20150605, 09:06  #177 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
13×491 Posts 
msieve v nc1 filter_maxrels=200000000
If you're doing experiments on this relation set, I would be interested also to see what the minimum relation count is for target_density=120 to work; my suspicion is that, with 32bit large primes, it's worth doing enough oversieving to get a higher target density even if you're not doing the sieving and linear algebra on the same hardware. At least at one point you had to put Code:
msieve v nc1 "filter_maxrels=200000000 target_density=120" Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20150605 at 09:08 
20150608, 16:01  #178 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,339 Posts 
3408:1589 is factored, p65*p97. 1590 was easy. 1591 has a C157 which has survived a t40 and 600 curves @ 11M; I am running a standard t45 on it now, and welcome assistance for whatever part of a t50 is proper.
I used s flag to update factordb for the sequence; it appears that since aliqueit is managing the ECM presently, the p25 already found in 1591 wasn't uploaded. Sorry 'bout that! I'll tinker with the filtering step and report my findings there aren't many 32bit runs on C162s out yet. 
20150610, 23:20  #179 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,339 Posts 
A t45 is complete on the C157 at i1591. I have completed 400 curves at B1 =43M, and will finish 1000 more.
I will NFS this C157 in July if nobody claims it before then. Findings on the C162 with 32LP: 233M relations could not build a matrix. 236M relations produced a matrix size 9.53M. 240M relations with default targetdensity, the actual run, was a matrix of size 8.78M. This took 320 threadhours to solve. The last 4.4M relations took 48 threadhours to sieve on the same machine. Targetdensity 80 produced 8.25M matrix. Density 90 produced 7.83M matrix. Density 96 produced 7.62M matrix. Density 100 could not build a matrix. Making a broad assumption that matrix solve time scales with the square of the size of the matrix, a 9.53M matrix would have taken 4550 extra threadhours to solve, so my "oversieving" cost me no net time even at default density. If I'd set targetdensity to 90 or 96, I could have saved ~25% of the matrix step, or 7080 threadhours (plus the ~50 saved already from 236M rels vs 240M rels at default density!). 50 hours extra sieve, 100+ hours saved in matrix step. My data matches fivemack's opinion, that for 32LP the extra sieve time is more than made up in shorter matrix steps; I will set targetdensity to 96 or higher for my next 32bit project. I once edited the factmsieve script to add targetdensity in, but have lost those changes. Can someone remind me where to place the flag? I suppose it'll take just a couple attempts to get the edit syntax correct anyway.. 
20150611, 01:59  #180  
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
3^{2}×17×61 Posts 
Quote:
msieve {...other params...} nc1 "target_density=96" When in doubt, run msieve h 

20150611, 06:13  #181 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11106_{8} Posts 
My doubt was about the python script, rather than the msieve invocation. Makes sense it is as simple as searching for "nc1" in the script and adding the flag as if it were command line.
Thanks! 
20150614, 03:19  #182 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts 
A total of 1550 curves at B1 = 43M are complete on the current c157.
If nobody takes this number on, I will find resources in July to perform NFS. 
20151020, 23:35  #183 
Jun 2012
2^{2}·3·13·19 Posts 
Did the C157 ever get the full t50? I can't take on the NFS job right now but I can help with ECM (if needed).

20151021, 02:27  #184 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts 
I never did the NFS, as my cudaenabled msieve rig failed in June so I lost my polysearching setup. I'll be happy to do the NFS if the usual suspects can procure a suitable poly. Perhaps 5001000 more curves first?

20151021, 09:29  #185 
Jun 2012
2^{2}·3·13·19 Posts 
Ok I will run some additional ECM pending a poly being found. I don't have a GPU rig to aid with the poly select either or I'd help with that.
Should this thread become sticky once again? 
20151024, 03:34  #186 
Sep 2008
Kansas
110011010110_{2} Posts 
C157 @ i1591
I ran A5 to 5M and the two best are:
Code:
N: 9622573172947172690216533113544901989270930284548712969416487159589518659037713792560995347053599943835805911303098595474551471251812082141957434773586035021 # expecting poly E from 1.91e12 to > 2.20e12 R0: 1226437530675169727727847599102 R1: 4489146410702701 A0: 1085620711869412190796638577436472845 A1: 13524714026065933306465543047704 A2: 2354089978283392085793977 A3: 22197682057227374702 A4: 2053627590300 A5: 3467880 # skew 1073123.83, size 2.686e15, alpha 7.096, combined = 2.044e12 rroots = 3 Code:
N: 9622573172947172690216533113544901989270930284548712969416487159589518659037713792560995347053599943835805911303098595474551471251812082141957434773586035021 # expecting poly E from 1.91e12 to > 2.20e12 R0: 3726397299028232594516190800757 R1: 228399129977819 A0: 275716441178826782149000795012629753184 A1: 374337043347538241259074213027768 A2: 35851573769457152514399928 A3: 3163034830851676700 A4: 195302199429 A5: 13392 # skew 12398157.51, size 2.645e15, alpha 6.725, combined = 2.039e12 rroots = 1 
20151024, 05:46  #187 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts 
I'll testsieve these two and pick one to run, then I'l wait for Swellman's last ECM run before commencing NFS.

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 3366  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  468  20210127 01:16 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 4788  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  2934  20210107 18:52 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 276  kar_bon  Aliquot Sequences  127  20201217 10:05 
Team Sieve #37: 3408:i1287  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  14  20130802 17:02 
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved  petrw1  Lone Mersenne Hunters  82  20100111 01:57 