mersenneforum.org  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-04-18, 20:45   #45
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2·2,239 Posts
Default

Changes to this file versus the last file of the same name:
Added 25% to poly select range (because c177, same range I used for Charybdis' C177).
Reduced both lim's by 10M. You had Q-final of 93M while using I=15, and smaller lim's often yield a smaller matrix. If someone uses A=28 instead, they would choose bigger lim's (as we did for Charybdis). Yield drops a tiny bit when lim's are reduced, effect of sec/rel unclear (there's a fastest choice for lim, we don't know what it is).
Increased both lambdas by 0.015. This will improve yield quite a bit, but will increase the number of relations needed because the added yield comes from splitting larger cofactors. It's unclear whether that tradeoff improves or hurts sieve time- that's why we test!
Set rels_wanted to 265M. Just a few posts ago I said 260 would be enough, but then I increased lambdas.
Attached Files
File Type: txt Edparams.c175.txt (2.0 KB, 45 views)
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-18, 21:12   #46
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2·3·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
Thanks. I've reserved 5+2,415 (12586...71 <177 dd>) for this next run.
Might want to check you've got the right number, those digits don't match what I'm seeing?

Currently at 287M relations on my 32/32LP run, should reach the initial target of 325M tomorrow. If 325M at 32/32 is indeed comparable with 250M at 31/32, then it looks like 32/32 may be very slightly better, but I'll hold off on giving a full opinion on that until I've got a matrix.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2020-04-18 at 21:13
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-18, 21:25   #47
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32·383 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
Might want to check you've got the right number, those digits don't match what I'm seeing?

Currently at 287M relations on my 32/32LP run, should reach the initial target of 325M tomorrow. If 325M at 32/32 is indeed comparable with 250M at 31/32, then it looks like 32/32 may be very slightly better, but I'll hold off on giving a full opinion on that until I've got a matrix.
Quite right! Thanks! I've reserved 5+2,415, but the composite is:
Code:
572104397924416007907491497280028964417584573249344846496494935688320410664593694835173261723655611747846299032109095649324060656666752385406703309173809568221352517003465647761
I don't think I'll bother trying to cover the mistake with edits.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-18, 21:28   #48
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32×383 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Changes to this file versus the last file of the same name:
Added 25% to poly select range (because c177, same range I used for Charybdis' C177).
Reduced both lim's by 10M. You had Q-final of 93M while using I=15, and smaller lim's often yield a smaller matrix. If someone uses A=28 instead, they would choose bigger lim's (as we did for Charybdis). Yield drops a tiny bit when lim's are reduced, effect of sec/rel unclear (there's a fastest choice for lim, we don't know what it is).
Increased both lambdas by 0.015. This will improve yield quite a bit, but will increase the number of relations needed because the added yield comes from splitting larger cofactors. It's unclear whether that tradeoff improves or hurts sieve time- that's why we test!
Set rels_wanted to 265M. Just a few posts ago I said 260 would be enough, but then I increased lambdas.
Thanks! I will keep you posted. What density should I initially try? Or, should I just let msieve choose its default?
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-19, 01:28   #49
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

2×2,239 Posts
Default

I'd try msieve density 100, failing that 90. I would sieve more on a job this size before I'd run a matrix that didn't build at 90. My personal standard is density 84 above GNFS140, 90 above GNFS150, 100 above 160, .... up to density 120 for big jobs.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-19, 02:52   #50
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

32·383 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
I'd try msieve density 100, failing that 90. I would sieve more on a job this size before I'd run a matrix that didn't build at 90. My personal standard is density 84 above GNFS140, 90 above GNFS150, 100 above 160, .... up to density 120 for big jobs.
Thanks!

I've forgotten (again) what to do about this. I could go find my notes on it, but for now I'm going to leave it to see what it looks like in the morning.

