20220807, 11:33  #89  
Jun 2012
2^{3}·13·37 Posts 
Quote:
~140M raw relations should be sufficient. 

20220807, 13:20  #90 
Apr 2020
1110011110_{2} Posts 
The number of relations needed is determined by the lpb bounds, not by the size of the number. Increase each lpb by 1 and you ~double the number of relations required. The mfb bounds also have an effect but it is smaller, e.g. using 3LP on one side needs maybe 20% more relations (can't remember exactly how much it is!)

20220807, 13:36  #91 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×2,819 Posts 
Bur
When testing params choices on CADO, I find I need 23% more relations per digit for a given LP bound choice, and 70% more relations for a given input number for each increase of 1 LPB. 2% per digit adds up when we consider 10+ digit differences a C170 on 32LP doesn't need nearly as many relations as a C185 with the same largeprime bounds (using larger lims on the C185 adds to this effect). 30LP seems really small for a C175; yield would likely double for 31LP, and 31/32 might be yet faster. Any time GGNFS yield averages below 2.5, chances are very good a larger LP choice is faster. 
20220807, 16:47  #92  
Jun 2012
2^{3}·13·37 Posts 
Quote:
Plus it was a nice break from all the monster jobs popping up lately. 

20220808, 02:26  #93 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
5638_{10} Posts 
I've never noticed this my matrices seem to depend on input size much more than LP size, until I get to 32LP. I'd be quite surprised to learn that 30 vs 31 is more than 15% larger matrix, for a given input job.

20220808, 05:58  #94 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
293_{16} Posts 
I see, so a lower lpb results in fewer relations to be found, but they are more "useful"?
The latter would be due to there being fewer unknowns in the LA problem? 
20220808, 11:19  #95 
Apr 2020
2·463 Posts 
2^lpb is the cutoff for the size of the largest primes/ideals that can appear in relations. Increasing lpb means that you find more relations, because you're allowing larger primes. But you also need more of them to form a matrix, because you need more relations than ideals and you've increased the possible number of ideals.

20220809, 06:32  #96 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
659 Posts 
Ah, thanks. Then it makes sense that increasing lpb by 1 doubles the number of required relations.

20220809, 14:10  #97  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·2,819 Posts 
Quote:
Many testsievers use "twice as many relations" as their metric, and decide the smaller LPB is faster when it's not. I've completed 32LP jobs with fewer than 300M raw relations, and 31/32 jobs with 200M raw relations (5*2^7841 required 195M raw relations as a 31/32). If we look at NFS@home logs, we see that 32LP jobs usually gather twice as many relations as 31LP jobs; however, most of the 32LP jobs are much more difficult than the typical 31LP job, and tougher jobs require more relations. For a given input number, 75% is the right number to use when going up an LPB on both sides, or 1/3 extra when trying a split e.g. 31/32 for LPB. 

20220809, 14:50  #98 
Jun 2012
111100001000_{2} Posts 
I’ll throw into the mix that in the past BOINC seemed to have a higher percentage of bad relations than we experience today. More raw relations were needed to reach the desired number of uniques. Definitely could and should be using lower target # raw relations these days in NFS@Home.

20220809, 15:04  #99 
"Oliver"
Sep 2017
Porta Westfalica, DE
1,327 Posts 
QUEUED AS 2_849p
Cullen number 849 is an SNFS 259 which is ready for sieving. Code:
n: 4693178848105443588405037077689313140090059796932891656436699701239070186072495205194603374565187182301890731865258017239714606914206045688272187831509599345913577655908463514507873092467684232436697919148670185404630805130261264540325092481 skew: 3.22737 # skew by cownoise size: 259 type: snfs c6: 1 c0: 6792 Y0: 1 Y1: 2787593149816327892691964784081045188247552 rlim: 178000000 alim: 90000000 lpbr: 32 lpba: 32 mfbr: 94 mfba: 64 lss: 0 rlambda: 3.5 alambda: 2.8 Code:
Q norm. yield 20M 3755 30M 3492 50M 3148 90M 2863 130M 2643 165M 2132 200M 2111 210M 2069 I will do the LA. Last fiddled with by swellman on 20220809 at 17:00 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Queue management for 14e queue  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  170  20230102 15:27 
2022 Queue management of 15e  swellman  NFS@Home  186  20221227 12:53 
Queue management for 16e queue  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  154  20221223 21:35 
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues  VBCurtis  NFS@Home  254  20220102 01:59 
Improving the queue management.  debrouxl  NFS@Home  10  20180506 21:05 