mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-02-17, 21:24   #56
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

7E416 Posts
Default

For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-17, 21:35   #57
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

10001101100012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.

Make an announcement, double the points for this case only, etc ...I'm happy up to 4 GB/thread.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2020-02-17 at 21:47
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-18, 02:23   #58
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

FA416 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
For 2,1165+, the 16e tasks will use significantly more memory. We can't afford to keep it artificially low for this one. It will likely be a bit over 2GB per core.
Greg-
Please post parameters here once you decide them- lim's and mfb's/lp's. I don't think your client is 34-bit capable, so I imagine we're on 33/33 for LP.
I'd like to start sieving very small Q locally on CADO. I'll use A=32, which is equivalent of 16.5e (40% larger sieve area). I have just one 20-core machine available at present, so I won't get far, but I can start at Q=10M and contribute some relations.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-18, 21:39   #59
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

202010 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Greg-
Please post parameters here once you decide them- lim's and mfb's/lp's. I don't think your client is 34-bit capable, so I imagine we're on 33/33 for LP.
I'd like to start sieving very small Q locally on CADO. I'll use A=32, which is equivalent of 16.5e (40% larger sieve area). I have just one 20-core machine available at present, so I won't get far, but I can start at Q=10M and contribute some relations.
After testing I'll stick with the suggested parameters:
rlim: 536000000
alim: 536000000
lpbr: 33
lpba: 33
mfbr: 96
mfba: 66
rlambda: 3.7
alambda: 2.8

I usually start at 20M, but I can up that a bit if you wish.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-18, 22:28   #60
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22×7×11×13 Posts
Default

Thanks!
How about you start at 40M, and I'll run Q=5-40M on CADO? I think I'll get yield 3-6x higher than ggnfs at those smaller Q (plus the extra 40% from using a larger siever), since CADO is fine with sieving Q values below lim.

I'll get CADO fired up later this week, and will post yield and sec/rel data once I have a reasonable sample.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-19, 23:29   #61
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT)

24×353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Thanks!
How about you start at 40M, and I'll run Q=5-40M on CADO? I think I'll get yield 3-6x higher than ggnfs at those smaller Q (plus the extra 40% from using a larger siever), since CADO is fine with sieving Q values below lim.

I'll get CADO fired up later this week, and will post yield and sec/rel data once I have a reasonable sample.
The lower you go the faster it gets in general. Of course, this has to be balanced with increased duplication. The non-standard options of adjust-strategy might help keep the duplication rate down(different q will get different logI and logJ combos). I would be interested in hearing the results of any test sieves. Is it possible to estimate duplication rates based on test sieving?

Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2020-02-20 at 00:29
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-20, 00:27   #62
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·7·11·13 Posts
Default

Not a good sample yet, but at Q=5M after Q=4000 interval I have yield around 6.0, roughly 3.5 sec/rel (with all hyperthreads in use on ECM or CADO, so roughly 2.0 cpusec/rel), just under 20GB per 10-threaded sieve process.

This is with CADO A=32, which is the equivalent of I=16.5. I'm running two 10-threaded processes until I reach Greg's starting Q. I'll update yield and sec/rel in a day or two after I've searched 50kQ or more.

If yield is cut in half by 40M compared to 5M, I would still get something like 140-160M relations from Q=5-40M; however, that would take me 7-8 months on 20 threads. I'll add at least one more client later, and if anyone with 20GB free memory is interested I can open CADO access in the exact-same manner that we did on the C207 team sieve from last summer.

Note that Greg may run out of Q to sieve with ggnfs; if that looks to be the case after test-sieving, he should move his starting value to Q=50M or 60M and we should ask for client-CADO-help.

Is 1200 million raw relations a reasonable target?
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-20, 09:22   #63
SethTro
 
SethTro's Avatar
 
"Seth"
Apr 2019

8516 Posts
Default

I have 20GB free and am happy to point 16 cores at it.
SethTro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-20, 11:57   #64
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3·907 Posts
Default

I can contribute some cores as well.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-20, 12:21   #65
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

7×647 Posts
Default

Will only contribute through NFS@Home, might bring some friends to the mix CADO and NFS@Home.

Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 2020-02-20 at 12:23
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-02-20, 18:27   #66
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22·7·11·13 Posts
Default

Roughly one day on 20 (hyper)threads got me 60kQ and 362,000 relations. Yield, then, is 6.0 at Q=5M. I changed to 3 10-threaded instances today.

I copied the setup parameters for non-local access from the C207 job file; I hope it works!
Same info as y'all used for 2330L, except the port number is now 35029 (randomly assigned, possible it might change if CADO crashes and is reset).

Default number of sieve threads is 10, so most of you will need to set that with the override switch that we used on 2330L.

Using my 30 threads, I'll complete 1MQ in about 11 days. That means I'm good for 8-10MQ. Sounds like Greg won't queue this for a couple weeks, so we have a little time to decide how many Q we can get done with this mini-team-effort, and then tell Greg what Q to start at.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poly select and planning for 2,2210M swellman Cunningham Tables 51 2020-03-22 22:09
Poly select and test-sieving for RSA232 VBCurtis Operation Kibibit 25 2020-01-07 01:57
Poly select and planning for 2,2330M VBCurtis Cunningham Tables 68 2019-09-15 07:10
YAFU Poly Select Deadline amphoria YAFU 22 2016-09-17 09:47
Starting NFS skipping poly select jux YAFU 5 2016-01-02 01:01

All times are UTC. The time now is 20:42.

Sun Apr 5 20:42:54 UTC 2020 up 11 days, 18:15, 2 users, load averages: 1.35, 1.79, 1.93

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.