Server:
Code:
PID7663 2020-04-18 21:55:22,267 Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Marking workunit c175_polyselect1_1406160-1407840 as ok (99.8% => ETA Sat Apr 18 21:55:53 2020)
PID7663 2020-04-18 21:55:58,329 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000260 s, found 0 WUs
. . .
PID7663 2020-04-18 22:43:02,590 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000260 s, found 0 WUs
PID7663 2020-04-18 22:44:02,680 Debug:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Timeout check took 0.000253 s, found 0 WUs
Clients:
Code:
2020-04-18 22:51:29,661 - ERROR:root:Download failed, URL error: HTTP Error 404: No work available
2020-04-18 22:51:29,661 - ERROR:root:Waiting 10.0 seconds before retrying (I have been waiting since 3400.0 seconds)
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-19, 13:42   #51
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

D7716 Posts
Default

I guess after a couple hours it figured it out:
Code:
2020-04-19 00:22:06,693 - ERROR:root:Download failed, URL error: HTTP Error 404: No work available
2020-04-19 00:22:06,693 - ERROR:root:Waiting 10.0 seconds before retrying (I have been waiting since 8830.0 seconds)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,726 - INFO:root:Opened URL http://math79.local:13531/cgi-bin/getwu?clientid=math97.math97 after 8840.0 seconds wait
2020-04-19 00:22:16,726 - INFO:root:Downloading http://math79.local:13531/c175.polyselect2.raw_60 to download/c175.polyselect2.raw_60 (cafile = None)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,735 - INFO:root:Result file math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60 does not exist
2020-04-19 00:22:16,736 - INFO:root:Overriding argument -t 2 by -t 8 in command line (substitution t 8)
2020-04-19 00:22:16,736 - INFO:root:Running 'build/math97/polyselect/polyselect_ropt' -t 8 -inputpolys 'download/c175.polyselect2.raw_60' -ropteffort 35.0 -area 268435456000000.0 -Bf 4294967296.0 -Bg 2147483648.0 > 'math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60'
2020-04-19 00:22:16,737 - INFO:root:[Sun Apr 19 00:22:16 2020] Subprocess has PID 5693
2020-04-19 00:31:33,484 - INFO:root:Attaching file math97.math97.work/c175.polyselect2.opt_60 to upload
2020-04-19 00:31:33,484 - INFO:root:Attaching stderr for command 0 to upload
2020-04-19 00:31:33,485 - INFO:root:Sending result for workunit c175_polyselect2_60 to http://math79.local:13531/cgi-bin/upload.py
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-19, 17:47   #52
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2×3×19 Posts
Default

325M relations weren't quite enough to get a matrix even at TD 90, but a few million more did it:

