mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > CADO-NFS

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-01-01, 04:23   #12
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

67738 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jux View Post

I agree with henryzz. CADO lists significant speed increases (2x faster) on their website from version 1.1 to 2.1.
I tested CADO version 2.1.1 last May (scroll down a bit in the thread I linked).

Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2016-01-01 at 04:24
bsquared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 04:50   #13
jux
 
jux's Avatar
 
Aug 2015

2·33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
It may be normal, depending on the CPU. I had that case on a computer with an i7-2600. Did you run "-tune" command? If not, please do! Usually the crossover is under 105 digits. Running the "-tune" can make the things faster around that point. If the nfs sieving is slow, due to whatever reasons, memory, etc., then the QS became comparatively faster and the crossover point is pushed higher.

You may need to delete the old tuning info from the ini file, before running the new tune.

Also, yafu may revert to SIQS if something wrong with external GNFS files (did you add the correct path to ggnfs executables in yafu.ini?) etc. or if a small factor pops up (which decreases the remaining composite length)
Yes I ran tune(), but I'll run it again just to be safe. I left files from an old factorization in the folder and the number I started with was initially 154 digits but leftover a 113 digit semiprime, so that might have something to do with it.

Edit: tune listed QS/NFS crossover point at 116.5 digits, which doesn't seem right to me. It also crashed with the error "invalid character in str2hexz"

Last fiddled with by jux on 2016-01-01 at 05:14
jux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 07:00   #14
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

231208 Posts
Default

No, it is not right. A 5-6 digits about doubles the time for QS, and that can't be right. Your NFS is too slow for whatever reason (no idea why, sorry )
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 09:36   #15
jux
 
jux's Avatar
 
Aug 2015

2·33 Posts
Default

I suppose I can just change the ini file (I think the second to last number is the crossover point?)
jux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 10:27   #16
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

24×613 Posts
Default

This will not solve your problem, in case you have one, with the NFS. You will just chose the slower method, in case SIQS is indeed faster in your system. The "-tune" command does not lie, your QS is faster than the NFS at that size. Only I have no freaking idea why.
Maybe heavier guns can ponder here? BB?
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 10:42   #17
jux
 
jux's Avatar
 
Aug 2015

1101102 Posts
Default

The tune command may not lie purposely...but a 113 digit number with QS took an hour longer than a 120 digit number with NFS
jux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-01, 10:43   #18
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand

265016 Posts
Default

Oh...

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-01-01 at 10:43
LaurV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-02, 01:53   #19
jux
 
jux's Avatar
 
Aug 2015

2·33 Posts
Default

I downloaded the newest version of YAFU and now it lists a more realistic 106.6 digit crossover point.
jux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-02, 02:04   #20
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

1C3516 Posts
Default

Oh my, yes. Lots of things make more sense now I imagine
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-02, 04:29   #21
bsquared
 
bsquared's Avatar
 
"Ben"
Feb 2007

3·1,193 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jux View Post
Yes I ran tune(), but I'll run it again just to be safe. I left files from an old factorization in the folder and the number I started with was initially 154 digits but leftover a 113 digit semiprime, so that might have something to do with it.

Edit: tune listed QS/NFS crossover point at 116.5 digits, which doesn't seem right to me. It also crashed with the error "invalid character in str2hexz"
tune() runs a series of hardcoded numbers and times how long it takes to gather a certain number of relations. Ideally it should be run in a clean folder, or you run the risk of it picking up partial results from previous tune() attempts, which would throw the timing way off and thus skew the regression analysis that is performed at the end.

I can say if that's what happened here, but I would agree that 116 digits seems too high.
bsquared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-01-06, 20:42   #22
mancoast
 
mancoast's Avatar
 
Jan 2016

1710 Posts
Default

Hello all,

Greetings, this is actually my second post.
I made an account here [mancoast] back in July, but got banned for something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jux View Post
Does anyone have pre-compiled binaries for x86-64?
Do you have access to the Intel Compiler?
Using ICC 16 for windows, it is really close!
For a hobby project I required cado-nfs compiled with ICC16 for Xeon Phi operation.
Now with revision 2.2.0 all cado-nfs binaries can be compiled with Intel Compiler 16 on linux for both intel64 and MIC.
This led me to identify gaps including but not limited to:
linux specific threads dependency
linux specific time dependency

I believe that supplying the proper pthreads library will solve that dependency.
the linux specific time dependency will require changes to the code-base.
mancoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CADO NFS Shaopu Lin CADO-NFS 522 2021-05-04 18:28
CADO help henryzz CADO-NFS 4 2017-11-20 15:14
CADO and WinBlows akruppa Programming 22 2015-12-31 08:37
CADO-NFS skan Information & Answers 1 2013-10-22 07:00
CADO R.D. Silverman Factoring 4 2008-11-06 12:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:18.


Thu Dec 2 07:18:56 UTC 2021 up 132 days, 1:47, 0 users, load averages: 0.98, 1.13, 1.13

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.