20090218, 12:25  #1 
Nov 2003
1D24_{16} Posts 
Quartic: Parameters
I have reserved 6,335, but have run into some difficulty.
I may not be able to do it. With a Linear Factor base bound of 58.8M (3.5 million primes), and a Algebraic bound of 12.2M (800K primes), my code requires 580Mbytes to run one instance. I am not sure that these bounds are optimal. I intend to try LFB of 4 and 4.5 million primes, and an AFB of only 600K to see what effect that has. Note that increasing the AFB to over 1 million primes (even 2 million!) has very little effect on yield and indeed slows the siever way down, (presumably from many false hits on the algebraic side) The sextic that I am using only requires 380Mbytes to run with factor bases of 2 million primes on each side! The difference is due to the fact that the norms for the quartic are rather small. Thus, many potential candidates get revealed during the initial sieve. Factoring the norms is done via resieve, and because of the large number of candidates, the hash tables that store the primes during resieve become quite large. Quartics have always required more memory for me than quintics or sextics for this reason. However, 6,335 is the first quartic I have done that requires greater than 500Mbytes of DRAM. About half my machines are dual core, but have only 1GB DRAM. Thus, I can only run one instance on these machines. This will slow me way down. May I ask: What parameters were used for 2,860+ and 2,925+?? 
20090218, 13:04  #2 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
2·3·19·31 Posts 
Maybe you should consider handling the resieving in batches; I was also concerned about getting so many hits that the choice is either using up too much memory or ignoring sieve reports, and in that case a good solution is to use a fixedsize structure and possibly resieve the same interval multiple times. In cases where you get a huge number of hits, the latency of the sieving is a small effect anyway.

20090218, 15:05  #3  
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3×19×59 Posts 
Quote:
Code:
n: 5688016226807831064044758914315660452874822911732021084198059235416884717188698621609682118091029853096510590721423450325168014323277731989012600970545984976786513017985287740035850980703007762825496957935313661984801 c4: 1 c3: 1 c2: 1 c1: 1 c0: 1 Y1: 1 Y0: 49039857307708443467467104868809893875799651909875269632 type: snfs skew: 1 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 lpbr: 31 lpba: 29 mfbr: 62 mfba: 58 alim: 25000000 rlim: 150000000 As a point of reference, the 32bit ggnfs lattice siever on windows requires ~380MB to run one instance with either rlim=150M or rlim=100M. 

20090218, 15:38  #4 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
3534_{10} Posts 
Code:
rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 lpbr: 31 lpba: 29 mfbr: 62 mfba: 58 alim: 25000000 rlim: 150000000 [ra]lim = rational / algebraic factor base limits [ra]lambda = multiplier of the number of bits in [ra]lim that triggers an attempt to trial factor a sieve value lpb[ra] = bits in large primes mfb[ra] = number of bits left over in rational/algebraic sieve values after trial division, that triggers factorization with different algorithms 
20090218, 18:19  #5  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:


20090218, 18:55  #6  
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3×19×59 Posts 
Quote:
I tried your number as well and with these parameters: Code:
rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 lpbr: 30 lpba: 28 mfbr: 60 mfba: 56 alim: 12200000 rlim: 58800000 By a very rough estimate, this job would need about 13e6 seconds to finish sieving on a single 3GHz CPU (woodcrest 5160, using the amd64 optimized 64bit binary), or about 152 days. I have no idea how that compares to your siever  I'd love to hear about a comparison, and would be willing to do one myself if I had your code or a binary. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 20090218 at 19:05 

20090218, 20:47  #7  
Nov 2003
1110100100100_{2} Posts 
Quote:
I can provide my code, but it is written for Windows; It includes MASM assembly. It appears that GGNFS is much more space efficient than mine. One major change that would decrease my space usage is to store primes during the resieve into unused portions of the sieve array, rather than keeping separate hash tables. Also, I suspect that GGNFS uses Kleinjungstyle lattice sieving while mine uses Pollardstyle. The latter requires computation of the sieve boundaries for each prime sublattice. This takes space. And is probably slightly slower. One of these days, I may recode my siever. If ever I can find the time..... 

20090218, 20:57  #8  
"Ben"
Feb 2007
3·19·59 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
I'll PM you with contact info for your code then, thanks. Hopefully I can get it to compile somehow....  ben. Last fiddled with by bsquared on 20090218 at 20:58 

20090218, 22:19  #9  
Nov 2003
16444_{8} Posts 
Quote:
used for 2,860+? I can trivially provide a windows binary. 

20090218, 23:24  #10 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
6379_{10} Posts 
Parameters for 2+860
Code:
n: 37360387694127510821188227330071397026603186697457573335739293573903838744149624314101536096673587305145124803665871388272088935341673817060806283660516368010552176540988879158504987136934647756081 c4: 1 c3: 1 c2: 1 c1: 1 c0: 1 Y1: 1 Y0: 5986310706507378352962293074805895248510699696029696 type: snfs skew: 1 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 lpbr: 30 lpba: 29 mfbr: 60 mfba: 58 alim: 12000000 rlim: 60000000 Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20090218 at 23:25 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
mmff parameters  MattcAnderson  Operazione Doppi Mersennes  2  20150708 15:28 
YAFU cli parameters  VolMike  YAFU  8  20121003 14:18 
Don't fear the quartic  fivemack  Factoring  6  20111212 05:08 
SNFS 200 parameters  JoeCrump  Factoring  3  20091206 14:50 
ECM parameters for RSA  Spider  Factoring  24  20060605 23:42 