Code:
Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020  commencing relation filtering
Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020  estimated available RAM is 15845.4 MB
Sun Apr 19 16:45:41 2020  commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
(errors)
Sun Apr 19 17:19:51 2020  found 102448637 hash collisions in 330667512 relations
Sun Apr 19 17:20:12 2020  commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Sun Apr 19 17:26:36 2020  found 139709136 duplicates and 190958376 unique relations
Sun Apr 19 17:26:36 2020  memory use: 2387.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:26:37 2020  reading ideals above 179765248
Sun Apr 19 17:26:37 2020  commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Sun Apr 19 17:41:48 2020  memory use: 5512.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:41:48 2020  reading all ideals from disk
Sun Apr 19 17:42:05 2020  memory use: 3105.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:42:10 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:42:14 2020  begin with 190958376 relations and 190440858 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:42:49 2020  reduce to 67714925 relations and 46908602 ideals in 18 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:42:49 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 18
Sun Apr 19 17:42:54 2020  reading ideals above 720000
Sun Apr 19 17:42:54 2020  commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Sun Apr 19 17:52:48 2020  memory use: 1506.0 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:52:48 2020  reading all ideals from disk
Sun Apr 19 17:53:02 2020  memory use: 2712.7 MB
Sun Apr 19 17:53:08 2020  keeping 66505989 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 362159
Sun Apr 19 17:53:13 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:53:17 2020  begin with 67714927 relations and 66505989 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:54:20 2020  reduce to 66898598 relations and 65688193 ideals in 15 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:54:20 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 200
Sun Apr 19 17:54:45 2020  removing 4307227 relations and 3912077 ideals in 395150 cliques
Sun Apr 19 17:54:46 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:54:50 2020  begin with 62591371 relations and 65688193 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:55:33 2020  reduce to 62380577 relations and 61563592 ideals in 11 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:55:33 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 196
Sun Apr 19 17:55:57 2020  removing 3199408 relations and 2804258 ideals in 395150 cliques
Sun Apr 19 17:55:58 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Sun Apr 19 17:56:02 2020  begin with 59181169 relations and 61563592 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:56:35 2020  reduce to 59051063 relations and 58628363 ideals in 9 passes
Sun Apr 19 17:56:35 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 191
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 0 large ideals: 1246
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 1 large ideals: 1656
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 2 large ideals: 24589
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 3 large ideals: 240980
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 4 large ideals: 1367864
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 5 large ideals: 4791557
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 6 large ideals: 10864030
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  relations with 7+ large ideals: 41759141
Sun Apr 19 17:57:05 2020  commencing 2-way merge
Sun Apr 19 17:57:36 2020  reduce to 34679367 relation sets and 34256667 unique ideals
Sun Apr 19 17:57:36 2020  commencing full merge
Sun Apr 19 18:05:41 2020  memory use: 4120.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:05:43 2020  found 17244214 cycles, need 17220867
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  weight of 17220867 cycles is about 1550339153 (90.03/cycle)
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  distribution of cycle lengths:
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  1 relations: 2022334
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  2 relations: 1926744
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  3 relations: 1913590
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  4 relations: 1730002
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  5 relations: 1548025
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  6 relations: 1328489
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  7 relations: 1121823
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  8 relations: 968705
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  9 relations: 819466
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  10+ relations: 3841689
Sun Apr 19 18:05:47 2020  heaviest cycle: 28 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:05:50 2020  commencing cycle optimization
Sun Apr 19 18:06:11 2020  start with 110652123 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:19 2020  pruned 2790485 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  memory use: 3551.9 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  distribution of cycle lengths:
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  1 relations: 2022334
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  2 relations: 1972975
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  3 relations: 1982743
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  4 relations: 1771497
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  5 relations: 1583946
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  6 relations: 1341882
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  7 relations: 1131207
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  8 relations: 965861
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  9 relations: 810926
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  10+ relations: 3637496
Sun Apr 19 18:08:20 2020  heaviest cycle: 28 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:08:46 2020  RelProcTime: 4985
Sun Apr 19 18:08:51 2020  
Sun Apr 19 18:08:51 2020  commencing linear algebra
Sun Apr 19 18:08:52 2020  read 17220867 cycles
Sun Apr 19 18:09:17 2020  cycles contain 58542363 unique relations
Sun Apr 19 18:16:26 2020  read 58542363 relations
Sun Apr 19 18:17:36 2020  using 20 quadratic characters above 4294917295
Sun Apr 19 18:21:21 2020  building initial matrix
Sun Apr 19 18:29:34 2020  memory use: 8134.6 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:29:47 2020  read 17220867 cycles
Sun Apr 19 18:29:49 2020  matrix is 17220690 x 17220867 (6464.0 MB) with weight 2013780097 (116.94/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:29:49 2020  sparse part has weight 1487861006 (86.40/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:32:21 2020  filtering completed in 2 passes
Sun Apr 19 18:32:24 2020  matrix is 17217913 x 17218089 (6463.8 MB) with weight 2013661326 (116.95/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:32:24 2020  sparse part has weight 1487837862 (86.41/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:43 2020  matrix starts at (0, 0)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020  matrix is 17217913 x 17218089 (6463.8 MB) with weight 2013661326 (116.95/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020  sparse part has weight 1487837862 (86.41/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:46 2020  saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Sun Apr 19 18:33:48 2020  matrix includes 64 packed rows
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020  matrix is 17217865 x 17218089 (6281.6 MB) with weight 1663992024 (96.64/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020  sparse part has weight 1474515316 (85.64/col)
Sun Apr 19 18:33:49 2020  using block size 8192 and superblock size 884736 for processor cache size 9216 kB
Sun Apr 19 18:34:30 2020  commencing Lanczos iteration (6 threads)
Sun Apr 19 18:34:30 2020  memory use: 6059.7 MB
Sun Apr 19 18:35:10 2020  linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 123h21m
This will need a fair amount more sieving to get a good matrix I imagine; 17M is a fair bit larger than any of the matrices I got on my 31/32LP job.
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-20, 01:30   #53
charybdis
 
