mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Factoring

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-09-19, 07:28   #1
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

142628 Posts
Default Using 16e on smaller numbers

I've just finished sieving the log=185.44 122!+1 cofactor with 16e/32LP. 350M relations (295M unique) from sieving 30M-132.4M (because I wanted a multiple of 128 jobs given my cluster) gave a 15.77M matrix at density 124; this is much easier than the 26.1M density-120 matrix that nfs@home got with 365M/291M relations at 15e/32 on the only slightly harder 114!+1 cofactor.

A bit slower sieving per relation
Code:
wheat@wheat:/home/nfsworld/factorial/F122p/tt$ cat 16e-22.t
total yield: 35827, q=134010001 (0.69377 sec/rel)
wheat@wheat:/home/nfsworld/factorial/F122p/tt$ cat 15e-22.t
total yield: 16056, q=134009999 (0.61100 sec/rel)
but I think still a win

Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2017-09-19 at 07:29
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-09-19, 07:45   #2
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

3×19×83 Posts
Default

And you have more cores connected to 16e V5 since it gives more points so it will be sieved even faster.

What about memory allocated by thread? People are complaining about the higher usage of memory when you run the 15e application with the 16e one.

Edit: oops, though this thread was on the NFS@Home.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2017-09-19 at 07:49
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-09-19, 08:29   #3
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

104478 Posts
Default

Is it possible the new matrix was easier in part because you chose lower alim/rlim for your 16e run than NFS@home chose for 15e?

I've been wondering how (if?) matrix size scales with alim/rlim choice, holding LP and input difficulty fixed. Specifically, wondering if some of the jobs presently going to 14e with alim = 268M would produce smaller matrices on 15e with alim = 134M or thereabouts.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-09-19, 08:52   #4
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

2·29·109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Is it possible the new matrix was easier in part because you chose lower alim/rlim for your 16e run than NFS@home chose for 15e?

I've been wondering how (if?) matrix size scales with alim/rlim choice, holding LP and input difficulty fixed. Specifically, wondering if some of the jobs presently going to 14e with alim = 268M would produce smaller matrices on 15e with alim = 134M or thereabouts.
That's certainly conceivable (the 16e run had alim=134M). I would say that most of the larger jobs on 14e at the moment ought to be on 15e, but having three levels of difficulty is apparently useful for attracting BOINCers.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFS on smaller numbers? skan YAFU 6 2013-02-26 13:57
Sequences with smaller cofactors Mr. Odd Aliquot Sequences 8 2010-12-01 17:12
Smaller filtering run oddity 10metreh Msieve 17 2009-01-05 14:58
checking smaller number fortega Data 2 2005-06-16 22:48
Factoring Smaller Numbers marc Factoring 6 2004-10-09 14:17

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:31.

Fri Oct 23 11:31:21 UTC 2020 up 43 days, 8:42, 0 users, load averages: 1.13, 1.26, 1.24

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.