mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-09-12, 23:58   #45
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

255D16 Posts
Default

8p3_930M is in LA; small; just a 2-days worth job. Can be moved to 'Post processing'.
Fib 1409 will finish first (ETA tomorrow)
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-17, 12:43   #46
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3,203 Posts
Default 8-3,341

QUEUED AS 8m3_341

The HCN 8-3,341 is ready for GNFS. As a c193, this job definitely belongs on 16f_small but I ended up splitting the lpbr/a into a 31/32 after extensive (and intentionally naive) test sieving of 24 parameter sets. The values of r+alim = 402M, presumably under Greg’s limit.

Code:
n: 2336386891136426579841809323098919425924681423702856026805990165735188655301084082303702367027719152311847987495284282076422827038922824223850944481171524784632058160171821029378539494253139241
skew: 38641852.276
type: gnfs
# HCN 8-3_341
lss: 0
c0: 4406550827068543220574899900566398752743379
c1: 10635304037567138410619541930862659352
c2: -257904586189613106859667691910
c3: -15641949562904209308151
c4: 61790529410960
c5: 1466640
Y0: -17395768516108913114178572748025422408
Y1: 2981515822618563517895267
# MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 1.255e-08
# msieve gives skew 38641852.28, size 7.543e-019, alpha -4.910, combined = 1.480e-014 rroots = 5
rlim: 134000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 32
mfbr: 62
mfba: 94
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.5
Test sieving results on the -a side in blocks of 10k:
Code:
Q(M)     Corrected Yield
50           22799
100          23198
150          20997
200          19610
250          18449
With a notional target of 350M raw relations, these results suggest a range of 45-210M for Q.

I'll do the LA.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2021-10-04 at 16:45
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-09-30, 23:18   #47
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3,203 Posts
Default C199_M31_k35

From the kosta project, caching this SNFS 261 here. The GNFS 199 was a contender for this factorization but ultimately went with the quartic.

Code:
n: 4950036370987531796596777020435431752821658735009564665203032637182311299258729058872170618265983042169789410985851232822128958988972946232939020745222679656170411937888556774248091592015827689480701

skew: 2.04458

type: snfs

size: 261

c4: 1

c3: 1

c2: 1

c1: 1

c0: 1

Y1: 1

Y0: -210624582650556372047028295576838759252690170086892944262392971263

lpbr: 33

lpba: 33

mfbr: 96

mfba: 66

alim: 225000000

rlim: 225000000

rlambda: 3.7

alambda: 3.0

Polynomial and skew both courtesy of cownoise.



Test sieving results on the rational side with Q in blocks of 5000:
Code:

Q0(M)       Adjusted_yield

60               7333

100              8430

200              9681

300              9295

400              8658

500              8297

600              7925
Suggesting a Q-range of 60-570M will produce 900M raw relations.

I hope others will propose jobs for the 16f_small queue. It is not my intent to monopolize it - my recent postings are a a buffer for those occasions when work runs low. Please post away!
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 17:23   #48
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·5·37 Posts
Default

Don't large quartics benefit strongly from asymmetric lim's and LP bounds?
I wager 32/34 will be much more effective than 33/33, and I think lim's of e.g. 200/250 would also help compared to 225/225.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 17:33   #49
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

C8316 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Don't large quartics benefit strongly from asymmetric lim's and LP bounds?
I wager 32/34 will be much more effective than 33/33, and I think lim's of e.g. 200/250 would also help compared to 225/225.
I always check 2/2, 2/3, 3/2 LPs but I didn’t consider shifting to 32/34(!) or asymmetry in the lims. Will msieve even run with a value of 34 lpbr/a?
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 20:48   #50
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

499 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
I always check 2/2, 2/3, 3/2 LPs but I didn’t consider shifting to 32/34(!) or asymmetry in the lims. Will msieve even run with a value of 34 lpbr/a?
This should be lpbr/lpba 34/32 - not 32/34 which would be more appropriate for an octic. (the larger the degree the larger the algebraic side)

