![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3×2,083 Posts |
![]()
Are you sure it needs anything at 43e6? I was thinking that the worker's default of a full t40 would be plenty (considering that it was enough for a c132).
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
May 2008
3·5·73 Posts |
![]()
I will start a poly search for this c131.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
May 2008
100010001112 Posts |
![]()
Shall we make this another team factoring run?
Best poly found so far for c131 (still searching): Code:
# norm 1.184609e-12 alpha -7.685437 e 6.481e-11 skew: 908992.68 c0: 3348252158728305644321314746700224 c1: 30656771114397449709790473636 c2: -16505017784500307019592 c3: -122674727487245953 c4: 30153048686 c5: 32640 Y0: -16592015549072479450790701 Y1: 299465985530831 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)
3×2,083 Posts |
![]()
Well, considering that our earlier C132 only would have taken about 4-5 days, tops, on a reasonably-modern quad-core, a team sieve on a C131 may well end up oversieving it so humongously that we have a hard time doing the postprocessing.
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Nov 2008
91216 Posts |
![]()
The t40 is still nowhere near completion because someone clicked "Stop" on it to make progress on another number.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 |
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
2×2,897 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
"Sander"
Oct 2002
52.345322,5.52471
4A516 Posts |
![]()
Thats the reason i don't run my workers anymore
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 |
Jun 2005
17516 Posts |
![]()
I understand you so well. A queue is a queue is a queue. Unless some rowdy comes and says "Me first". ( I plead guilty, but only once or twice, after waiting two days for my number). While the thing that new jobs get priority is a good thing at low levels, one should not be able to influence the queue for the B1=250000 and 1000000 level. Definitely deserves fixing. H.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 |
Oct 2004
Austria
1001101100102 Posts |
![]()
I did P-1 with B1=1e9, B2=1e14, no factor. I started P+1 with the same B1 and B2 bounds (3 runs)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Oct 2004
Austria
46628 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Oct 2004
Austria
46628 Posts |
![]()
Yes, but....
In the database, any new "very high ECM" factorization is queued first (So it's NOT a queue, as in a normal queue, newly arrived persons or things are queued on the LAST position). So if the DB's "queue" a number will have to wait *forever* if the "queue" keeps growing. This increases the temptation to click the "run now" button - and IMHO this needs to be fixed. I would suggest to: either queue any new number to at the *end* of the queue as soon as it has been "prepared for very high ecm" (i.e. p+/-1'ed, IIRC) or run *only* the 25 digits level (i.e. 200 curves at B1=5e4), and THEN put it at the *end* of the queue. In this case, for example a composite which is queued in 4th position WILL be ECMed as soon as the first three composites are done, and not at St. Glinglin's day. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reserved for MF - Sequence 3366 | RichD | Aliquot Sequences | 463 | 2021-01-02 16:01 |
Primes in n-fibonacci sequence and n-step fibonacci sequence | sweety439 | And now for something completely different | 17 | 2017-06-13 03:49 |
ECM for c166 from 4788:2661 | frmky | Aliquot Sequences | 36 | 2011-04-28 06:27 |
ECM work on 4788:2549.c170 | schickel | Aliquot Sequences | 51 | 2011-01-05 02:32 |
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved | petrw1 | Lone Mersenne Hunters | 82 | 2010-01-11 01:57 |