mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-01-28, 01:51   #12
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

857 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichD View Post
This is a 31/33 hybrid job. I don't know the proper amount of raw relations so I assumed it would be equivalent to a 32/32 job.
It will likely be ~20% more than a 32/32 job. I suspect 31/33 is not optimal when you account for this.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-28, 02:28   #13
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

1110011000102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
It will likely be ~20% more than a 32/32 job. I suspect 31/33 is not optimal when you account for this.
I was getting a 20% increase in runtime (sec/rel) at a low Q with only a slight increase in yield thinking this would be better than a 32/33 job which would need more relations. I need to run the full gamut. Please hold off until further testing.
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-28, 02:48   #14
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

E6716 Posts
Default

Quote:
This is a 31/33 hybrid job. I don't know the proper amount of raw relations so I assumed it would be equivalent to a 32/32 job. This is estimated to be around 435M total relations. Feel free to adjust accordingly.
I use the average of target relations for each lpb plus a bit, in this case (260M+930M)/2 = 595M ~ 620M+ (I target 650M but I tend go heavy on the # of relations).
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-28, 03:32   #15
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·3·457 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
I use the average of target relations for each lpb plus a bit, in this case (260M+930M)/2 = 595M ~ 620M+ (I target 650M but I tend go heavy on the # of relations).
I think it should be a geometric average, which would land not-much-higher than a 32/32 job. If 440M would do for 32/32, something like 475M should do for this 31/33. That said, I don't think 31/33 is going to be faster for a sextic. You could run mfbr at 62 but lpbr at 32, which should reduce the number of raw relations needed by a dozen million or two- say, to maybe 620M instead of 640M.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-01-28, 13:42   #16
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

857 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
I think it should be a geometric average, which would land not-much-higher than a 32/32 job.
I've only ever run one sizeable job with lpbs skewed by 2, which was a difficulty-229 quartic with lpb 32/30, but I remember needing substantially more relations than I'd initially expected - closer to the arithmetic mean than the geometric mean. In hindsight I shouldn't have been surprised: the number of possible ideals with 32/30 is roughly the arithmetic mean of 30/30 and 32/32, and while this isn't a perfect predictor of the number of relations, it should at least scale about the same.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-03, 13:27   #17
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

368710 Posts
Default

QUEUED AS 5m3_425

5-3,425 is another HCN quartic SNFS of difficulty 237.6. It has survived 32,247 curves of ECM @B1=260M and is ready for SNFS.

Code:
n: 3615585585196150831178452864134253581298092586172168742490880669239890638015724859218917122864482115049097469572394129723238144231684858711215525897319073505719861946180872195895735426929275351
skew: 1.0000
type: snfs
size: 237
c4: 1
c3: 1
c2: 1
c1: 1
c0: 1
Y1: -35917545547686059365808220080151141317043
Y0: 258493941422821148397315216271863391739316284656524658203125
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 31
mfbr: 96
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.7
alambda: 2.7
Results of test sieving on the -r side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ        Norm_yield        Speed (sec/rel)
35           2366                0.400
65           2856                0.381
100          2936                0.391
150          2993                0.397
200          2780                0.451
250          2734                0.432
Suggesting a sieving range of 35-260M to generate 635M raw relations.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-02-17 at 13:41
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-04, 06:06   #18
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·3·457 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
May I have another 15MQ on 13_2_922m1? 600M raw relations looks a little light; I've been targeting 620-630M.

Done.
619M relations got me a 31.7M matrix, 3-4M dimensions bigger than similar recent jobs. This job is a few SNFS digits bigger, so I'll call that good 'nuff and get to solving. This one can be moved to postprocessing.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-02-19, 01:27   #19
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

3×941 Posts
Default

QUEUED AS C191_933436_12595

C191 from 933436:i12595 for 15e queue.
Thanks Gimarel for the ploy!
Code:
n: 95943792139492908765333071790605979163835027624974805898350717773405577196123295473856044969264458190095842686539462763700839439312300013661751809241655826533008542372113621303929192489690417
# norm 1.457307e-18 alpha -8.343892 e 1.949e-14 rroots 5
skew: 206761148.35
c0: 18645184046033077167247177836639821624045365940
c1: 670519807821465463730496628562844466976
c2: -18498861485056615649666134341771
c3: -170301411285433552736437
c4: 453902219052530
c5: 277200
Y0: -14724839720475995757223413748323367213
Y1: 15912761554705719950713
rlim: 268000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 3.7
type: gnfs
lss: 0
Suggesting sieve range is 40M-300M.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-02-19 at 02:20
unconnected is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-03, 22:34   #20
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

