mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > XYYXF Project

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-06-21, 22:21   #1
XYYXF
 
XYYXF's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus

24·52 Posts
Default GNFS targets which need more ECM

Here we'll collect potential GNFS targets which need some more ECM work. Usually ECM is stopped when the expected factor size is about 31% of GNFS difficulty.

Sean Wellman already suggested some candidates. There's a small table with work-to-do information (r means reserved):
Code:
 Composite   |  300M  |
-------------|--------|
C194_144_91  |  done  | fivemack 07-Jan-2017; 23040 completed 24-Jan-2017, no factor
C195_130_121 |  r/25k |
C195_148_83  |  r/25k | fivemack 01-Feb-2017; 25600 completed 25-Feb-2017, no factor
C196_135_124 |  r/30k | fivemack 20-Mar-2017; 30720 completed 07-Apr-2017, no factor
C196_146_83  |  0/30k |
C197_149_70  |  0/35k |
C198_143_115 |  0/40k |
C198_143_98  |  0/40k |
As soon as ECM is done on some target, it will be moved to the nearby thread.

There are also some larger targets: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...3&postcount=66

Any ECM help will be greatly appreciated :-)

Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2017-04-07 at 22:38
XYYXF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-03, 14:53   #2
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

18E816 Posts
Default

I will throw 18000@110e6 at C177_127_126
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-04, 10:21   #3
XYYXF
 
XYYXF's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus

19016 Posts
Default

C182_147_125 will go to NFSNET without any 850M?
XYYXF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-05, 13:28   #4
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

23×797 Posts
Default

I believe yoyo@home did a t60 on C182_147_125, though I can no longer find it in the logs. In any case I'm happy to go to GNFS.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-05, 14:57   #5
RichD
 
RichD's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Kansas

22·3·5·53 Posts
Default

From the XY queue.
Code:
DONE(1431617275) C182_147_125 42000 260000000 12093067009074704252675846002984141121780806423978283707584938383776570609066866061171700718946230640458535178724274435114415218181957483177454610233405802361841498168902737677281291
RichD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-14, 16:07   #6
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

24×181 Posts
Default

I'll run ECM on C173_146_90 for 18k curves @B1=110.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-28, 08:52   #7
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

23×797 Posts
Default

Factor 23172365109205234480749903714762635294556007388744597227 found for C177_127_126

Running some@110e6 on C175_131_96
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-07-30, 22:10   #8
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

24×181 Posts
Default

C173_146_90 is fully factored

prp53 = 47267995382581897196022456493523794792603190460855617
curve 689 stg2
B1=110000000
sigma=1435980417
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-08, 11:27   #9
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

B5016 Posts
Default C190_149_91

I will run ECM on this number for 18000 curves. Thanks.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-18, 14:42   #10
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))
 
fivemack's Avatar
 
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

23×797 Posts
Default

Code:
 Composite   |  110M  |  260M  |  850M  |
C175_131_96  |  0/18k |  0/30k |        |
C190_149_91  |  0/18k |  0/42k |  0/60k |
I am a bit unsure about your calibration for these numbers.

On the hardware here, sieving C175_131_96 using a polynomial that results from only two hours of polynomial search would take about 300M relations to be gathered in about 42 million thread-seconds, whilst one curve at 110M takes 943 seconds and at 260M takes about 2200 seconds; 30k curves at 260M would be a lot longer than the sieving!

For C190_149_91, one curve at 850M is 6200 seconds, and 500M relations with a quickly-sought polynomial is about 650 million seconds, so the proposed ECM would take something like 75% as long as the sieving; still a bit much. Maybe 20k@850M rather than 60k to get the ECM time in case of failure down to a third of the sieving time.
fivemack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-09-12, 22:19   #11
XYYXF
 
XYYXF's Avatar
 
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus

24×52 Posts
Default

I overestimated the sieving time. Now it looks better probably.
XYYXF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ready GNFS targets XYYXF XYYXF Project 86 2020-03-07 16:23
SNFS targets which need more ECM XYYXF XYYXF Project 57 2017-07-04 19:15
Ready SNFS targets XYYXF XYYXF Project 25 2016-11-20 21:35
3,697+ (GNFS 220.9) pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 0 2014-12-24 19:13
3,766+ (GNFS 215.5) pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 34 2014-04-01 21:27

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:26.

Wed Dec 2 21:26:41 UTC 2020 up 83 days, 18:37, 2 users, load averages: 6.25, 5.60, 5.36

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.