![]() |
![]() |
#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 32-bit 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 2015-06-05 at 09:08 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#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 32-bit runs on C162s out yet. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#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 target-density, the actual run, was a matrix of size 8.78M. This took 320 thread-hours to solve. The last 4.4M relations took 48 thread-hours to sieve on the same machine. Target-density 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 45-50 extra thread-hours to solve, so my "oversieving" cost me no net time even at default density. If I'd set target-density to 90 or 96, I could have saved ~25% of the matrix step, or 70-80 thread-hours (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 target-density to 96 or higher for my next 32-bit project. I once edited the factmsieve script to add target-density 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.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#180 | |
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2
32×17×61 Posts |
![]() Quote:
msieve {...other params...} -nc1 "target_density=96" When in doubt, run msieve -h |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#181 |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
111068 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! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#183 |
Jun 2012
22·3·13·19 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).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#184 |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts |
![]()
I never did the NFS, as my cuda-enabled msieve rig failed in June so I lost my poly-searching setup. I'll be happy to do the NFS if the usual suspects can procure a suitable poly. Perhaps 500-1000 more curves first?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#185 |
Jun 2012
22·3·13·19 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? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#186 |
Sep 2008
Kansas
1100110101102 Posts |
![]()
I ran A5 to 5M and the two best are:
Code:
N: 9622573172947172690216533113544901989270930284548712969416487159589518659037713792560995347053599943835805911303098595474551471251812082141957434773586035021 # expecting poly E from 1.91e-12 to > 2.20e-12 R0: -1226437530675169727727847599102 R1: 4489146410702701 A0: 1085620711869412190796638577436472845 A1: -13524714026065933306465543047704 A2: 2354089978283392085793977 A3: 22197682057227374702 A4: 2053627590300 A5: 3467880 # skew 1073123.83, size 2.686e-15, alpha -7.096, combined = 2.044e-12 rroots = 3 Code:
N: 9622573172947172690216533113544901989270930284548712969416487159589518659037713792560995347053599943835805911303098595474551471251812082141957434773586035021 # expecting poly E from 1.91e-12 to > 2.20e-12 R0: -3726397299028232594516190800757 R1: 228399129977819 A0: -275716441178826782149000795012629753184 A1: 374337043347538241259074213027768 A2: 35851573769457152514399928 A3: -3163034830851676700 A4: -195302199429 A5: 13392 # skew 12398157.51, size 2.645e-15, alpha -6.725, combined = 2.039e-12 rroots = 1 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#187 |
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,339 Posts |
![]()
I'll test-sieve these two and pick one to run, then I'l wait for Swellman's last ECM run before commencing NFS.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reserved for MF - Sequence 3366 | RichD | Aliquot Sequences | 468 | 2021-01-27 01:16 |
Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788 | schickel | Aliquot Sequences | 2934 | 2021-01-07 18:52 |
Reserved for MF - Sequence 276 | kar_bon | Aliquot Sequences | 127 | 2020-12-17 10:05 |
Team Sieve #37: 3408:i1287 | RichD | Aliquot Sequences | 14 | 2013-08-02 17:02 |
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved | petrw1 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 82 | 2010-01-11 01:57 |