Apr 2020

2×3×19 Posts
Default

Better, but still not ideal:

Code:
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020  commencing relation filtering
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020  setting target matrix density to 100.0
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020  estimated available RAM is 15845.4 MB
Mon Apr 20 00:18:31 2020  commencing duplicate removal, pass 1
(errors)
Mon Apr 20 00:54:28 2020  found 108030440 hash collisions in 347132929 relations
Mon Apr 20 00:54:50 2020  commencing duplicate removal, pass 2
Mon Apr 20 01:01:34 2020  found 147518191 duplicates and 199614738 unique relations
Mon Apr 20 01:01:34 2020  memory use: 2387.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:01:35 2020  reading ideals above 179896320
Mon Apr 20 01:01:35 2020  commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Apr 20 01:17:30 2020  memory use: 5512.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:17:31 2020  reading all ideals from disk
Mon Apr 20 01:17:50 2020  memory use: 3246.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:17:54 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:17:58 2020  begin with 199614738 relations and 194861693 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:18:37 2020  reduce to 76740221 relations and 52750298 ideals in 17 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:18:37 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 18
Mon Apr 20 01:18:42 2020  reading ideals above 720000
Mon Apr 20 01:18:42 2020  commencing singleton removal, initial pass
Mon Apr 20 01:29:35 2020  memory use: 1506.0 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:29:36 2020  reading all ideals from disk
Mon Apr 20 01:29:54 2020  memory use: 3078.2 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:30:00 2020  keeping 72339295 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 412697
Mon Apr 20 01:30:06 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:30:11 2020  begin with 76740226 relations and 72339295 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:31:17 2020  reduce to 76235207 relations and 71833769 ideals in 14 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:31:17 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 200
Mon Apr 20 01:31:45 2020  removing 3982395 relations and 3582395 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:31:46 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:31:51 2020  begin with 72252812 relations and 71833769 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:32:27 2020  reduce to 72108808 relations and 68106326 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:32:27 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 198
Mon Apr 20 01:32:53 2020  removing 2968133 relations and 2568133 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:32:54 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:32:59 2020  begin with 69140675 relations and 68106326 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:33:33 2020  reduce to 69052705 relations and 65449713 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:33:33 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 196
Mon Apr 20 01:33:58 2020  removing 2645270 relations and 2245270 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:33:59 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:34:03 2020  begin with 66407435 relations and 65449713 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:34:36 2020  reduce to 66332671 relations and 63129258 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:34:36 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 190
Mon Apr 20 01:35:00 2020  removing 2465553 relations and 2065553 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:35:01 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:35:05 2020  begin with 63867118 relations and 63129258 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:35:36 2020  reduce to 63798876 relations and 60995098 ideals in 8 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:35:36 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 187
Mon Apr 20 01:36:00 2020  removing 2343003 relations and 1943003 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:36:01 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:36:05 2020  begin with 61455873 relations and 60995098 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:36:31 2020  reduce to 61391450 relations and 58987295 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:36:31 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 182
Mon Apr 20 01:36:54 2020  removing 2255365 relations and 1855365 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:36:54 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:36:58 2020  begin with 59136085 relations and 58987295 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:37:24 2020  reduce to 59074085 relations and 57069592 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:37:24 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 178
Mon Apr 20 01:37:45 2020  removing 2189740 relations and 1789740 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:37:46 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:37:50 2020  begin with 56884345 relations and 57069592 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:38:14 2020  reduce to 56823284 relations and 55218433 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:38:14 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 172
Mon Apr 20 01:38:35 2020  removing 2141324 relations and 1741324 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:38:36 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:38:39 2020  begin with 54681960 relations and 55218433 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:39:09 2020  reduce to 54621273 relations and 53416061 ideals in 9 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:39:09 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 168
