mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-09-11, 13:49   #12
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

2,441 Posts
Default

From M1 to M500, 83 fully factored M(prime), not counting prime themselves. 30 have 2 factors. 17 have 3 factors. Therefore 36 have 4 or more factors.

Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2020-09-11 at 14:06
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-11, 14:04   #13
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

3·2,917 Posts
Default

Ok. Based upon the ECM data we are looking at 5 or fewer factors for M1277
Uncwilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 02:04   #14
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2·811 Posts
Default

M1277 is 384 decimal digits long, if memory serves. If it were "smooth" as some here like to say, this might have been done and over a long time ago. Four LL tests says it is composite. A P-1 test back in 2017 used a (5-trillion + 3) B1 bound. The B2, (400-trillion + 241).

One individual I am aware of spent months running Stage 1 ECM's with Prime95 and Stage 2 with GMP-ECM. Unless somebody could coax Google into trying this on their quantum supercomputer, M1277 will likely remain an enigma for quite some time to come. It must have one, or more, really large factors which we do not have the tech to reach currently.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 03:40   #15
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,409 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm5510 View Post
. It must have one, or more, really large factors which we do not have the tech to reach currently.
It has little to do with tech, lots to do with patience and willingness to pay the power bill.

There is still plenty of ECM to do on this number before it's "ready" for SNFS. Anyone can fire up curves at, say, B1 = 6e9 or bigger and have a go- and few of us would be surprised if someone found a factor in just that way. If another quarter million or so (I didn't actually calculate how many) such curves fail to find a factor, then we head off to SNFS when someone feels like starting it.

We have the tech to do SNFS on it right now, but not the patience. It would take a cluster to solve the matrix, but those exist too. The sieving is a really long task, which is why nobody has bothered to try (and also why more ECM is worth the effort)- but CADO can do it.

So, no, it's not true that we don't have the tech.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 13:55   #16
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

2×811 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
It has little to do with tech, lots to do with patience and willingness to pay the power bill.

There is still plenty of ECM to do on this number before it's "ready" for SNFS.
Anyone can fire up curves at, say,B1 = 6e9 or bigger and have a go- and few of us would be surprised if someone found a factor in just that way. If another quarter million or so (I didn't actually calculate how many) such curves fail to find a factor, then we head off to SNFS when someone feels like starting it.

We have the tech to do SNFS on it right now, but not the patience. It would take a cluster to solve the matrix, but those exist too. The sieving is a really long task, which is why nobody has bothered to try (and also why more ECM is worth the effort)- but CADO can do it.

So, no, it's not true that we don't have the tech.

6,000,000,000 for B1. I believe the rule-of-thumb is B2 = B1 * 100. Of course, that is not set in stone. A person could go higher if they choose.

I have an older machine that sits in a corner I could do this with. It is not fast or elegant but it gets the job done. It still has the 29.x version of Prime95 on it. I could let this run for months, even years. I will give this a go. The only requirement is to not let it run out of work.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 15:02   #17
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

104718 Posts
Default

Actually, I assumed GMP-ECM for the runs, as it is dramatically faster than P95 for this very small (by GIMPS standards) number. You'll find that B2 is much much more than 100* B1 when using GMP-ECM. Memory use is also higher, though.

There's another M1277 thread where the procedure for using P95 for stage 1 and GMP-ECM for stage 2 is laid out- that's the fastest way for this number. If you're doing more than a handful of curves, I strongly suggest you use GMP-ECM (windows or linux) for stage 2.

I think I ran 500 curves in just this way a couple years back; I left an old Core 2 Quad on it for a few months.
VBCurtis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 15:27   #18
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

162210 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Actually, I assumed GMP-ECM for the runs, as it is dramatically faster than P95 for this very small (by GIMPS standards) number. You'll find that B2 is much much more than 100* B1 when using GMP-ECM. Memory use is also higher, though.

There's another M1277 thread where the procedure for using P95 for stage 1 and GMP-ECM for stage 2 is laid out- that's the fastest way for this number. If you're doing more than a handful of curves, I strongly suggest you use GMP-ECM (windows or linux) for stage 2.

I think I ran 500 curves in just this way a couple years back; I left an old Core 2 Quad on it for a few months.
In my case, it is a 3 GHz Core2Duo. I am familiar with the GMP-ECM procedure. A line in prime.txt needs to be GmpEcmHook=1 to generate the files needed for stage 2. This old machine only has 4 GB of RAM. I am not sure if this would be enough. I would simply have to try it and see how it behaves. I would not necessarily have to run GMP-ECM there. I could do it on another machine with a lot more RAM. I probably have the entire setup in an archive here somewhere.

This will give me something to do and to think about. I hit the big 65 in 13 days. Thank you for the feedback.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 15:34   #19
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2·167 Posts
Default

If memory is not sufficient, you could try ecm -maxmem 3072. That will limit it to 3 GB of RAM usage.

For me, GMPECM reports Estimated memory usage: 8.08GB with B2 = 51,985,969,455,438 (ECM-default at B1 = 2e9). For ecm -maxmem 3072 it says Estimated memory usage: 1.93GB, so this should be totally fine for that system.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 15:42   #20
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2·167 Posts
Default

Sorry, I went for the wrong B1.

For me, GMPECM reports Estimated memory usage: 16.50GB with B2 = 262,752,699,834,252 (ECM-default at B1 = 6e9). For ecm -maxmem 3072 it says Estimated memory usage: 1.93GB, so this should be totally fine for that system.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 17:49   #21
storm5510
Random Account
 
storm5510's Avatar
 
Aug 2009
U.S.A.

31268 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kruoli View Post
Sorry, I went for the wrong B1.

For me, GMPECM reports Estimated memory usage: 16.50GB with B2 = 262,752,699,834,252 (ECM-default at B1 = 6e9). For ecm -maxmem 3072 it says Estimated memory usage: 1.93GB, so this should be totally fine for that system.
I needed to go back a look through the parameters again anyway. I was unaware RAM usage could be restricted. Thanks!

14 hours for each stage one curve on that machine with B1 = 6e9. I am loading it in groups of 10, a single curve in each work line. 5.8 days for the group. Then I will go to GMP-ECM. Once finished, repeat the process.
storm5510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-09-23, 20:35   #22
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2·167 Posts
Default

Since you have a dual core CPU, you should be able to increase efficiency by doing stage 1 of a set \(A\) and stage 2 of a set \(B\) in parallel, if you like!

Prime95's parallelization is not efficient at all at those tiny FFTs. The OpenMP functionality of GMP-ECM only works in stage 2 currently (I'd like to be corrected), but only helps in certain sub-steps.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
inconsistent timestamp intervals in prime.log ixfd64 Software 0 2019-12-07 09:12
Could I run this py python script on a supercomputer? Ghost Information & Answers 4 2018-11-30 04:07
M1277 - no factors below 2^65? DanielBamberger Data 17 2018-01-28 04:21
search for MMM127 small factors? Orgasmic Troll Miscellaneous Math 7 2006-06-11 15:38
Random numbers and proper factors mfgoode Math 20 2006-02-05 02:09

All times are UTC. The time now is 16:30.

Fri Oct 30 16:30:36 UTC 2020 up 50 days, 13:41, 2 users, load averages: 2.35, 2.64, 2.69

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

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.