mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Operation Kibibit

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-12-06, 05:35   #34
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

40048 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
the more effective root sieve developed by Shi Bai
Steal it and put it in msieve?
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-11, 22:07   #35
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

22×33×19 Posts
Default

From my 1.3 million stage 1 hits, so far I've gotten a

# norm 4.371817e-20 alpha -11.383344 e 2.347e-19 rroots 4

The run continues...
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-12, 01:49   #36
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

348910 Posts
Default

I sent a batch of hits computed with a cutoff of 5e33 instead of the previous 1e33, and apparently the polynomials generated with the looser cutoff are similar in quality. So if you use 5e33 for the stage1_norm you'll generate hits about 5x faster.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-12, 09:17   #37
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

12A716 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
and then run

msieve -v -np1 "stage1_norm=5e33 X,Y"

where X and Y is a range of numbers with magnitude 10^12 to 10^15.
So it's better to update first post.

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2012-12-12 at 12:32 Reason: yup, done
pinhodecarlos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-13, 23:52   #38
bai
 
May 2011

23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poily View Post
Here's my slightly better (according to msieve) polynomial
Code:
SKEW 28338177.70                                                                                                    
R0 -3626941552197564826492128852700460060642852                                                                     
R1 48957407582916194761589                                                                                          
A0 -26101732745933806144485280988037796254029367990700826499285                                                     
A1 -2408464141902741608017790242140644715688145388490381                                                            
A2 -174314770228113076791419006080421369720970639                                                                   
A3 28697722660097589508721192118263624637                                                                           
A4 1036456362256909021188219944324                                                                                  
A5 -21292410351587764080336                                                                                         
A6 181000001476800 
skew 28338177.70, size 4.381e-20, alpha -12.189, combined = 2.348e-19 rroots = 2
jasonp, what score does CADO show for your or my polynomial?
Hi poily, in cado, it's
Code:
Y1: 48957407582916194761589
Y0: -3626941552197564826492128852700460060642852
c6: 181000001476800
c5: -21292410351587764080336
c4: 1036456362256909021188219944324
c3: 28697722660097589508721192118263624637
c2: -174314770228113076791419006080421369720970639
c1: -2408464141902741608017790242140644715688145388490381
c0: -26101732745933806144485280988037796254029367990700826499285
skew: 20504576.000
# lognorm: 83.45, alpha: -12.19 (proj: -3.18), E: 71.26, nr: 2
# MurphyE(Bf=10000000,Bg=5000000,area=1.00e+16)=3.39e-19

Last fiddled with by bai on 2012-12-13 at 23:53
bai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 01:30   #39
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3×1,163 Posts
Default

Msieve computes an E-value of 2.339e-19 when using the skew computed by CADO. Would it be worthwhile to find out what causes such big differences?
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 09:31   #40
poily
 
Nov 2010

2×52 Posts
Default

Ok, here are about 1.8M hits for the new bound 5e33. It seems the tighter bound was better: with 1e33 as a bound on stage 1 after size optimizations I saw norms of about Xe32 whereas the new bound gives only Xe33 and worse. The best e for this pack was about 2.2e-19.

Bai, I used E.sage from the public CADO repository and got almost the same Murphy e values as msieve shows. Do you compute it somehow different now?

Last fiddled with by poily on 2012-12-14 at 09:35
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 16:13   #41
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

160358 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
Would it be worthwhile to find out what causes such big differences?
As a bystander who has no knowledge of either how to go about such finding out or how much work it might be, I would be very interested in the results. (poily's post directly above this makes it all the more interesting!)
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 16:26   #42
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

977 Posts
Default

For the purposes of generating several hits with CPUs (as I can't currently use my GPU...) more quickly, I resurrected poily's MPI polsel patch, from http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...39&postcount=9 .
Mainline msieve changed somewhat since then (e.g. separation of the size optimization and the root sieve), so I started by upgrading and expanding the additions to the code; I also changed whitespace to follow the coding convention of the surrounding code more closely

That allowed the computer to produce a number of hits with:
$ mpirun -n 6 msieve -np1 "stage1_norm=2e33 1100000000000,1100010000000" -v

I think it would be great to see the MPI polsel patch integrated to mainline msieve. This way, every user of multi-threaded polsel (even on a single computer) would benefit without having to apply (and upgrade) an out of tree patch
However, AFAICS, the patch requires improvements before this can happen. Indeed, I noticed that when a child process has finished working ("polynomial selection complete"), it sticks its core to 100% usage. One of the processes found no suitable leading coefficient in its range and gave up on polsel immediately; after ~2h47 of CPU time wasted by that one, soon after another process had exhausted its range as well, I tried to kill one of the inactive processes... which killed all of its siblings, as I should have expected...
293 stage 1 hits generated in ~10h40 CPU time on Xeon E3-1230 @ 3.2 GHz.

I have zero MPI experience, and therefore, no clue how to make finished jobs not waste significant CPU power
Attached Files
File Type: zip mpi_polysel_mod.diff.zip (1.7 KB, 107 views)
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 18:01   #43
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3×1,163 Posts
Default

The patch makes all the MPI processes wait at a barrier when poly selection is finishing, and my experience with OpenMPI is that this is a computationally expensive operation. I suspect that's what is burning up 100% CPU.

Unfortunately there's no real way around that, if you wanted processes to stop waiting on each other then you wouldn't be using barrier synchronization; put another way, MPI is a poor substitute for a distributed client-server architecture :)
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 20:22   #44
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

32·52·11 Posts
Default

ran a 15 min 'search' on a 560, got 227 hit, best poly

Code:
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  Msieve v. 1.51 (SVN 766)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  random seeds: ccf343ec 7dcd68de
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  factoring 412023436986659543855531365332575948179811699844327982845455626433876445565248426198098870423161841879261420247188869492560931776375033421130982397485150944909106910269861031862704114880866970564902903653658867433731720813104105190864254793282601391257624033946373269391 (270 digits)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  no P-1/P+1/ECM available, skipping
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  commencing number field sieve (270-digit input)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  commencing number field sieve polynomial selection
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  polynomial degree: 6
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  max stage 1 norm: 1.08e+035
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  max stage 2 norm: 1.05e+035
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  min E-value: 0.00e+000
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  poly select deadline: 1079999
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  polynomial selection complete
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  R0: -3334009071282816277832905784211277620964254
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  R1: 100281358245707420758237
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A0: 372828901627475347894334652824133151170797461276260673
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A1: 77826863799406908305447316219479205604506482315
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A2: -8440449792077225990613216882014698768493181
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A3: -434343399475320970345769932599595433
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A4: 27102576369602076901509411656588
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A5: 139702468047107462100798
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A6: 300000002082000
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  skew 1498026.43, size 1.811e-020, alpha -8.436, combined = 1.092e-019 rroots = 4
(yeah I know, score is pretty bad, but thats a 15 min run)
and the msieve.dat.m file to be run in cado
Attached Files
File Type: zip msieve.dat.m.zip (6.3 KB, 99 views)

Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2012-12-14 at 21:09
firejuggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volunteers needed axn GPU Computing 28 2012-05-28 12:05
call for volunteers: RSA768 polynomial selection jasonp Operation Kibibit 200 2011-11-05 21:31
Call for help Wacky NFSNET Discussion 13 2005-07-14 00:25
Volunteers needed! Xyzzy Hardware 23 2003-04-18 23:27
We need two volunteers... Xyzzy PrimeNet 8 2003-02-27 02:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:17.

Sun Nov 29 13:17:24 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 10:28, 3 users, load averages: 1.47, 1.36, 1.33

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.