mersenneforum.org Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2012-12-30, 02:34 #2036 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns E1E16 Posts I'm getting a really poor relations ratio. I'm seeing less than 85k relations per 100k q. Is this a sign of a poor polynomial, or does this just happen sometimes? I had one machine working the polynomial while my main one is running the ECM and now that I have a candidate, I have several machines running with it while the main one finishes ECM. At this point, would a restart with a better poly make a big enough difference to warrant running a few more hours of selection? Here's a bit of the log: Code: Sat Dec 29 10:27:50 2012 expecting poly E from 2.16e-11 to > 2.49e-11 Sat Dec 29 10:27:50 2012 searching leading coefficients from 1 to 2846669 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 polynomial selection complete Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 R0: -1728427528919286628495180538 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 R1: 30361745983217 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A0: 27794688864805293268138545836950245 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A1: 41756348327044212147658721274 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A2: -54605224849948984856272 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A3: -24857135575026902 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A4: 5603890979 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 A5: 276 Sat Dec 29 15:27:48 2012 skew 3199130.95, size 2.219e-13, alpha -5.811, combined = 2.596e-11 rroots = 5
 2012-12-30, 02:40 #2037 Dubslow Basketry That Evening!     "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40
2012-12-30, 03:33   #2038
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

2×13×139 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dubslow I'll run some GPU stage 1. Do you know how many hits you got in those five hours? Edit: Perhaps the ggnfs parameters are off? Edit2: YAFU (it's probably msieve's data) suggests around 50 CPU hours of poly select, so unless you were running 8 cores or something, that's probably a woefully bad poly. How many core hours total did you run?
Thanks!

It had suggested 54.59 CPU-hours, but I had factmsieve.py set with a wall time of 5 hours with dual core, so it was definitely cut prematurely. The question would be the difference in working with a poor poly that was obtained at 5 hours vs. a better poly that took 30 hours. At a total of 50 hours estimate for sieving, I'm not sure if a better poly would have made it faster overall.

There are 4985 polynomials in the test.dat.p file.

Over the last five hours I've accumulated >2.5M relations across all my machines with this poly, so I should be able to reach the 22M requested in roughly 45 more hours. Unless restarting with a better poly would make up the difference, it probably isn't worth restarting for this size composite. But, for something larger, I should try to be more particular in my poly choice, I suppose.

Edit: Don't tie up your systems for this. I'll get along with what I have here. I was just wondering...

Last fiddled with by EdH on 2012-12-30 at 03:35

2012-12-30, 03:49   #2039
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH Edit: Don't tie up your systems for this. I'll get along with what I have here. I was just wondering...
I got 2.4 million stage 1 hits in 45 minutes, size opt running now, will have (probably a significantly better) poly sometime in the next hour or two.

2012-12-30, 03:55   #2040
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

2×13×139 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dubslow I got 2.4 million stage 1 hits in 45 minutes, size opt running now, will have (probably a significantly better) poly sometime in the next hour or two.
I'm not sure it would benefit me to start over at this point, but I would like to compare the results between our two poly's on a couple of my machines...

 2012-12-30, 07:00 #2041 Dubslow Basketry That Evening!     "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40
 2012-12-30, 08:23 #2042 debrouxl     Sep 2009 977 Posts You're processing too many size optimized polys, only 1-2% of them are useful And using the out-of-tree MPI patch makes root opt scale near-linearly with the number of cores.
2012-12-31, 00:08   #2043
Dubslow

"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

11100001101012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by debrouxl You're processing too many size optimized polys, only 1-2% of them are useful And using the out-of-tree MPI patch makes root opt scale near-linearly with the number of cores.
Ah crap, now I know for next time. Those 10% took 19 hours

Code:
polynomial selection complete
R0: -1275730550910569740948790967
R1: 68465311488443
A0: -602386029120087908552165345576724184
A1: 511077501414883308580053270504
A2: 163159912488603352570952
A3: -74272054904151261
A4: -11596854544
A5: 1260
skew 4253756.85, size 2.156e-13, alpha -7.219, combined = 2.577e-11 rroots = 5
elapsed time 19:32:47
I'm not exactly sure how to get second or third place poly easily, since it's more than one line per poly.

Edit: And it's not even as good as the first one (Edit2: Since the first one sieves so poorly, maybe this one sieves better despite the scores)

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2012-12-31 at 00:13

 2012-12-31, 05:50 #2044 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×13×139 Posts I will have to test your poly for a comparison on one of my machines, but I'm going to wait until the current operation is completed. Thanks for the extra work you did.
 2013-01-01, 15:47 #2045 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×13×139 Posts LA says a few more hours... I compared the two polynomials by running them side by side in one of my dual core machines: My poly - Total time: 9:38:09 - Total yield: 463002 Dubslow's poly - Total time: 9:46:48 - Total yield: 529197 Would there have been any appreciable affect on the LA stage between the different sets of relations?
 2013-01-01, 23:30 #2046 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2·13·139 Posts OK, looks like that one finished and now I'm running a c106 that should be done soon...

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post RichD Aliquot Sequences 468 2021-01-27 01:16 sweety439 And now for something completely different 17 2017-06-13 03:49 frmky Aliquot Sequences 36 2011-04-28 06:27 schickel Aliquot Sequences 51 2011-01-05 02:32 petrw1 Lone Mersenne Hunters 82 2010-01-11 01:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:32.

Thu Feb 25 20:32:22 UTC 2021 up 84 days, 16:43, 1 user, load averages: 1.51, 1.57, 1.67