Mon Apr 20 01:39:29 2020  removing 2101359 relations and 1701359 ideals in 400000 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:39:30 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:39:33 2020  begin with 52519914 relations and 53416061 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:39:56 2020  reduce to 52458873 relations and 51653274 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:39:56 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 166
Mon Apr 20 01:40:15 2020  removing 1744320 relations and 1417450 ideals in 326870 cliques
Mon Apr 20 01:40:16 2020  commencing in-memory singleton removal
Mon Apr 20 01:40:19 2020  begin with 50714553 relations and 51653274 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:40:40 2020  reduce to 50670954 relations and 50191970 ideals in 7 passes
Mon Apr 20 01:40:40 2020  max relations containing the same ideal: 164
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 0 large ideals: 1404
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 1 large ideals: 2464
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 2 large ideals: 35035
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 3 large ideals: 313598
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 4 large ideals: 1606387
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 5 large ideals: 5084360
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 6 large ideals: 10406242
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  relations with 7+ large ideals: 33221464
Mon Apr 20 01:41:06 2020  commencing 2-way merge
Mon Apr 20 01:41:32 2020  reduce to 30988355 relation sets and 30509371 unique ideals
Mon Apr 20 01:41:32 2020  commencing full merge
Mon Apr 20 01:48:59 2020  memory use: 3777.1 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:49:02 2020  found 14975257 cycles, need 14925571
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  weight of 14925571 cycles is about 1492665462 (100.01/cycle)
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  distribution of cycle lengths:
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  1 relations: 1267534
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  2 relations: 1375762
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  3 relations: 1443044
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  4 relations: 1366428
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  5 relations: 1300232
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  6 relations: 1181723
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  7 relations: 1079223
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  8 relations: 957610
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  9 relations: 853021
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  10+ relations: 4100994
Mon Apr 20 01:49:05 2020  heaviest cycle: 27 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:49:08 2020  commencing cycle optimization
Mon Apr 20 01:49:26 2020  start with 105680214 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:51:40 2020  pruned 3293755 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  memory use: 3182.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  distribution of cycle lengths:
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  1 relations: 1267534
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  2 relations: 1409368
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  3 relations: 1498136
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  4 relations: 1408492
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  5 relations: 1342845
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  6 relations: 1211287
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  7 relations: 1104355
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  8 relations: 973387
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  9 relations: 861883
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  10+ relations: 3848284
Mon Apr 20 01:51:41 2020  heaviest cycle: 27 relations
Mon Apr 20 01:52:04 2020  RelProcTime: 5613
Mon Apr 20 01:52:09 2020  
Mon Apr 20 01:52:09 2020  commencing linear algebra
Mon Apr 20 01:52:10 2020  read 14925571 cycles
Mon Apr 20 01:52:34 2020  cycles contain 50343966 unique relations
Mon Apr 20 01:59:36 2020  read 50343966 relations
Mon Apr 20 02:00:40 2020  using 20 quadratic characters above 4294917295
Mon Apr 20 02:03:53 2020  building initial matrix
Mon Apr 20 02:11:39 2020  memory use: 7107.1 MB
Mon Apr 20 02:11:48 2020  read 14925571 cycles
Mon Apr 20 02:11:50 2020  matrix is 14925394 x 14925571 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895598568 (127.00/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:11:50 2020  sparse part has weight 1419511207 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:14:13 2020  filtering completed in 2 passes
Mon Apr 20 02:14:15 2020  matrix is 14924343 x 14924519 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895554864 (127.01/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:14:15 2020  sparse part has weight 1419502766 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:30 2020  matrix starts at (0, 0)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020  matrix is 14924343 x 14924519 (6098.2 MB) with weight 1895554864 (127.01/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020  sparse part has weight 1419502766 (95.11/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:32 2020  saving the first 48 matrix rows for later
Mon Apr 20 02:15:33 2020  matrix includes 64 packed rows
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020  matrix is 14924295 x 14924519 (5935.9 MB) with weight 1585538856 (106.24/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020  sparse part has weight 1406827930 (94.26/col)
Mon Apr 20 02:15:35 2020  using block size 8192 and superblock size 884736 for processor cache size 9216 kB
Mon Apr 20 02:16:13 2020  commencing Lanczos iteration (6 threads)
Mon Apr 20 02:16:13 2020  memory use: 5668.7 MB
Mon Apr 20 02:16:47 2020  linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 89h59m
My impression is that 31/32 and 32/32 are pretty similar in terms of the sieving time needed to build a matrix, but 32/32 results in larger matrices and so 31/32 should be preferred.

