mersenneforum.org Reserved for MF - Sequence 3408
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2016-10-11, 22:18 #342 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 5,821 Posts Based upon the log it looks like that may have fitted on 4gb. I think I am now set up with a new pc able to do a 16GB job. It isn't on 24/7 though so I would prefer to do a job that isn't more than about half a week. This would have been an ideal test. Last fiddled with by henryzz on 2016-10-11 at 22:20
2016-10-11, 22:51   #343
pinhodecarlos

"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

5·7·139 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz Based upon the log it looks like that may have fitted on 4gb. I think I am now set up with a new pc able to do a 16GB job. It isn't on 24/7 though so I would prefer to do a job that isn't more than about half a week. This would have been an ideal test.
Real value of memory used was 3.8 GB instead on the one presented on the log file.

 2016-10-12, 01:04 #344 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 2×23×79 Posts Excellent, Carlos, That's a good split. I'm glad it didn't turn out to have a small factor my ECMing should have found. Now it looks like another c162 has shown up, but it could be worse... Ed Note: I have two 4GB, core 2 quad machines that both said they could solve the LA. I could look up the values, but they also both said about 78 hours, I think. The odd part is that I set them up to use mpi and they came back at ~275 hours to solve. My three, 4gb dual core machines were 30 something hours. The quad cores are, unfortunately, on a 10/100 switch, while the three duals are on a Gigabit, currently. I'll turn several machines loose on the new composite in a little bit...
2016-10-12, 01:18   #345
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

5,821 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos Real value of memory used was 3.8 GB instead on the one presented on the log file.
Quite an underestimate then.

EdH, just thought I would point out that you would save money by replacing your core 2 systems with more modern systems. You get much more efficiency with recent cpus. This would allow lower power consumption which would save you money in a year or two.
That is of course for the same performance.
Another benefit would be more memory.

2016-10-12, 02:47   #346
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×1,559 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH Excellent, Carlos, That's a good split. I'm glad it didn't turn out to have a small factor my ECMing should have found. Now it looks like another c162 has shown up, but it could be worse... Ed.
Someone posted a P48 for that C162, on line 1658 with a C187 presently. If no progress is made, I'll throw some t50-level curves at it tomorrow.

2016-10-12, 03:30   #347
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

70628 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Someone posted a P48 for that C162, on line 1658 with a C187 presently. If no progress is made, I'll throw some t50-level curves at it tomorrow.
One of my machines did that while I wasn't looking. I have a few working on the c187, but I won't be watching over them during the night. I don't know if they will get anywhere. Thanks.

2016-10-12, 03:33   #348
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

70628 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz Quite an underestimate then. EdH, just thought I would point out that you would save money by replacing your core 2 systems with more modern systems. You get much more efficiency with recent cpus. This would allow lower power consumption which would save you money in a year or two. That is of course for the same performance. Another benefit would be more memory.
Yeah, and I could probably afford the up front investment. But, in reality, I would get the new machine and then still run all these old ones, too. Most be an addiction... (I actually have several more old machines waiting for a chance to help.)

Edit: It's also an opportunity to play. One of the machines is running from an 8GB micro SDHC card. I also have a Raspberry Pi assigning some of the work.

