20190420, 16:19  #56 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1000101000010_{2} Posts 
I'm not so sure about that for one, it appears Vebis did a *lot* of work to find this poly; second, when we tested polys for XYYX 138_123 C206, the deg 5 sieved about 20% faster than deg 6 of the same score. That is, a rough conversion last time around was to add 20% to the score of deg 5 when comparing to deg 6.
That means a 1.60 in deg 5 should be as strong a candidate as Max's spunup version of Vebis' stellar poly. We expect to be able to find 1.6's if we put in the time Vebis did. 
20190420, 16:27  #57 
Oct 2015
2^{2}·17 Posts 
I started the search for a 5th degree poly. It will be done tomorrow evening.

20190420, 19:00  #58 
Sep 2008
Kansas
3^{2}×349 Posts 
I'll start back up at 32M to try to get a lower skew. (deg5)

20190421, 01:38  #59 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1000101000010_{2} Posts 
I've fired up CADO to test the deg 6 poly from Vebis as spun by Max. After an hour or so, I have sieved 2 Q=1k workunits on 4 hyperthreads of a busy Ivy Bridge. Stats:
Yield is 6.4 at Q=200M ETA suggests 55 coreyears of sieving (I chose Q=200M because it's close to the midpoint of expected Qrange of 20M to 450M, so the time estimate is the best a singlepoint testsieve can be). Initial LP and MFB are 34/35 and 66/99; I can change these by exiting CADO and editing the snapshot file, which I plan to do daily while trying to minimize ETA. I chose 2.6G raw relations as target; this should be ample oversieving to build a reasonable matrix. I left lim's and ncurves at default for c210; 260M/550M and 26/21. I am pleased to report memory use from "top" as 13.3GB virtual, 12GB resident. So, these tasks should fit into Carlos' planned virtuallinuxonwindows on his 16GB machine. I testsieved a bit on 16f GGNFS siever too; with lim's at 250/500M, sec/rel was around 0.350 with the same LP/MFB listed above, while sec/rel was slower with MFBR 67 or MFBA 98 or 100. Yield on 16f was a bit higher, though I only tested Qrange of 500. 55 coreyears happens to match our present pledge level nicely, so we have a legit hope to get this sieved in 6 months! I hope that some quiet observers of this thread will contribute a few workunits too, leading us to less than 6 wallclock months to sieve. :) Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190421 at 01:40 Reason: changed thread to core for ETA estimate 
20190421, 08:12  #60 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
4748_{10} Posts 
Any experience on CADO server side in terms of how many client connections it can handle. Was wondering what would happen if you start being hit by more than 300400 cores.

20190421, 15:06  #61 
Nov 2003
2^{6}·113 Posts 
Other "small" composites

20190421, 15:57  #62  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×47^{2} Posts 
Quote:
I'm shopping for a 1TB SSD presently to handle the job data. I am CADOing a C186 right now that should head into filtering in 3 weeks. Once I see what memory use is for postprocessing that number, I can decide whether to upgrade to 96GB or 128GB memory (64GB now) and have a moreeducated guess for how much swap to allocate on the SSD. 

20190421, 18:08  #63 
Oct 2015
2^{2}·17 Posts 
Code:
n: 334377437706404684733884220732190564550147039308686365251932207592010868660163280944362994773042289837865752943086095333357861608005044927356022538834108845220872215597190097852981295940487497385774178731621 skew: 146825723.142 c0: 8927615796337795909706360434154979487944027812870 c1: 249426878913680820299934039511380732178383 c2: 1269993042201960025915734295984162 c3: 44702903780233907372762163 c4: 43380588291919832 c5: 199837440 Y0: 6688519829695165238165832445322722085046 Y1: 3276459567865397949373 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=5.469e+16) = 1.58e08 # found by revision 9436c2ff8 # f(x) = 199837440*x^5+43380588291919832*x^444702903780233907372762163*x^31269993042201960025915734295984162*x^2+249426878913680820299934039511380732178383*x+8927615796337 795909706360434154979487944027812870 # g(x) = 3276459567865397949373*x6688519829695165238165832445322722085046 Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190421 at 19:33 Reason: VBCurtis: Changed quote tages to code tags again 
20190421, 19:31  #64 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
10502_{8} Posts 
The cownoise.com skewmaker evaluates this poly:
skew: 86201388.01399 Escore: 1.35974390e13 I'll test this poly on 16f today, but I'll wait for possible spin from Max before I turn CADO to it. 
20190422, 03:02  #65  
Jun 2003
4,723 Posts 
Quote:
skew: 175281707.18300 E: 1.51187373e15 1.36e13 couldn't possibly be a legit value  it is about two orders of magnitude better than anything posted here. 

20190422, 04:43  #66  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
10502_{8} Posts 
Quote:
My result now matches yours. I cannot figure out what I miscopied to generate the other value; I'm not even sure that the 13 was a typo versus the result of some copy/paste getting truncated. I testsieved, but with the skew from CADO rather than from my post (error #2 today!); I'll do some more tests presently. Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20190422 at 04:44 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Coordination thread for redoing P1 factoring  ixfd64  Lone Mersenne Hunters  53  20201030 19:39 
big job planning  henryzz  Cunningham Tables  16  20100807 05:08 
Sieving reservations and coordination  gd_barnes  No Prime Left Behind  2  20080216 03:28 
Sieved files/sieving coordination  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  32  20080122 03:09 
Special Project Planning  wblipp  ElevenSmooth  2  20040219 05:25 