20130130, 20:30  #34 
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 89<O<88
3×29×83 Posts 
yoyo, you can look here for a "real" post processing log, for a job that's the equivalent of a GNFS 153 (so a bit easier than this team sieve). Again though, reading the guide above is a great way to get started.
I'll also take 5058M. Edit: Only 12M left Edit2: Question for the more experienced: if I accidentally sieved my previous reservations on the rational side, what effect would that have? Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 20130130 at 20:43 
20130130, 21:03  #35 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
100110100011_{2} Posts 
The relations you found are still useful relations. The only "problem" is that, usually, sieving sq on one side produces relations faster than on the other side, so people sieve the side where it is faster and sieving on the wrong side is a less efficient use of cpu time.
You should still sieve your assigned range of the algebraic side. The relations you got from sieving that range on the rational side are not duplicates (except maybe a few) of those you'll get on the algebraic side. 
20130130, 22:23  #36 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2^{2}·811 Posts 
Looks like I will have time for 2 more.
I'll take 4850M. 
20130131, 06:21  #37  
May 2008
3×5×73 Posts 
Quote:
FYI the relations from my ranges will be posted on Friday afternoon (CST). 

20130131, 06:51  #38  
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 89<O<88
3·29·83 Posts 
Quote:
Using Edh's 8090M data, I estimate that properly (read: algebraically) sieving the range you provided would get us around 110M rels (and that's the high end of the range, so yield might be better overall). YAFU's minrels estimate for a 30 bit job is 92M rels, and this is on the low end of the 30 bit range, so if we just sieve the remaining gap, that might be enough to get a half decent matrix. So I'll do just that, and when it's all done I'll attempt a filtering, and do any extra sieving that might be necessary in the ranges I screwed up. (I'd estimate it to be a 3 day matrix, maybe 4 tops.) So: I'll (properly) do 3844M. PS I said I'd move these back to the 4788 thread, but the tradition seems to be to leave these threads intact. Does anyone care either way? Edit: With 6090M and 3036M rels, or 36M out of the 65M range, there are 46,878,979 unique rels out of 50,087,399 raw (6.4% dup rate). That's with my screwed up rational side regions included. Maybe I really will have to resieve those. Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 20130131 at 07:26 

20130131, 13:54  #39 
Mar 2007
Germany
264_{10} Posts 
2930M ist uploadet.

20130131, 15:19  #40 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·3^{2}·197 Posts 
5860M are on their way  about 15 minutes left...
I've started 4648M... If there is something of significance to the main thread, within this Team section, merge it back. Otherwise, follow tradition... 
20130131, 15:52  #41 
Sep 2008
Kansas
2^{2}×811 Posts 

20130131, 20:22  #42  
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 89<O<88
3·29·83 Posts 
Quote:
Well, I don't think there's anything of great significance, so I guess I'll just leave it here. Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 20130131 at 20:23 

20130131, 22:11  #43 
May 2008
3·5·73 Posts 

20130131, 22:23  #44  
Sep 2008
Kansas
2^{2}·811 Posts 
Quote:
(Hmm, if so, for oversieving, would it be worthwhile to perform lowlevel sieving on the other side instead of highend sieving on the same side?) 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Team Sieve #28: c162 from 4788:2714  jrk  Aliquot Sequences  27  20111025 08:51 
Team sieve #23: c172 from 4788:i2617  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  64  20110219 02:28 
Team sieve #21: c162 from 4788:2602  jrk  Aliquot Sequences  31  20101230 21:33 
Team sieve #20: c170 from 4788:2549  schickel  Aliquot Sequences  153  20101109 07:39 
Team sieve #5: c140 from 4788:2407  10metreh  Aliquot Sequences  77  20090527 20:39 