 35035
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 3 large ideals: 313598
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 4 large ideals: 1606387
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 5 large ideals: 5084360
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 6 large ideals: 10406242
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 relations with 7+ large ideals: 33221464
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020 commencing 2-way merge
Mon Apr 20 01:41:32 2020 reduce to 30988355 relation sets and 30509371 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:41:32 2020 commencing full merge
Mon Apr 20 01:48:59 2020 memory use: 3777.1 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:49:02 2020 found 14975257 cycles, need 14925571
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 weight of 14925571 cycles is about 1492665462 (100.01/cycle)
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 distribution of cycle lengths:
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 1 relations: 1267534
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 2 relations: 1375762
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 3 relations: 1443044
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 4 relations: 1366428
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 5 relations: 1300232
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 6 relations: 1181723
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 7 relations: 1079223
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 8 relations: 957610
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 9 relations: 853021
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 10+ relations: 4100994
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020 heaviest cycle: 27 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:49:08 2020 commencing cycle optimization
Mon Apr 20 01:49:26 2020 start with 105680214 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:51:40 2020 pruned 3293755 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 memory use: 3182.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 distribution of cycle lengths:
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 1 relations: 1267534
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 2 relations: 1409368
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 3 relations: 1498136
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 4 relations: 1408492
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 5 relations: 1342845
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 6 relations: 1211287
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 7 relations: 1104355
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 8 relations: 973387
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 9 relations: 861883
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 10+ relations: 3848284
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020 heaviest cycle: 27 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:52:04 2020 RelProcTime: 5613
Mon Apr 20 01:52:09 2020
Mon Apr 20 01:52:09 2020 commencing linear algebra
Mon Apr 20 01:52:10 2020 read 14925571 cycles
Mon Apr 20 01:52:34 2020 cycles contain 50343966 unique relations
Mon Apr 20 01:59:36 2020 read 50343966 relations
Mon Apr 20 02:00:40 2020 using 20 quadratic characters above 4294917295
Mon Apr 20 02:03:53 2020 building initial matrix
Mon Apr 20 02:11:39 2020 memory use: 7107.1 MB
Mon Apr 20 02:11:48 2020 read 14925571 cycles
Mon Apr 20 02:11:50 2020 matrix is 14925394 x 14925571 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895598568 (127.00/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:11:50 2020 sparse part has weight 1419511207 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:14:13 2020 filtering completed in 2 passes
Mon Apr 20 02:14:15 2020 matrix is 14924343 x 14924519 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895554864 (127.01/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:14:15 2020 sparse part has weight 1419502766 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:30 2020 matrix starts at (0, 0)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020 matrix is 14924343 x 14924519 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895554864 (127.01/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020 sparse part has weight 1419502766 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Mon Apr 20 02:15:33 2020 matrix includes 64 packed rows
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020 matrix is 14924295 x 14924519 (5935.9 MB) with weight 1585538856 (106.24/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020 sparse part has weight 1406827930 (94.26/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020 using block size 8192 and superblock size 884736 for processor cache size 9216 kB
Mon Apr 20 02:16:13 2020 commencing Lanczos iteration (6 threads)
Mon Apr 20 02:16:13 2020 memory use: 5668.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 02:16:47 2020 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 89h59m[/code]

My impression is that 31/32 and 32/32 are pretty similar in terms of the sieving time needed to build a matrix, but 32/32 results in larger matrices and so 31/32 should be preferred.

Edit: Curtis - I'll start my next job after I've sieved the current c177 a bit more overnight. The natural target would be one of the Homogeneous Cunningham c178s (Ed took the last c177), which I'd like to do with I=15 so that we can get some sort of comparison between A=28 and I=15 on the same hardware. Are there any changes I should make to the parameter file you just gave Ed - maybe slightly higher lims?

VBCurtis 2020-04-20 02:25

If we're trying to build new params file for c175 and c180 to send to the CADO group, we would set poly select params optimal for c175-6 on the .c175 file, and optimal for c180-181 for the .c180 file.

So, let's do a bit of that- change admax from 15e5 to 17e5, and add 20% to P (2400000 rather than 2000000). I think for a c180 file I'd go with admax 2e6 and P=2.5M, but you're not going to run a full c180.

Similarly, to go from c175 to c180 I'd usually add 40% to both lim's; but to go up one digit that's not called for. Let's use 100M and 140M.

For I=15, 31/32 is still the right LP size; 32/32 was possibly faster for A=28, but not for I=15. We simply don't need the boost in yield, and you saw the matrices are bigger without a big advantage in sieve time. Let's loosen lambda0 a bit more, 1.88.
Bigger numbers need more relations, but we're seeing the number of unique relations jump all over the place- it's the number of uniques that matter, not the raw-relations count. So, I'd say 270M is enough, but I think we're really targeting some number of unique rels just a bit higher than you had on your first job.

Note that your 32/32 job also had a lot of duplicate relations. That duplicate ratio is hard to predict; really we'd like to set a rels_wanted_unique, and let duplicate removal run in parallel with sieving. Sigh, maybe in CADO 4.0. If you had sieved your 32/32 job until you had 30% more unique rels than you had on the 31/32 job, I suspect the matrix would come out only barely bigger.

EdH 2020-04-20 02:56

[QUOTE=charybdis;543219]. . .
Edit: Curtis - I'll start my next job after I've sieved the current c177 a bit more overnight. The natural target would be one of the Homogeneous Cunningham c178s (Ed took the last c177), which I'd like to do with I=15 so that we can get some sort of comparison between A=28 and I=15 on the same hardware. Are there any changes I should make to the parameter file you just gave Ed - maybe slightly higher lims?[/QUOTE]If you would like the 177 for experimentation and better comparison, it would be OK with me to let you have it. I can grab a 178 next. I can easily unreserve it on the HCN page. You can go ahead and start it and let me know later so I can stop my farming and unreserve it.


All times are UTC. The time now is 08:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.