GNFS targets which need more ECM - Page 3

swellman · 2016-02-08, 20:09

I'll take C184_135_106 for ECM to t55.

Based on recent comments by Fivemack, it seems we could have a few potential C18X GNFS candidates for the 15e queue of NFS@Home. Can anyone here run ECM to the required levels in the OP prior to attempting GNFS? Or is this something for yoyo?

Even individuals running some curves at the t55 level will be very helpful.

XYYXF · 2016-02-14, 21:29

I think yoyo would definitely help with t60.

swellman · 2016-02-22, 14:28

Further test sieving has identified the following list of GNFS candidates:

C193_136_129
C193_143_93
C196_135_124
C193_131_124
C185_134_99
C190_147_80
C194_144_91
C197_141_86
C183_127_118
C188_132_125
C195_130_121
C186_145_72
C191_143_75
C192_139_81
C182_125_121
C191_143_76
C183_134_69
C187_142_59

For all of these, test sieving by SNFS is considerably slower than the estimated GNFS sieving time. All have been run up to the t50 level for ECM.

XYYXF · 2016-02-23, 00:19

Thank you Sean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swellman

For all of these, test sieving by SNFS is considerably slower than the estimated GNFS sieving time.

How about C177_132_91 and C178_131_81? Are they definitely GNFS targets?

swellman · 2016-02-23, 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by XYYXF

Thank you Sean.

How about C177_132_91 and C178_131_81? Are they definitely GNFS targets?

I'm not sure. We need to generate a good poly and run some test sieving comparing S/GNFS. And that is not worth doing until all ECM is run.

Personally, I hope ECM factors both of them!

ETA: When do you plan to push the five numbers that have survived t55 over to yoyo for higher ECM? Just curious.

XYYXF · 2016-02-23, 01:41

Currently 15e is loaded enough, maybe a bit later :)

fivemack · 2016-02-27, 12:39

I am about to have spare GPU resource to do 10k@6e8 on some number (this will take all of March).

Which number should I pick? Current thought is either C190_149_91 or C193_136_129, which are the numbers of that digit count with highest SNFS:GNFS difficulty ratio.

swellman · 2016-02-29, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

I am about to have spare GPU resource to do 10k@6e8 on some number (this will take all of March).

Which number should I pick? Current thought is either C190_149_91 or C193_136_129, which are the numbers of that digit count with highest SNFS:GNFS difficulty ratio.

Bump. Not sure XYYXF has seen this posting.

If this were a poll (which it is not), I would go with C190_149_91. It has already seen t55 and is ready for the big stuff.

XYYXF · 2016-02-29, 19:47

I'd also prefer C190.

fivemack · 2016-03-01, 00:01

OK, 416*25 curves started on C190_149_91

swellman · 2016-04-02, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by swellman

I'll take C184_135_106 for ECM to t55.

Completed 18000 curves @B1 = 11e7 with no factors found. Releasing number.

2016-02-22, 14:28	#25
swellman Jun 2012 2³·13·37 Posts	Additional GNFS Numbers Further test sieving has identified the following list of GNFS candidates: C193_136_129 C193_143_93 C196_135_124 C193_131_124 C185_134_99 C190_147_80 C194_144_91 C197_141_86 C183_127_118 C188_132_125 C195_130_121 C186_145_72 C191_143_75 C192_139_81 C182_125_121 C191_143_76 C183_134_69 C187_142_59 For all of these, test sieving by SNFS is considerably slower than the estimated GNFS sieving time. All have been run up to the t50 level for ECM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ready GNFS targets	XYYXF	XYYXF Project	87	2022-04-27 10:59
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

2016-02-08, 20:09	#23
swellman Jun 2012 2³·13·37 Posts	I'll take C184_135_106 for ECM to t55. Based on recent comments by Fivemack, it seems we could have a few potential C18X GNFS candidates for the 15e queue of NFS@Home. Can anyone here run ECM to the required levels in the OP prior to attempting GNFS? Or is this something for yoyo? Even individuals running some curves at the t55 level will be very helpful.

2016-02-14, 21:29	#24
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 2⁴·5² Posts	I think yoyo would definitely help with t60.

2016-02-23, 01:41	#28
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 2⁴×5² Posts	Currently 15e is loaded enough, maybe a bit later :)

2016-02-27, 12:39	#29
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2·7·461 Posts	I am about to have spare GPU resource to do 10k@6e8 on some number (this will take all of March). Which number should I pick? Current thought is either C190_149_91 or C193_136_129, which are the numbers of that digit count with highest SNFS:GNFS difficulty ratio.

2016-02-29, 19:47	#31
XYYXF Jan 2005 Minsk, Belarus 2⁴·5² Posts	I'd also prefer C190.

2016-03-01, 00:01	#32
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2×7×461 Posts	OK, 416*25 curves started on C190_149_91