mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-04-02, 21:38   #12
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32×547 Posts
Default

Today is not turning ot to be a "better day!" I'm causing duplication of wok in another thread, and now I'm finding out that if CADO-NFS is told to stop prior to its filtering, it doesn't give a tme for las. I will have to sort out something else. For now, the c160 will not be useful for much. I might just take a break. . .
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-02, 22:45   #13
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

133B16 Posts
Default

Maybe I've found a solution. Here's the data for the c160:
Code:
N = 516... <160 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 45000000
tasks.lim1 = 70000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 32
tasks.qmin = 17000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 150.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 190
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.84
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 59
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 62
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 20
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25
tasks.sieve.qrange = 10000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 505021
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 26267.6
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 212441669
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 3.16477e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 1.43789954e-12
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-05, 14:03   #14
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32×547 Posts
Default

Here's a c162:
Code:
N = 235... <162 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 45000000
tasks.lim1 = 70000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 32
tasks.qmin = 17000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 150.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 190
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.84
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 59
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 62
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 20
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25
tasks.sieve.qrange = 10000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 508246
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 25518.1
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 3.77171e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 218448391
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 1.16869325e-12
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-09, 00:13   #15
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

133B16 Posts
Default

Here's a c168:
Code:
N = 385... <168 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 65000000
tasks.lim1 = 100000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.qmin = 10000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 170.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 160
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 60
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 19
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 999726
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 6873.68
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 6.3694e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 179907757
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 5.83275752e-13
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-18, 17:50   #16
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

10011001110112 Posts
Default

Here's a c161:
Code:
N = 235... <161 digits>
tasks.I = 14
tasks.lim0 = 45000000
tasks.lim1 = 70000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 32
tasks.qmin = 17000000
tasks.filter.target_density = 150.0
tasks.filter.purge.keep = 190
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.84
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 59
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 62
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 20
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25
tasks.sieve.qrange = 10000
Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 493855
Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 27925.7
Lattice Sieving: Total time: 2.84944e+06s (all clients used 4 threads)
Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 202173233
Found 149733097 unique, 40170110 duplicate, and 0 bad relations.
cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 1.47600121e-12
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-20, 21:51   #17
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

114738 Posts
Default

I'm currently running a c164 with A = 28 and adjust_strategy = 2. Will the data from this one compare to the data from others. What additional things might I need to mention, if any?
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-20, 23:14   #18
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

22×1,373 Posts
Default

I don't think any. We're looking for deviances from the trendline of "twice as hard every 5.5 digits". When a job is above that trend, it's a sign the params for that job size might benefit from some more attention.

At least, that's what I've found working my way up from 95 to 150 digits.

Charybdis occasionally runs two jobs very similar in length with one setting changed between them, as an A/B comparison to determine which setting is better. This is time-consuming at 160+, but it's the sort of work that lets us refine the params set. For instance, we *still* don't have a clear idea of when 3LP pulls ahead of 2LP for CADO. In principle, there should be a single cutoff above which we always use 3LP.

If you find yourself running a second job in the 160s the same size as one you've already documented, give 3LP a shot (I can be more specific on settings if you like).

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2022-04-20 at 23:16
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-21, 00:12   #19
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

492310 Posts
Default

I've got a pretty large pool of numbers I'm playing with. If you can get me specific params you'd like me to use, I'll try them on another 164 digit or close. The current one is 345. . . I've got about a dozen to check for something close, that I'll hope (ironically) doesn't ECM. I have no idea how to use 3LP, so please be quite specific in what I should do.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-21, 14:24   #20
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32·547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
I've got a pretty large pool of numbers I'm playing with. . .
Of course that meant that all the c164s are falling to ECM, now.* If I don't find a suitable c164, would you prefer I move up or down a digit? The leading digits are 345... on the current one, which should be finished tomorrow.

* The best way to get them to succeed at ECM is to look for GNFS candidates, unless you actually try that. . .

Edit: By posting the above I hope that the final c164 will fail ECM. But then because I posted such, it will succeed. But. . .

Last fiddled with by EdH on 2022-04-21 at 14:31
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 01:57   #21
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

10101011101002 Posts
Default

Here's my 3LP settings for params.c165, tested exactly once:
Code:
tasks.I = 14
tasks.qmin = 10000000
tasks.lim0 = 40000000
tasks.lim1 = 60000000
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10
tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000
tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 175000000
If you can compare sieve time to your current settings, that would help us decide if C165 is big enough to run 3LP. If you have multiple jobs, please also try mfb1=89, as 88 might be too small.
3LP makes the sieve faster, at the expense of a jump in matrix size. It's not to our benefit to log a 10% improvement in sieve time if we lose 50% to matrix time! Hopefully that's an exaggeration, but that's why we take data.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-04-22, 02:05   #22
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

15318 Posts
Default

Are you sure that swapping the lims won't improve yield? I thought larger lim on the 2LP side was pretty well established by now. Too lazy to dig up an old polynomial and test-sieve it myself.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CADO help henryzz CADO-NFS 6 2022-09-13 23:11
CADO NFS Shaopu Lin CADO-NFS 522 2021-05-04 18:28
CADO-NFS Timing Data For Many Factorizations EdH EdH 8 2019-05-20 15:07
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 08:18.


Thu Oct 6 08:18:34 UTC 2022 up 49 days, 5:47, 0 users, load averages: 2.42, 1.83, 1.61

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎𝜍 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