Msieve is fine with 34-bit large primes; it's the siever that is the issue. The standard 16e siever is limited to 33-bit but while it's apparently very easy to remove this restriction, I don't know whether this has been done for the NFS@Home version. Even if it has, the siever will still be unable to handle mfbr/a > 96. The 16f-v5 siever used for the huge NFS@Home jobs can handle larger mfb values.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 21:02   #51
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·5·37 Posts
Default

Sorry for transposing the lpb's.
My understanding of the 16e queue is that it's the same siever as the "big" queue, so I thought 34LP and 99MFB would be fine. If I'm wrong about the siever, I think 32/33 would still be preferable to 33/33- I don't mind doing the test-sieve to see if I'm right?

Msieve is definitely fine with 34/32LP, since it'll need about the same number of relations as 33/33 so filtering should work just fine.


Edit: Posts 2-5 in this thread discuss a 261 quartic, and observe that maybe that's too big for f-small. Are you sure GNFS-199 isn't the easier solution for this job?

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2021-10-01 at 21:25
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 22:10   #52
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

320310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Sorry for transposing the lpb's.
My understanding of the 16e queue is that it's the same siever as the "big" queue, so I thought 34LP and 99MFB would be fine. If I'm wrong about the siever, I think 32/33 would still be preferable to 33/33- I don't mind doing the test-sieve to see if I'm right?

Msieve is definitely fine with 34/32LP, since it'll need about the same number of relations as 33/33 so filtering should work just fine.


Edit: Posts 2-5 in this thread discuss a 261 quartic, and observe that maybe that's too big for f-small. Are you sure GNFS-199 isn't the easier solution for this job?
Greg is testing a version of the sievers using 34 LP but it’s not stock. I don’t think ggnfs can deal with it normally. But I haven’t tried it so…

If you could run a bit of test sieving I would be grateful. All my machines are currently tasked but there’s certainly no hurry on this job.

I was surprised how well behaved this quartic was in test sieving but of course it’s nowhere near the speed of a S261 sextic. But I wanted to run a more difficult quartic, and I’m not convinced a G199 would be any faster especially adding in the poly search time. I did bounce this job off Greg and he had no issues with it, but we didn’t directly deal with the issue of GNFS vs SNFS.
swellman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-01, 23:41   #53
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·5·37 Posts
Default

First sieve test with 34/32 and 250/200 lim's shows 0.61 sec/rel at Q=200M... pretty decent. I think that's a bit quicker than GNFS-199 would be at 33/33, maybe equivalent to a GNFS-197, though yield is lower so more Q are needed than would be for the GNFS job.

I'll do a complete test-sieve of 34/32 and 33/32 by Saturday night.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-02, 00:15   #54
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

218810 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
My understanding of the 16e queue is that it's the same siever as the "big" queue, so I thought 34LP and 99MFB would be fine.
You are right. Both of these queues use the same binaries, so it should work fine.
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-02, 00:46   #55
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

499 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frmky View Post
You are right. Both of these queues use the same binaries, so it should work fine.
Aha, good to know. Sorry if I confused anyone.

Never mind the parameter choice for the quartic, I'm surprised this isn't obviously better by GNFS. While it isn't a perfect reflection of difficulty, the Q range of 60-570M is surely much larger than a GNFS-199 would require?
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queue management for 14e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 62 2021-10-20 02:03
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues VBCurtis NFS@Home 201 2021-10-17 15:54
Run down the queue on MPRIME without quitting GIMPS Rodrigo Software 7 2018-05-25 13:26
Improving the queue management. debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05
split a prime95 queue & client installation joblack Information & Answers 1 2009-01-06 08:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:46.


Thu Oct 21 02:46:12 UTC 2021 up 89 days, 21:15, 1 user, load averages: 1.21, 1.04, 1.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.