2·7·263 Posts
Default

QUEUED AS 331_109m1

C255 from the OPN t550 file.
Second attempt to optimize the parameters.
This should run a bit faster though the special-Q range is about the same.
Estimate of 625M raw relations.
Code:
n: 456144099782224315696824095020150332081139148797304856352191816675514369613259984102145549799476807322037325051749567250153209607473297001774552409742710930294846495418796912917131669944275190656583437621142715383063574336648632009217696108548318826496061
# 331^109-1, difficulty: 274.66, skewness: 0.38, alpha: 0.00
# cost: 5.17803e+19, est. time: 24657.29 GHz days (not accurate yet!)
skew: 0.380
c6: 331
c0: -1
Y1: -1
Y0: 2274593993441843779293942507658183948042259641
type: snfs
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 33
mfbr: 64
mfba: 96
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.4
Increasing lambda will increase the yield by 1-2% but add 2-4% to timing.

Trial sieving 5K blocks.
Code:
  Q  Yield
 40M 15514
 70M 14241
100M 14472
200M 12038
280M 10788

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-03-04 at 12:11
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-04, 19:16   #21
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1110011001112 Posts
Default 3+2,625

QUEUED AS 3p2_625

3+2,625 is another HCN which has finished ECM. It has a quartic SNFS polynomial with difficulty 238.

Code:
n: 1350872366946090935056059296879491581002005646059700802359454035513008730498298808685203195085142436073615149011559333058816162978238818959084242569301395890887217531261929477924397448314567011799166352011282568751
type: snfs
size: 238
skew: 1.0000
c4: 1
c3: -1
c2: 1
c1: -1
c0: 1
Y1: -42535295865117307932921825928971026432
Y0: 436673502879206784130402698570834024654748577491697818855443
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 31
mfbr: 96
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.7
alambda: 2.7
Test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield       Speed (sec/rel)
40          2350               0.406
70          2855               0.371
100         2749               0.418
150         2866               0.414
200         2630               0.447
250         2445               0.441
300         2611               0.414
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 40-280M to generate 640M raw relations.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-03-04 at 19:29
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-03-07, 13:19   #22
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3·1,229 Posts
Default

QUEUED AS 9m5_625M

9-5,625M is a HCN which has finished ECM and is now ready for NFS. It is a quartic SNFS of difficulty 238, and should be sieved on the rational side using 15e.

Code:
n: 36360291795869945870161648600451934503491829289459342379822806979996844112392800728837229871877907393616438168811949664371251367603949464962031840484992514841107766422315320491625665424163725530585973435284509712227587890122410608365891251
type: snfs
size: 238
skew: 1.0000
c4: 1
c3: 5
c2: 15
c1: 25
c0: 25
Y1: 21684043449710088680149056017398834228515625
Y0: -436673502879206784130402698570834024654748577491697818855443
rlim: 134000000
alim: 266000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 31
mfbr: 96
mfba: 62
rlambda: 3.7
alambda: 2.7
Results from test sieving on the rational side with Q in blocks of 1000:

Code:
MQ        Norm_yield       Speed (sec/rel)
35          1812               0.499
40          2057               0.439
70          2238               0.447
100         2375               0.462
150         2442               0.476
200         2319               0.452
250         2159               0.489
300         2059               0.509
320         2058               0.511
Suggesting a sieving range for Q of 36-320M to generate 640M raw relations.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-03-07 at 14:37
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2022 - queue management for 15e_small swellman NFS@Home 130 2022-09-28 22:32
Queue management for 14e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 140 2022-09-20 17:33
Queue management for 16e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 147 2022-09-08 23:54
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues VBCurtis NFS@Home 254 2022-01-02 01:59
Improving the queue management. debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:31.


Mon Oct 3 07:31:00 UTC 2022 up 46 days, 4:59, 0 users, load averages: 1.16, 1.10, 1.01

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