Last fiddled with by EdH on 2016-10-12 at 03:38

 2016-10-12, 15:59 #349 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 70628 Posts How odd! I let about a dozen machines work on the c187 overnight and they returned nothing. This morning I set up a machine to run a distributed ECM effort and it immediately gave me this: Code: -> ___________________________________________________________________ -> | Running ecm.py, a Python driver for distributing GMP-ECM work | -> | on a single machine. It is Copyright, 2012, David Cleaver and | -> | is a conversion of factmsieve.py that is Copyright, 2010, Brian | -> | Gladman. Version 0.10 (Python 2.6 or later) 30th Sep 2012. | -> |_________________________________________________________________| -> Number(s) to factor: -> 2097073091591237404218687836513685895877817960290253421046297596274623117183515885512940927331281174454391017370699311839113500789090430626739805618613433715612809988590674625990004910081 (187 digits) ->============================================================================= -> Working on number: 209707309159123740...674625990004910081 (187 digits) -> Currently working on: job6427.txt -> Starting 4 instances of GMP-ECM... -> ./ecm -c 8 2000 < job6427.txt > job6427_t00.txt -> ./ecm -c 8 2000 < job6427.txt > job6427_t01.txt -> ./ecm -c 7 2000 < job6427.txt > job6427_t02.txt -> ./ecm -c 7 2000 < job6427.txt > job6427_t03.txt GMP-ECM 7.0.3 [configured with GMP 6.1.1, --enable-asm-redc] [ECM] Using B1=2000, B2=147396, polynomial x^1, 4 threads Done 29/30; avg s/curve: stg1 0.010s, stg2 0.012s; runtime: 1s Run 29 out of 30: Using B1=2000, B2=147396, polynomial x^1, sigma=1:2423212582 Step 1 took 8ms Step 2 took 12ms ********** Factor found in step 1: 111817691327273 Found prime factor of 15 digits: 111817691327273 Composite cofactor 18754394467449971433169133636162492600298914413396595751836384412408176818652556808225119789256080647070289939738286246593531841108089813728776853478001495732073616829270297 has 173 digits waiting... -> ___________________________________________________________________ -> | Running ecm.py, a Python driver for distributing GMP-ECM work | -> | on a single machine. It is Copyright, 2012, David Cleaver and | -> | is a conversion of factmsieve.py that is Copyright, 2010, Brian | -> | Gladman. Version 0.10 (Python 2.6 or later) 30th Sep 2012. | -> |_________________________________________________________________| -> Number(s) to factor: -> 2097073091591237404218687836513685895877817960290253421046297596274623117183515885512940927331281174454391017370699311839113500789090430626739805618613433715612809988590674625990004910081 (187 digits) ->============================================================================= -> Working on number: 209707309159123740...674625990004910081 (187 digits) -> Currently working on: job1932.txt -> Starting 4 instances of GMP-ECM... -> ./ecm -c 19 11000 < job1932.txt > job1932_t00.txt -> ./ecm -c 19 11000 < job1932.txt > job1932_t01.txt -> ./ecm -c 18 11000 < job1932.txt > job1932_t02.txt -> ./ecm -c 18 11000 < job1932.txt > job1932_t03.txt GMP-ECM 7.0.3 [configured with GMP 6.1.1, --enable-asm-redc] [ECM] Using B1=11000, B2=1873422, polynomial x^1, 4 threads Done 6/74; avg s/curve: stg1 0.043s, stg2 0.046s; runtime: 1s Run 6 out of 74: Using B1=11000, B2=1873422, polynomial x^1, sigma=1:4277626488 Step 1 took 36ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 1095649678256579 Found prime factor of 16 digits: 1095649678256579 Composite cofactor 131954905347588391934699304738827948133275634558635457624548533060467418907362122329509131668522067078677069743086471484822031174847391546400311 has 144 digits waiting... -> ___________________________________________________________________ -> | Running ecm.py, a Python driver for distributing GMP-ECM work | -> | on a single machine. It is Copyright, 2012, David Cleaver and | -> | is a conversion of factmsieve.py that is Copyright, 2010, Brian | -> | Gladman. Version 0.10 (Python 2.6 or later) 30th Sep 2012. | -> |_________________________________________________________________| -> Number(s) to factor: -> 2097073091591237404218687836513685895877817960290253421046297596274623117183515885512940927331281174454391017370699311839113500789090430626739805618613433715612809988590674625990004910081 (187 digits) ->============================================================================= -> Working on number: 209707309159123740...674625990004910081 (187 digits) -> Currently working on: job9509.txt -> Starting 4 instances of GMP-ECM... -> ./ecm -c 27 50000 < job9509.txt > job9509_t00.txt -> ./ecm -c 27 50000 < job9509.txt > job9509_t01.txt -> ./ecm -c 27 50000 < job9509.txt > job9509_t02.txt -> ./ecm -c 26 50000 < job9509.txt > job9509_t03.txt GMP-ECM 7.0.3 [configured with GMP 6.1.1, --enable-asm-redc] [ECM] Using B1=50000, B2=12746592, polynomial x^2, 4 threads Done 2/107; avg s/curve: stg1 0.219s, stg2 0.190s; runtime: 1s Run 2 out of 107: Using B1=50000, B2=12746592, polynomial x^2, sigma=1:3797496244 Step 1 took 196ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 129719656920613 Found prime factor of 15 digits: 129719656920613 Composite cofactor 16166193631506619062699986973017125397615941076923986434223011454064246619826586744066970275619259028143877483718271885648417579265271700432201498195640573216055668220689837 has 173 digits
 2016-10-12, 16:08 #350 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 5,821 Posts I would double check what you did overnight.
2016-10-12, 20:42   #351
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

E3216 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz I would double check what you did overnight.
I am going to check more closely, because what I did was to set ali.pl loose on 3408 on nearly all of the 24/7 machines. They were busy running instances of YAFU against the c187 and were all on 2350 curves at 3e6 this morning, when I swapped them over to my distributed ECM scripts. My scripts allow me to choose a few less curves than (# of machines) * (YFAU's suggested curves). My scripts don't suto-send the factors to the db, though. That's why I used ali.pl overnight.

I'm going to reconstruct the exact composite and play with YAFU and ali.pl separately and see if I find something odd about them.

2016-10-12, 22:11   #352
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

2·23·79 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdH ... I'm going to reconstruct the exact composite and play with YAFU and ali.pl separately and see if I find something odd about them.
It was my mis-reading of the outputs! I really must take better looks at things.

Basically, YAFU was asked by ali.pl to factor a c187 and YAFU hadn't factored it totally, so it didn't report anything. Had I looked at more than just the left side of the output, showing the curves completed, I would have seen the cSIZE had changed, which is the only indication that a factor has been found. At that point it doesn't say that a factor has been found, or print the new factor. It might print those details if more verbosity is signaled.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post RichD Aliquot Sequences 468 2021-01-27 01:16 schickel Aliquot Sequences 2934 2021-01-07 18:52 kar_bon Aliquot Sequences 127 2020-12-17 10:05 RichD Aliquot Sequences 14 2013-08-02 17:02 petrw1 Lone Mersenne Hunters 82 2010-01-11 01:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 12:10.

Sat Mar 6 12:10:01 UTC 2021 up 93 days, 8:21, 0 users, load averages: 2.41, 1.59, 1.38