mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2022-12-08, 22:41   #166
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

24×181 Posts
Default

QUEUED- see post 173 below

C173 from 785232:i11580 is ready for 15e_small queue:
Code:
n: 13412430154895484141862818606541773755250877526911498036451802532740000933585379389777742933827265930661389244830186926816851949173431811572533147379816321246734456628640519
# norm 9.395772e-17 alpha -6.459608 e 2.436e-13 rroots 5
skew: 11021533.76
c0: 29566114166770514028944559431151323845968
c1: 35325849076340889040277016898908978
c2: 8735032240722787163675795955
c3: -251146757830927681580
c4: -55178061598008
c5: 1876392
Y0: -1481961035514585249264277307725565
Y1: 2873252762515349443
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
type: gnfs
lss: 0
Suggesting sieving range is 40M-125M, I'll take the LA.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-12-12 at 12:56
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-09, 01:54   #167
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·11·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unconnected View Post
C173 from 785232:i11580 is ready for 15e_small queue:
...
Suggesting sieving range is 40M-125M, I'll take the LA.
Check out the params in post #162, where we sieved a C172 in 36MQ versus your params that take 85MQ.

Q-range isn't a precise measure of speed (3LP takes longer per Q than 2LP, for one thing), but please consider testing my params against yours on your next job around 170-174 digits.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-09, 03:04   #168
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1111000010102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Check out the params in post #162, where we sieved a C172 in 36MQ versus your params that take 85MQ.

Q-range isn't a precise measure of speed (3LP takes longer per Q than 2LP, for one thing), but please consider testing my params against yours on your next job around 170-174 digits.
I’ll add that I performed the LA and it took only 49 hours on 24 cores, say ~1 week on a quad core. Fairly quick for a 32-bit job.

Though it did take until the 7th dependency before a factor popped up. Just bad luck I suppose.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-09, 07:45   #169
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·11·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
I’ll add that I performed the LA and it took only 49 hours on 24 cores, say ~1 week on a quad core. Fairly quick for a 32-bit job.

Though it did take until the 7th dependency before a factor popped up. Just bad luck I suppose.
Adding 10-15M more relations would likely have reduced that matrix from 12.x million to 10-11M. I got a little too greedy trying to minimize Q-range, seems. If you filtered with a few million rels pending, that may have cost 0.5M dimensions on the matrix too; I wait till nearly all rels are in, I figure someone did the calcs I may as well use 'em.
I truly don't think the LP size of a job has much to do with matrix size- the difficulty of the job is what it is, whether we use 31 or 32 or 33 bit LPs, provided a small amount of "extra" sieving beyond the bare minimum that makes a matrix.

For instance, if you test-sieve a 31LP job, establish the Q-range, and then change only LP to 32 without changing any MFBs; then sieve the Q-range you planned to sieve at 31LP, I wager the resulting matrix would be *smaller* using 32LP. Try it some time! Submit an e-small job and just increase the LP by 1 and see what happens.

A 2LP job of the same size would likely make a matrix around 8-9M, so that's a fair argument for unconnected's params.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-10, 13:51   #170
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

1011010100002 Posts
Default

Thanks for your suggestions, guys. Unfortunately I've no time to test params till Monday.
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-10, 15:05   #171
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·52·7·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unconnected View Post
Thanks for your suggestions, guys. Unfortunately I've no time to test params till Monday.
If you have no objection, I’ll test the suggested parameters tonight and report results here.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-10, 15:49   #172
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

289610 Posts
Default

Of course, I've no objections. Thank you, Sean!
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-12, 03:41   #173
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2×52×7×11 Posts
Default

Second set of parameters below queued as C173_785232_11580

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
If you have no objection, I’ll test the suggested parameters tonight and report results here.
I test sieved C173_785232_11580 on the -a side with the original parameters just to get some timings, and then again with the suggested parameters from post 162 of this thread.

Using the orginal posted job file:

Code:
n: 13412430154895484141862818606541773755250877526911498036451802532740000933585379389777742933827265930661389244830186926816851949173431811572533147379816321246734456628640519
# norm 9.395772e-17 alpha -6.459608 e 2.436e-13 rroots 5
skew: 11021533.76
type: gnfs
lss: 0
c0: 29566114166770514028944559431151323845968
c1: 35325849076340889040277016898908978
c2: 8735032240722787163675795955
c3: -251146757830927681580
c4: -55178061598008
c5: 1876392
Y0: -1481961035514585249264277307725565
Y1: 2873252762515349443
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
I got these results:

Code:
MQ       Norm_yield      speed (sec/rel)
40          2745              0.267
60          2688              0.250
80          2692              0.260
100         2660              0.237
125         2826              0.253
Which should generate ~230M raw relations.

Then I ran it again with the following parameters:

Code:
n: 13412430154895484141862818606541773755250877526911498036451802532740000933585379389777742933827265930661389244830186926816851949173431811572533147379816321246734456628640519
# norm 9.395772e-17 alpha -6.459608 e 2.436e-13 rroots 5
skew: 11021533.76
type: gnfs
lss: 0
c0: 29566114166770514028944559431151323845968
c1: 35325849076340889040277016898908978
c2: 8735032240722787163675795955
c3: -251146757830927681580
c4: -55178061598008
c5: 1876392
Y0: -1481961035514585249264277307725565
Y1: 2873252762515349443
rlim: 67000000
alim: 33500000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 62
mfba: 91
rlambda: 2.45
alambda: 3.75
Which resulted in the following:

Code:
MQ        Norm_yield      speed (sec/rel)
10           8237              0.097
15           8853              0.098
20           8873              0.105
25           8460              0.116
30           8284              0.119
40           7655              0.129
45           7496              0.104
Which, if we follow a similar strategy listed in post 162 (i.e. aim for 325M relations) and add 10-15M more relations in order to improve the matrix, we should use a sieving range for Q of 8-48M.

I say we go with the new parameters - they appear to be faster and proven to work.

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2022-12-12 at 12:55
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-12, 12:47   #174
unconnected
 
unconnected's Avatar
 
May 2009
Moscow, Russia

24×181 Posts
Default

Seems good for me. It will be great if we can get a matrix smaller than 10M.
For the reference, last 3 C173 jobs resulting in 8.0M, 7.2M and 9.4M matrices.
unconnected is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-12, 17:11   #175
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·11·19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unconnected View Post
Seems good for me. It will be great if we can get a matrix smaller than 10M.
For the reference, last 3 C173 jobs resulting in 8.0M, 7.2M and 9.4M matrices.
On the C172 Sean just did with these params, 340M rels got a 12M matrix. So, let's aim for 355M to get the matrix in the 10.x range; say an extra 5MQ?
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2022-12-12, 18:14   #176
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·52·7·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
On the C172 Sean just did with these params, 340M rels got a 12M matrix. So, let's aim for 355M to get the matrix in the 10.x range; say an extra 5MQ?
Ok I’ll add 5MQ to the sieving range.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queue management for 14e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 170 2023-01-02 15:27
2022 Queue management of 15e swellman NFS@Home 186 2022-12-27 12:53
Queue management for 16e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 154 2022-12-23 21:35
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues VBCurtis NFS@Home 254 2022-01-02 01:59
Improving the queue management. debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05

All times are UTC. The time now is 18:32.


Tue Feb 7 18:32:33 UTC 2023 up 173 days, 16:01, 1 user, load averages: 0.77, 0.93, 0.93

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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