20201022, 15:15  #56  
Random Account
"Norman D. Powell"
Aug 2009
Indiana, USA.
1,871 Posts 
Quote:
I am running groups of these with Prime95 on the replacement machine using four workers. I have it set to not report these to PrimeNet. Reason: I am not running these in a conventional way. I took the last B1 on the mersenne.org table and doubled it, making 16e8. I will run it this way for a while, then increment it to 24e8, then 32e8, and so on, adding 8e8 as I go. As for GMPECM, I do not know if I can keep it 'fed" with just four workers. If not, then I can run another instance of Prime95 on my primary machine, taking the total number of workers to eight. I would allow GMPECM to pick its own B2 by not specifying it. Lastly, it is a foregone conclusion some of you will say that I am wasting my time. The response is: It is my time to waste, not yours, so do not bug me about it... 

20201022, 15:59  #57 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO
100000111_{2} Posts 
I've unfortunately lost a complete count of curves, but I believe I did a full T65 as well as T70 on this number.

20201022, 18:17  #58 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1001001000000_{2} Posts 
Thanks for confirming, Ryan!
T70 is often represented by curves at B1=2.9e9 or so. If that level is complete, then T75 curves are what is useful now that's B1=7e9 or bigger. That's one curve per core per day range.... yeesh. I'll give a curve at B1=1e10 a try, and see what ecm v reports for B2, memory use, and # of curves to a T70 or T75. 
20201022, 19:04  #59 
Jun 2012
Boulder, CO
263 Posts 
More ECM on this number is not a waste, but it's becoming increasingly difficult. And it's recommended that you or anyone else do curves at B1=76e8 or higher, maybe 1e10 or 2e10 now.

20201022, 20:26  #60  
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3,371 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
echo "2^12771"  ../../ecm704linux/ecm v 7000000 GMPECM 7.0.4 [configured with GMP 6.2.0, enableasmredc] [ECM] Tuned for x86_64/k8/params.h Input number is 2^12771 (385 digits) Using special division for factor of 2^12771 Using B1=7000000, B2=17125579390, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=0:12224056895737954441 dF=16384, k=6, d=158340, d2=11, i0=34 Expected number of curves to find a factor of n digits: 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 167 1024 7351 60402 558826 5744532 6.5e+07 7.8e+08 1.1e+10 2.8e+11 Step 1 took 67016ms Code:
./yafu "ecm(2^12771,8)" v v B1ecm 7000000 10/22/20 15:17:47 v1.35beta @ cpu, System/Build Info: Using GMPECM 7.0, Powered by GMP 6.2.0 detected Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6248 CPU @ 2.50GHz detected L1 = 32768 bytes, L2 = 28835840 bytes, CL = 64 bytes measured cpu frequency ~= 2500.116400 using 1 random witnesses for RabinMiller PRP checks =============================================================== ======= Welcome to YAFU (Yet Another Factoring Utility) ======= ======= bbuhrow@gmail.com ======= ======= Type help at any time, or quit to quit ======= =============================================================== cached 664579 primes. pmax = 9999991 >> process id is 141455 commencing parallel ecm on 2601983048666099770481310081841021384653815561816676201329778087600902014918340074503059860433081046210605403488570251947845891562080866227034976651419330190731032377347305086443295837415395887618239855136922452802923419286887119716740625346109565072933087221327790207134604146257063901166556207972729700461767055550785130256674608872183239507219512717434046725178680177638925792182271 ECM has been configured with DIGITBITS = 52, VECLEN = 8, GMP_LIMB_BITS = 64 Choosing MAXBITS = 1456, NWORDS = 28, NBLOCKS = 7 based on input size 1277 linesieve took 0.022753 seconds cached 5761455 primes < 99999989 Input has 1277 bits, using 1 threads (8 curves/thread) Processing in batches of 100000000 primes Initialization took 0.1013 seconds. Building curves took 0.0007 seconds., B2=100*B1 commencing Stage 1 @ prime 2 Stage 1 took 219.2920 seconds AVXECM stage 2 took 118 sec, so 14.75 sec/curve, but these are just the standard continuation up to 100*B1. It should scale linearly up to 7e9. But I've never run AVXECM with B1 anywhere close to that large. My bet is it crashes... but I'll test and see what happens. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 20201022 at 20:26 

20201022, 23:48  #61  
Random Account
"Norman D. Powell"
Aug 2009
Indiana, USA.
1,871 Posts 
Quote:
It takes 155 minutes to run four curves in tandem at 16e8 on the machine where I have Prime95 running now. A single test with GMPECM, with no limit on B2, takes 50 minutes. 76e8, I would eventually get into this area. I could decrease my increment interval to one day, for example, until I got into higher areas. It is all about the time... 

20201023, 11:52  #62 
Random Account
"Norman D. Powell"
Aug 2009
Indiana, USA.
1,871 Posts 
Disregard my above...
A while back, VBCurtis suggested I start at 6e9. I have everything running to this level now. After a period of time, at least a month, I will go to 7e9, then continue with this progression in monthly intervals. I made a notation in my notebook with a red Sharpie marker. I would like to be able to run 500 tests with GMPECM on each group. Whether this many is possible, I will have to wait and see. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
inconsistent timestamp intervals in prime.log  ixfd64  Software  1  20201101 20:27 
Could I run this py python script on a supercomputer?  Ghost  Information & Answers  4  20181130 04:07 
M1277  no factors below 2^65?  DanielBamberger  Data  17  20180128 04:21 
search for MMM127 small factors?  Orgasmic Troll  Miscellaneous Math  7  20060611 15:38 
Random numbers and proper factors  mfgoode  Math  20  20060205 02:09 