Edit: Curtis - I'll start my next job after I've sieved the current c177 a bit more overnight. The natural target would be one of the Homogeneous Cunningham c178s (Ed took the last c177), which I'd like to do with I=15 so that we can get some sort of comparison between A=28 and I=15 on the same hardware. Are there any changes I should make to the parameter file you just gave Ed - maybe slightly higher lims?

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2020-04-20 at 01:46
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-20, 02:25   #54
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

105768 Posts
Default

If we're trying to build new params file for c175 and c180 to send to the CADO group, we would set poly select params optimal for c175-6 on the .c175 file, and optimal for c180-181 for the .c180 file.

So, let's do a bit of that- change admax from 15e5 to 17e5, and add 20% to P (2400000 rather than 2000000). I think for a c180 file I'd go with admax 2e6 and P=2.5M, but you're not going to run a full c180.

Similarly, to go from c175 to c180 I'd usually add 40% to both lim's; but to go up one digit that's not called for. Let's use 100M and 140M.

For I=15, 31/32 is still the right LP size; 32/32 was possibly faster for A=28, but not for I=15. We simply don't need the boost in yield, and you saw the matrices are bigger without a big advantage in sieve time. Let's loosen lambda0 a bit more, 1.88.
Bigger numbers need more relations, but we're seeing the number of unique relations jump all over the place- it's the number of uniques that matter, not the raw-relations count. So, I'd say 270M is enough, but I think we're really targeting some number of unique rels just a bit higher than you had on your first job.

Note that your 32/32 job also had a lot of duplicate relations. That duplicate ratio is hard to predict; really we'd like to set a rels_wanted_unique, and let duplicate removal run in parallel with sieving. Sigh, maybe in CADO 4.0. If you had sieved your 32/32 job until you had 30% more unique rels than you had on the 31/32 job, I suspect the matrix would come out only barely bigger.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-04-20, 02:56   #55
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

344710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by charybdis View Post
. . .
Edit: Curtis - I'll start my next job after I've sieved the current c177 a bit more overnight. The natural target would be one of the Homogeneous Cunningham c178s (Ed took the last c177), which I'd like to do with I=15 so that we can get some sort of comparison between A=28 and I=15 on the same hardware. Are there any changes I should make to the parameter file you just gave Ed - maybe slightly higher lims?
If you would like the 177 for experimentation and better comparison, it would be OK with me to let you have it. I can grab a 178 next. I can easily unreserve it on the HCN page. You can go ahead and start it and let me know later so I can stop my farming and unreserve it.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Integers congruent to last two decimal digits mod 23 enzocreti enzocreti 1 2020-03-03 18:38
Twin Primes with 128 Decimal Digits tuckerkao Miscellaneous Math 2 2020-02-16 06:23
Playing with decimal representation Nick Puzzles 9 2013-02-13 17:17
Decimal Value of Mersenne Prime vsuite GPU Computing 11 2011-02-02 04:47
Decimal Places Corbyguy Software 3 2008-06-09 18:09

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:54.

Fri Nov 27 02:54:00 UTC 2020 up 78 days, 4 mins, 4 users, load averages: 1.66, 1.48, 1.45

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.