mersenneforum.org Reserved for MF - Sequence 4788
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2009-03-24, 13:25 #34 smh     "Sander" Oct 2002 52.345322,5.52471 118910 Posts The next few lines are Code: 2358. 1057740653513528086801031524122505337042976655048785727171419977827018427090800637622080490462747635590675389330380734966563569049887673822886448 = 2^4 * 37^2 * 61 * 139 * 811 * 3297913 * 89410075670231178255617408564064869 * 35002919043440598709446585389332582891704139 * 680393812683245718764884523503733114306839326481 2359. 1101106789466867190158699344258853149007026059881050048976079670039948004072162440268787484377092542354688034551613035367120271627951318370521552 = 2^4 * 59 * 89 * 139 * 809 * 8676141475920391931 * 5242696007384015650021 * 2562257755084747092444106045661085679031576535348519685064809828214204315874454304278737557347 2360. 1111338937559280653105967704696475530852725166022881880277270464264691375579242248013146222561793654859704139868691964652947247957345101468198448 = 2^4 * 47 * 181 * 211219840628893703 * 6752370963621275689 * 320157034060976985774276364002263071 * 17881175392493028213881459983631827728605211737115392212082434979897 2361. 1099842778336850112888388054783870080440778137370608244403348556935983252469359193252640108450630518144766769986533571350697202804014917630466512 = 2^4 * 3713807 * 95536018143098333729 * 12677902689255386517271648618421078537327 * 15281878558600307159671331751066153273008886018100828613108896319230955638397 2362. 1031103178480814347844647335693130540009680919276879210321284738494273557544345821526867225678615495548751496685206097793886598655487523752051248 = 2^4 * 163 * 4285339 * 21066232726885097
2009-03-24, 17:30   #35
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2×2,861 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Okay, I've tried that, with no other applications running, and got the exact same thing: total yield: 2149, q=1900511 (0.00638 sec/rel) BTW--I've got a taskbar gadget that reads out my CPU temperatures continuously and they're well below the throttle limit, so thermal throttling can be ruled out as the cause of any problems. Edit: Oh, wait! I just realized what's going on. henryzz, are you by chance using the 64-bit version of gnfs-lasieve4I12e? I'm using the 32-bit version, which of course is about half as fast--so that would explain the discrepancy perfectly.
no i was using 32-bit

2009-03-24, 17:47   #36
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz no i was using 32-bit
Hmm...that's very strange then. Maybe somehow I'm not using a GGNFS binary that has the assembly code enabled? I built my GGNFS binaries myself, with just a plain old "make" command, no special stuff enabled. Is that the problem?

If so, how would I go about compiling/obtaining GGNFS binaries for 32-bit Linux that have the assembly code enabled?

2009-03-24, 17:48   #37
10metreh

Nov 2008

2×33×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by smh The next few lines are Code: 2358. 1057740653513528086801031524122505337042976655048785727171419977827018427090800637622080490462747635590675389330380734966563569049887673822886448 = 2^4 * 37^2 * 61 * 139 * 811 * 3297913 * 89410075670231178255617408564064869 * 35002919043440598709446585389332582891704139 * 680393812683245718764884523503733114306839326481 2359. 1101106789466867190158699344258853149007026059881050048976079670039948004072162440268787484377092542354688034551613035367120271627951318370521552 = 2^4 * 59 * 89 * 139 * 809 * 8676141475920391931 * 5242696007384015650021 * 2562257755084747092444106045661085679031576535348519685064809828214204315874454304278737557347 2360. 1111338937559280653105967704696475530852725166022881880277270464264691375579242248013146222561793654859704139868691964652947247957345101468198448 = 2^4 * 47 * 181 * 211219840628893703 * 6752370963621275689 * 320157034060976985774276364002263071 * 17881175392493028213881459983631827728605211737115392212082434979897 2361. 1099842778336850112888388054783870080440778137370608244403348556935983252469359193252640108450630518144766769986533571350697202804014917630466512 = 2^4 * 3713807 * 95536018143098333729 * 12677902689255386517271648618421078537327 * 15281878558600307159671331751066153273008886018100828613108896319230955638397 2362. 1031103178480814347844647335693130540009680919276879210321284738494273557544345821526867225678615495548751496685206097793886598655487523752051248 = 2^4 * 163 * 4285339 * 21066232726885097
..leaving a t35-ed C118. I reckon we should do about 1/4 of the 40-digit level, i.e. roughly 600 curves, then give it a GNFS. Any opinions?

