20130812, 23:27  #12 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2·3·5·79 Posts 
starting a polyselect for 3366.i2070

20130813, 00:46  #13 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow
2·3·5·79 Posts 
Got a pretty close one early
Code:
R0: 131814849686543684690287283 R1: 6033142268549 A0: 13291547623250508786464108895384 A1: 390461045924957707581438242 A2: 22443904701664381846805 A3: 11962516130649978 A4: 6305096952 A5: 108 skew 1676515.02, size 8.687e013, alpha 6.968, combined = 5.540e011 rroots = 5 expecting poly E from 5.75e011 to > 6.62e011 Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 20130813 at 00:47 
20130813, 01:09  #14 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
110010111011_{2} Posts 
Actually, I'm just starting my machines back up after a long break and can't remember how I ran some of my scripts. With all my machines running, I could have knocked off the c121 in just a few hours. But, I haven't had the time to jump back in and YAFU won't accept externally generated relations without a restart, which I haven't worked out yet. So, it was simple to just do some ECM "just for fun" and I got lucky with some factors.
After I get some more time and figure out my scripts (or, write some new ones), I'll get back into it a little more efficiently. The 2000 curves was just due to laziness and the uparrow in my terminal. Thanks for all the info. 
20130813, 02:45  #15 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
3,259 Posts 
Sorry firejuggler...
via YAFU: Code:
pm1: starting B1 = 15M, B2 = gmpecm default on C133 ecm: 904/904 curves on C133, B1=1M, B2=gmpecm default, ETA: 4 sec ecm: 2350/2350 curves on C133, B1=3M, B2=gmpecm default, ETA: 12 sec ecm: 58/266 curves on C133, B1=11M, B2=gmpecm default, ETA: 1.28 hrs Total factoring time = 18088.3234 seconds ***factors found*** P43 = 9312963830713538916612432739005058910946781 P90 = 461486173109338394831862317697747675929519312519625762993004868463115580276796633827691823 
20130813, 03:36  #16 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2·5·7·43 Posts 
c146 @ i2071
pm1 2e9  nothing

20130814, 19:30  #17  
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT)
5,693 Posts 
Quote:
Another thing to watch out for is on my pc running with B2scale 0.5 produces quite a boost. Also with the new 7.0 beta it chooses the wrong parameterization. By default it is param 1, param 2 is best for me. Testing on the c133 4297804038541675450291447604994914895907145266366160553241655511889823941847458209864972187113512067175152346676676239212308821871763 Code:
35 40 %40 options 1.99h 19.07h 10.4 1e6 1.83h 17.80h 10.3 B2scale 0.5 1e6 1.63h 15.73h 10.3 B2scale 0.5 param 2 1e6 1.64h 12.14h 13.5 B2scale 0.4 param 2 3e6 2.14h 12.32h 17.4 B2scale 0.3 param 2 11e6 2.13h 12.08h 17.6 B2scale 0.5 k 2 param 2 11e6 Another way of doing it would be to set a time limit say min+10% or whatever. I will use 2h in this example. You would work out approximately how many curves at 3e6 and 11e6 you can run in 2h maximizing the chance of finding larger factors(by running as many at 11e6 as possible). It is an interesting problem. I would very much recommend looking at optimizing the parameters above. I got down from 1.99h to 1.63h at no cost to the %40 at all above. I then sacrificed a small amount of time to raise the %40 a fair bit. That looks like it is definitely worth it to me. I would be interested in your experiments down the same line for higher levels. There is of course the fact that it is fun to find the larger factors as well. 

20130815, 05:42  #18 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2·5·7·43 Posts 
2130 @ 3e6  nothing.
...pausing... 
20130816, 01:44  #19 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
3,259 Posts 
Code:
GMPECM 6.4.4 [configured with GMP 5.1.1, enableasmredc] [ECM] Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), 2 threads Done 1401/2000; avg s/curve: stg1 124.7s, stg2 43.49s; runtime: 21579s Run 1401 out of 2000: Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=3868230208 Step 1 took 126859ms Step 2 took 42661ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 18355806065973123350521061540546697152380645256413569539 Found probable prime factor of 56 digits: 18355806065973123350521061540546697152380645256413569539 Probable prime cofactor 1714861771731971184242809368426752003463034552779770056154504837499622621019685277733403523 has 91 digits 
20130816, 04:28  #20 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
108D_{16} Posts 
Henry
I have run a substantial number of B1/B2 variations to find the best setup on ECM 6.4. My setup for the experiments: i7740, 8GB. 2xLLR (exponents 1.5M, memory bus not saturated), 1xECM (43m) also running. I ran B1 at 1M increments from 2M to 21M, and a variety of B2 for the interesting B1. I recorded stage1 time to make sure no background process influenced the timings. Under these conditions, stage 1 took just under 8 sec per 1M of B1. I reran curves that did not 'fit'. Table attached below. The fastest t40 happened at B1=5e6, B2=8.5e9. 1494 curves for t40, 11523 for t45. 2.5 minutes behind is B1=6e6, B2=8.5e9. 1323 curves for t40, 9880 for t45. At default B2, the winning B1 is 4e6, because it uses 8.5e9 as default B2. This is 7 min slower than the best setting. 1755 curves for t40, 14170 for t45. Default 3e6/5.7e9 is approx 45 min slower, or 3%. If we instead go for Henry's idea of maximizing larger factor chances without giving up much time on this level, we can get the same (within 1% error) t40time as default settings by using B1=12e6, B2=23e9. This has 697 curves for a t40, and 4540 curves for a t45, and is 3% slower than the best t40 setting. No higher B1 is within 5% of optimal settings, so the time saved on higher factors is not worth it while targeting a t40 though it clearly is for these settings. Conclusion: When running a t40, use B1=12e6, B2=23e9. I learned that the fastest times happen when k=2 or k=3. See data sheet for details. I will continue this experiment for optimal t45 settings overnight. Curtis 
20130816, 23:34  #21 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
19×223 Posts 
I haven't put the spreadsheet into organized form yet, but the optimal B1/B2 on my machine for a t45 is 19e6/96e9, 2526 curves. This is 6.58 days, versus default 11e6 at 6.80 days. About 3.5% savings, or 5 hours.
At default B2, B1=34M is the highest B1 with t45 time equal to the default 11M. It happens to also be nearly the same time for t50 as B1=43M, thanks to a more efficient k=3 setting for B2 (144e9). I have not done experiments with B2 settings for B1 above 30M; once I do, I'll post the data sheet. It is possible that B1 in the 3540M range with B2 fixed at 144e9 will also be the same time for t45 as 11e6. Curtis 
20130818, 00:47  #22 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
3,259 Posts 
Code:
Run 831 out of 2000: Using B1=43000000, B2=240490660426, polynomial Dickson(12), sigma=2007158222 Step 1 took 122671ms Step 2 took 42034ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 9027806517589529957426159256933280612412291325241 Found probable prime factor of 49 digits: 9027806517589529957426159256933280612412291325241 Probable prime cofactor 281266226834456319808816318260329168307503549157181457839582869005693367645821260664942051 has 90 digits 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Primes in nfibonacci sequence and nstep fibonacci sequence  sweety439  And now for something completely different  17  20170613 03:49 
Team sieve #41: C165 from 3366:i2098  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  36  20131129 07:03 
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved  petrw1  Lone Mersenne Hunters  82  20100111 01:57 
What's the next in the sequence?  roger  Puzzles  16  20061018 19:52 
Sequence  Citrix  Puzzles  5  20050914 23:33 