Thread: Reservations
View Single Post
Old 2010-11-09, 19:00   #10
Raman
Noodles
 
Raman's Avatar
 
"Mr. Tuch"
Dec 2007
Chennai, India

23518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdodson View Post
Now what's intended by "all those other numbers"? I've
accounted for our four current reservations; only the one
Bob mentions relevant here --- the issue, as I understand
is _reservations_ not completed factorizations.
I meant that latest quartic reservations of yours, including that
2,1870M, which I think you deliberately reserved, even after Mr. Silverman
posting several times that "I plan to do so with 2,1870M next".

Plus that easier reservations by NFS@Home, probably that GNFS numbers
< difficulty 180 digits, that size can be barely done by that people with
much smaller resources itself.

I don't know whose fault it is, may be that you reserved that number
after Mr. Silverman posted that he may not be able to do so with
that number 2,1870L
? That means that Mr. Silverman 'lost' his number, rather?
I would rather suggest that he could have reserved up with that number
(candidate 2,1870M) earlier on, before itself...

No, that the numbers in the Linear Algebra stage cannot be counted with
reservations again, since it is remotely running upon 4 cores, it does not affect with rest of sieving, either, it can't be made any more faster as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.Silverman View Post
I could probably do 2,1930M. (4-5 months of sieving; I have about
18 to 24 machines half time and 3 machines full time; availability varies).
10,590M is probably just out of range. (6-8 months of sieving; yech)
I am not quite ready to release with that number 2,1930M. I would not like to see this number orphaned. I wish to do it along with my current set of reservations. This is my last set of numbers that I will contribute to Cunningham project. It would take only upto 25 days for me in order to sieve up with this number, enough that I would rather start up with sieving upon this number within another 20 days or so, thus.

If in case that this number is under demand, I will do it before 2,985-, which I rather thought that I would do so with immediately after 2,985- (at third place, after that two numbers 2,2334M 2,985-).

It is not fair to ask me to release a number after I have prepared for that number. You said that you cannot use larger factor bases even with 2,1870L, that means that 2,1930M will take up with even longer time.

Would you mind considering with either of that two numbers 11,539M, or 3,605+? 3,605+ is within that main Cunningham tables right now, if in case that it survives up with that optimal amount of ECM activity? This number, had been from extended Cunningham tables, I don't mind if in any case that it takes up with much longer time, rather. In my opinion, that this is rather an ideal number in order to do so with all your larger quartics "code tests". Without complaining further from now onwards, I would rather say that not to lose up with this number atleast

Last fiddled with by Raman on 2010-11-09 at 19:23
Raman is offline   Reply With Quote