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-24 at 17:49

2009-03-24, 18:42   #38
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

141518 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh ..leaving a t35-ed C118. I reckon we should do about 1/4 of the 40-digit level, i.e. roughly 600 curves, then give it a GNFS. Any opinions?
Sounds good to me. Would anyone here be interested in pre-reserving the C118 GNFS (assuming that we don't find a factor in the remaining ECM work left to be done)? It would probably be a bit too small to make a group GNFS effort worthwhile.

I'll be glad to do the poly selection (with msieve v1.40) portion of the job, though probably not the whole thing (which would tie up my resources for a solid couple of days).

 2009-03-24, 19:05 #39 10metreh     Nov 2008 2·33·43 Posts We have about 230 curves left on the C118 thanks to someone (Max?) giving it a good go on Syd's workers. Much easier! I'm going to donate some curves myself, but even at normal priority, one curve takes about 1 minute 45 seconds.
2009-03-24, 19:13   #40
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh We have about 230 curves left on the C118 thanks to someone (Max?) giving it a good go on Syd's workers. Much easier! I'm going to donate some curves myself, but even at normal priority, one curve takes about 1 minute 45 seconds.
Yes, that was me running the C118 on the workers. In fact, they just popped out a nice P37:
Code:
 2^4  · 163  · 4285339  · 21066232726885097<17>  · 2864669672966317508498722163333620943<37>  · 1528790330...<82>
I'll continue to run this sequence on the workers until a number survives full ECM. If anyone wants to donate a few curves along the way, be sure to submit them to Syd's database so we can keep track of them easily.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2009-03-24 at 19:13 Reason: typo

2009-03-24, 19:18   #41
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler Yes, that was me running the C118 on the workers. In fact, they just popped out a nice P37: Code:  2^4 · 163 · 4285339 · 21066232726885097<17> · 2864669672966317508498722163333620943<37> · 1528790330...<82> I'll continue to run this sequence on the workers until a number survives full ECM. If anyone wants to donate a few curves along the way, be sure to submit them to Syd's database so we can keep track of them easily.
10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits.

2009-03-24, 19:35   #42
mklasson

Feb 2004

2·3·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler 10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits.
Looking at http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27203989 P-1 has been run 5 times at B1=3e7 now. Is someone pushing too many buttons? Or are the workers doing it automatically?

2009-03-24, 19:36   #43
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo

Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mklasson Looking at http://factorization.ath.cx/search.php?id=27203989 P-1 has been run 5 times at B1=3e7 now. Is someone pushing too many buttons? Or are the workers doing it automatically?
The workers automatically run P-1 once every time ECM very high limits is started. Thus, if a very high limits run is interrupted and has to be restarted a couple of times, then the P-1 and P+1 will start to pile up.

2009-03-24, 19:37   #44
10metreh

Nov 2008

2×33×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mdettweiler 10metreh, is that you who seems to be colliding with me a bit as far as who's pushing the buttons for the workers right now? FYI, I usually like to run TF to 1e7 and then a few ECM low limits runs *before* going to ECM very high limits.
Not me anymore really - someone is clearly using them for most of their aliquot sequence work.

I reckon t35 (or maybe slightly less) for the current C112.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post RichD Aliquot Sequences 406 2020-06-10 03:10 sweety439 And now for something completely different 17 2017-06-13 03:49 frmky Aliquot Sequences 36 2011-04-28 06:27 schickel Aliquot Sequences 51 2011-01-05 02:32 petrw1 Lone Mersenne Hunters 82 2010-01-11 01:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:24.

Sun Sep 20 21:24:33 UTC 2020 up 10 days, 18:35, 0 users, load averages: 1.29, 1.27, 1.32