mersenneforum.org Aliqueit.exe discussion
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2009-03-22, 14:40 #34 smh     "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 4A516 Posts Or just print the lucky curve if a factor is found
2009-03-22, 14:50   #35
mklasson

Feb 2004

4028 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by smh Or just print the lucky curve if a factor is found
Arrr, and here I thought I could get away cheap... But yeah, it would be cleaner. I'll think about it.

2009-03-22, 15:37   #36
10metreh

Nov 2008

2×33×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson On what do you base this and what would you prefer instead? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that if you want to spend about 1/4 of the qs time on ecm that's roughly the amount of ecm you'll have to do. Again, I'm not sure if 1/4 time is the best figure but it seems decent enough and I have yet to find some solid justification for any specific amount. Please show me the light of reason if you're hoarding it.
The most I would possibly run on a C93 is t30. t30 + 73 @ 35 digits is too much. On my incredibly slow computer, a t30 on a C93 takes 51 minutes. 73 curves at 1e6 takes another 35 minutes. That's 86 minutes. And that's a lot.

2009-03-22, 16:07   #37
mklasson

Feb 2004

4028 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh The most I would possibly run on a C93 is t30. t30 + 73 @ 35 digits is too much. On my incredibly slow computer, a t30 on a C93 takes 51 minutes. 73 curves at 1e6 takes another 35 minutes. That's 86 minutes. And that's a lot.
But do you have any reasoning, math, or experimental data that supports your conclusion of "too much"? Like I said, I'm aiming for roughly a fourth of the qs time spent ecming. Can you explain why that is too much? I'd be very happy to hear it, but just saying that you think it's "too much" and "a lot" doesn't really help me much I'm afraid.

2009-03-22, 16:13   #38
10metreh

Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson But do you have any reasoning, math, or experimental data that supports your conclusion of "too much"? Like I said, I'm aiming for roughly a fourth of the qs time spent ecming. Can you explain why that is too much? I'd be very happy to hear it, but just saying that you think it's "too much" and "a lot" doesn't really help me much I'm afraid.
Sorry. BTW, do you know what a more common term for "a fourth" is? A quarter.

Feature request for aliqueit: store the known factors of the iteration being worked on in a file and immediately check the file for them as soon as you resume, so you don't have to go searching for the factors in aliqueit.log when you want to resume.

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-22 at 16:13

2009-03-22, 16:34   #39
mklasson

Feb 2004

2×3×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh Sorry. BTW, do you know what a more common term for "a fourth" is? A quarter.
uh, yes? Yes, yes, I do! If you look carefully you'll see I have in fact already used the magic word in this very thread! Was there a particular reason you said that? Am I missing out on a joke or something here?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh Feature request for aliqueit: store the known factors of the iteration being worked on in a file and immediately check the file for them as soon as you resume, so you don't have to go searching for the factors in aliqueit.log when you want to resume.
You rarely have a big enough factor in the middle of an iteration that it's worth the bother saving and restoring it though. But sure, it would be neat. I'll think about it.

2009-03-22, 16:47   #40
10metreh

Nov 2008

2×33×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson You rarely have a big enough factor in the middle of an iteration that it's worth the bother saving and restoring it though. But sure, it would be neat. I'll think about it.
The other thing involves the -e option. If you use -e, you have to put the factor(s) in the command line if they are larger than the trial factoring cutoff. For instance, with my current iteration of 130396, there was a C99 which had a P7 factor, leaving a C93 which I am sieving at this very moment. However, when I started aliqueit with "aliqueit 130396 -e", it went off into a GNFS on the C99 without finding the P7. So I had to run "aliqueit 130396 -f 3373717 -e" instead, after finding the factor in aliqueit.log buried under full t20, t25 and t30 runs.

2009-03-22, 16:50   #41
mklasson

Feb 2004

2·3·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson You rarely have a big enough factor in the middle of an iteration that it's worth the bother saving and restoring it though. But sure, it would be neat. I'll think about it.
Hmm... except if you're restarting with "-e" and skipping ecm altogether of course. It would be a great shame to run gnfs on a c120 instead of a c110...

2009-03-22, 16:52   #42
10metreh

Nov 2008

44228 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson Hmm... except if you're restarting with "-e" and skipping ecm altogether of course. It would be a great shame to run gnfs on a c120 instead of a c110...
...when a P10 is lurking within. Of course, msieve would find the factor during the run, so it wouldn't be a GNFS at all if you used msieve for the poly search, and wouldn't be a complete GNFS unless you used factLat.pl.

P.S. Look at my post count!

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-22 at 16:54

2009-03-22, 17:04   #43
mklasson

Feb 2004

2×3×43 Posts

No joke then?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh ...buried under full t20, t25 and t30 runs.
Very subtle.

Fortunately you'll at least have much less dirt to paw your way through in the next version. I'll see about doing something nicer.

2009-03-22, 17:12   #44
10metreh

Nov 2008

1001000100102 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson No joke then?
Yes joke, actually (I apologise about my deliberately poor English). I just forgot!

And I'm moving out of beastly territory now. Change to location field needed!

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post johnadam74 Aliquot Sequences 4 2016-03-28 12:32 pakaran Aliquot Sequences 2 2015-09-12 23:10 EdH Aliquot Sequences 6 2011-12-13 18:58 science_man_88 Aliquot Sequences 185 2011-11-08 12:18 Greebley Aliquot Sequences 35 2010-02-13 15:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:42.

Fri Aug 7 01:42:02 UTC 2020 up 20 days, 21:28, 1 user, load averages: 1.70, 1.71, 1.70