mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-09-13, 13:47   #133
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2×3×7×29 Posts
Default

If you had sieved a larger Q range with the high yield, duplicates still would have occurred more often, but of course this means it would have been greatly oversieved.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-13, 15:52   #134
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·3·52·37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post
So in a way, the higher the raw yield is, the higher the uniques:duplicates ratio will be?
Duplicate rate appears most correlated with the ratio of Q-max to Q-min.
In this case, your outcome suggests you left a little speed on the table by starting with Q a bit too high- lower Q are faster to sieve, but will produce more duplicates.

I didn't look up the params and q-range you used, so I can't be more precise.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-13, 16:01   #135
chris2be8
 
chris2be8's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

29×83 Posts
Default

You said to sieve from 25M to 100M, with lims of 134M. Sieving from about 100M to 175M should have got enough relations with a lower duplicate rate. (Of course you would have to have test sieved up to 175M first.)

Sieving below the lims (factor base sizes) produces a higher yield, but more of them will be duplicates the lower you go. So sieving about half each side of the lims usually works best. Obviously if the yield drops fast with higher Q then sieve as low as necessary to get enough relations.
chris2be8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-13, 20:51   #136
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×3×52×37 Posts
Default

Another way to phrase Chris' advice is that if your highest Q is below lim, your lim is too big.

Sieving from 25M to 100M means lim should be 67M on the sieve side. 67/100 or 67/134 with the smaller lim on sieve side would likely have been faster for this job, and Q from 20-95M hits both my rule-of-thumb for Q-max to be 5x to 6x Q-min and Chris' guidance to have sieve-side lim about in the middle of the Q range. SNFS jobs work fine with Q-max a higher multiple of Q-min, so Q=15-95M is fine for SNFS.

Note that GGNFS slows down a bit when lim's grow above a power of two, which is why specifically 67M and 134M are such common lim choices; in general, 67M will always be faster than 80M because 80M is barely above a power of two. I never use lim's between 33M-45M, 67M-95M, and 134-180M for this reason.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2022-09-13 at 20:52
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-15, 05:58   #137
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

60110 Posts
Default

Ok, thanks, that's unfortunate, but very good advice. I was wondering how to estimate the q-range without doing a full sieve and look at the duplicate ratio.
Quote:
have got enough relations with a lower duplicate rate. (Of course you would have to have test sieved up to 175M first.)
But how would I know the duplicate ratio from the test sieving? The raw relation yield per q-range from GGNFS was more or less constant. At least compared to what I'm used to from CADO. There I usually find a very strong decrease of yield per q-range with increasing q. Not at all here:

Code:
MQ     norm_yield
25     3647
50     3791
75     3759
100    3498
125    3366
So just from the raw yield it seemed good to sieve that range.

I took the params for this specific number straight from CADO but the Q-range from general nfs@home experience for numbers that size. Apparently it didn't match.

Last fiddled with by bur on 2022-09-15 at 05:58
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-15, 06:05   #138
bur
 
bur's Avatar
 
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3

601 Posts
Default

Results for aliquot C174_1992_1695 (didn't loose the 7):

Code:
p82 factor: 3624621364325232093251368039886141925793212945379537167589424077672470583327124917
p93 factor: 129831914655437243002636324508831589681241737727491941396935308448015013059011667938456214033
Thanks for getting this sieved at nfs@home and the help with setting it up.


Last fiddled with by bur on 2022-09-15 at 06:05
bur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-15, 09:32   #139
kruoli
 
kruoli's Avatar
 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE

2×3×7×29 Posts
Default

4_430m is done! It splits as:
Code:
p68 factor: 60460248666934940458806521783893530240379067017235037404134666098433
p189 factor: 114036829378480016981222258595031044238787130701816847117534396072226125060455954819230028534439203604683952601623241750062475969768637379406861448640753325928202256154633651815331944481759


This was the first one where I used the new OpenMP branch of msieve, it rocks!
Not yet in FactorDB because of their power outage; please remind me to put the factors there if I forget.
kruoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-15, 15:11   #140
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×3×52×37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bur View Post
Ok, thanks, that's unfortunate, but very good advice. I was wondering how to estimate the q-range without doing a full sieve and look at the duplicate ratio.
But how would I know the duplicate ratio from the test sieving?
We cannot know the duplicate range in advance. However, GNFS jobs all behave very similarly, so a bit of experience (ok, a lot of experience) guides us to the right number of raw relations to target that will give us a decent matrix. Sometimes we get more uniques than we expected, and the matrix comes out smaller / nicer. Other times it's the opposite, and we have to go back and sieve another 10 million Q.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-27, 05:26   #141
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

1001110111102 Posts
Default

8m7_293 is done.

frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-09-29, 17:42   #142
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

2·3·421 Posts
Default

As is 8p7_293.

frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-10-02, 01:34   #143
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

33×139 Posts
Default

Taking 177__227_5m1_2. It can be moved to Queued for Post-Processing because it appears it may be over-sieved.
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2022 14d post processing reservations and results swellman NFS@Home 151 2022-11-29 00:55
2021 “small” 15e post processing reservations and results swellman NFS@Home 275 2021-12-29 16:57
2020 “small” 15e post processing reservations and results pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 116 2020-12-31 16:44
2020 15e post processing reservations and results swellman NFS@Home 112 2020-12-29 22:58
2019 14e post processing reservations and results swellman NFS@Home 862 2019-12-31 10:51

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:06.


Tue Nov 29 07:06:54 UTC 2022 up 103 days, 4:35, 0 users, load averages: 0.78, 1.12, 1.21

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