mersenneforum.org Queue management for 16e queue
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2020-10-30, 22:11 #12 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 10010101001112 Posts jyb- Greg, the NFS@home host, has requested our 16e jobs maintain lim's that average 225M or smaller. Is it ok to edit your job to change lim's from 268M to 225M?
2020-10-31, 00:22   #13
jyb

Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

1,709 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis jyb- Greg, the NFS@home host, has requested our 16e jobs maintain lim's that average 225M or smaller. Is it ok to edit your job to change lim's from 268M to 225M?
Sure. Can we leave the other parameters as is, and just assume that we’ll need a little extra sieving?

 2020-10-31, 01:08 #14 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 477510 Posts Yep! Yield will barely drop, I think; a 20% change in lim's isn't much. Note for future jobs: mfb 96 with LP 32 is rarely best. usually 96 is used for 33, with 93-94 used for 32. Usually, a bit of yield is lost but sec/rel improves. The idea is that splitting a 96 bit cofactor is very unlikely to generate 32-32-32 split, so most of that effort is wasted. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2020-10-31 at 01:12
2020-10-31, 04:19   #15
jyb

Aug 2005
Seattle, WA

110101011012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Yep! Yield will barely drop, I think; a 20% change in lim's isn't much. Note for future jobs: mfb 96 with LP 32 is rarely best. usually 96 is used for 33, with 93-94 used for 32. Usually, a bit of yield is lost but sec/rel improves. The idea is that splitting a 96 bit cofactor is very unlikely to generate 32-32-32 split, so most of that effort is wasted.
Good to know, thanks.

 2020-11-19, 15:13 #16 swellman     Jun 2012 56618 Posts Odd Job C235_131_106 from the XYYXF project. A strange one to be sure. I test sieved both the deg 5 and deg 6 SNFS polys. Neither sieves all that efficiently, I assume due to the awkward coefficients. But the quintic clearly is more efficient in sieving - not even close. Maybe the sextic coefficients are just that much more awkward? After numerous test runs, the best way I could find to submit this to NFS@Home is as a 16f/31-bit job. Felt a bit counterintuitive, but what do I know. 15e struggled to get any yield on either poly, though I did not try 15e/33-bit. Seemed a bit much. 16f/31 was the sweet spot. Any objections to me submitting this job? Code: n: 1030503235456803762016167471530641995037760274197968310988179590505950995510892101498055733828425469497568921009021217030573300085480516986964919661166160134908753817168257662257684691416593544651963249784543552924184296481653156578163 # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 267.34, anorm: 2.36e+032, rnorm: 4.45e+058 # scaled difficulty: 271.72, suggest sieving rational side # size = 2.140e-018, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.749e-014, rroots = 1 type: snfs size: 267 skew: 1.0433 c5: 106 c0: 131 Y1: -290199866805246507499041077857400346603111731 Y0: 45493829629280918649510295477477883207043693313785856 rlim: 134000000 alim: 134000000 lpbr: 31 lpba: 31 mfbr: 91 mfba: 62 rlambda: 3.4 alambda: 2.7 16f test sieving yield, with Q in blocks of 2000: Code: 60M 1.94 100M 1.96 150M 1.67 200M 1.67 250M 1.49 Suggesting a Q-range of 60-210M with a number of raw relations target = 260M. The sextic: Code: n: 1030503235456803762016167471530641995037760274197968310988179590505950995510892101498055733828425469497568921009021217030573300085480516986964919661166160134908753817168257662257684691416593544651963249784543552924184296481653156578163 # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 269.37, anorm: 2.70e+039, rnorm: -5.51e+050 # scaled difficulty: 271.25, suggest sieving rational side # size = 6.893e-014, alpha = 0.669, combined = 1.663e-014, rroots = 0 type: snfs size: 269 skew: 2.3346 c6: 106 c0: 17161 Y1: -360353741657835234074373091747178365988110336 Y0: 129087241933376588180389974363760340041 rlim: 225000000 alim: 225000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 94 mfba: 64 rlambda: 3.5 alambda: 2.8 I have test sieving results of this deg 6 poly if anyone is interested. But it's a bust. Last fiddled with by swellman on 2020-11-19 at 15:15
2020-11-19, 16:42   #17
axn

Jun 2003

10011010111112 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman I test sieved both the deg 5 and deg 6 SNFS polys. Neither sieves all that efficiently, I assume due to the awkward coefficients. But the quintic clearly is more efficient in sieving - not even close. Maybe the sextic coefficients are just that much more awkward?
Did you try algebraic or rational side for sextic? If the latter, former might be worth a try.

EDIT:- Nevermind. The sextic is just ugly.

Last fiddled with by axn on 2020-11-19 at 16:50

2020-11-19, 16:56   #18
swellman

Jun 2012

41·73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn Did you try algebraic or rational side for sextic? If the latter, former might be worth a try.
I tried both sides. I usually look at 2/2, 3/2 and 2/3 LPs and test sieve each case on the -r and -a sides. Wasn’t a lot of difference but the rational side won out.

ETA: And yes, that is an ugly sextic!

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2020-11-19 at 16:58

2020-11-19, 17:02   #19
axn

Jun 2003

32·19·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by swellman I tried both sides. I usually look at 2/2, 3/2 and 2/3 LPs and test sieve each case on the -r and -a sides. Wasn’t a lot of difference but the rational side won out.
# 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 267.34
# 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 269.37

I don't get this part. IIUC, for getting the sextic, the number had to be multiplied by 131^2*106, whereas for the quintic, there is no such fiddling necessary. So the sextic difficulty should be 6 digits larger.

2020-11-19, 17:24   #20
swellman

Jun 2012

41·73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by axn # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 267.34 # 131^106+106^131, difficulty: 269.37 I don't get this part. IIUC, for getting the sextic, the number had to be multiplied by 131^2*106, whereas for the quintic, there is no such fiddling necessary. So the sextic difficulty should be 6 digits larger.
Output by Yafu. With SNFS it cranks out dozens of potential polynomials then downselects to the best three for test sieving. Perhaps B^2 can shed more light on the various steps of that Kabuki dance.

 2020-11-19, 18:40 #21 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 52·191 Posts On the quintic 16/31 as you wish to submit, I'd try bumping alim to 200M while leaving rlim alone. Both yield and sec/rel should improve slightly. I'd also try mfba of 61 or 60- you might not gain speed, but it should reduce rels needed / final matrix size without a loss of sieve speed.
2020-11-19, 19:01   #22
swellman

Jun 2012

41·73 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis On the quintic 16/31 as you wish to submit, I'd try bumping alim to 200M while leaving rlim alone. Both yield and sec/rel should improve slightly. I'd also try mfba of 61 or 60- you might not gain speed, but it should reduce rels needed / final matrix size without a loss of sieve speed.
I will try these. Should not adversely affect NFS@Home and it could improve efficiency all with no apparent downside. Thanks!

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post VBCurtis NFS@Home 28 2021-05-05 08:04 VBCurtis NFS@Home 130 2021-05-04 16:28 Rodrigo Software 7 2018-05-25 13:26 debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05 joblack Information & Answers 1 2009-01-06 08:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 00:56.

Sun May 9 00:56:54 UTC 2021 up 30 days, 19:37, 0 users, load averages: 2.44, 1.94, 1.83