Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-04-25, 19:40 #45 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 10100111101112 Posts Excellent point- we want the ratio of qmin to qmax to be something between 6 and 8. I suspect your C164 with I=14 ran Q roughly 10-60M; since A=28 should yield 40% better, a Q-range of 7-43M might be expected. So, I agree with Charybdis' suggestion to change qmin to 7M. Good idea!
2022-04-25, 21:37   #46
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

13×192 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Excellent point- we want the ratio of qmin to qmax to be something between 6 and 8. I suspect your C164 with I=14 ran Q roughly 10-60M; since A=28 should yield 40% better, a Q-range of 7-43M might be expected. So, I agree with Charybdis' suggestion to change qmin to 7M. Good idea!
It has been written - it will be done.

One more c164 (231...) has shown up in my work listings and I should be able to start it tomorrow afternoon.

 2022-04-26, 13:39 #47 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 13×192 Posts The latest is underway: Code: N = 231...<164 digits> tasks.A = 28 tasks.lim0 = 60000000 tasks.lim1 = 40000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.qmin = 7000000 tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10 tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000 tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 175000000 In my reports, is there any interest in the two "filter" lines? I'm thinking of removing them.
 2022-04-26, 15:14 #48 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 123678 Posts The filter lines have no effect, since you're using msieve for postprocessing.
2022-04-26, 16:45   #49
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

13×192 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis The filter lines have no effect, since you're using msieve for postprocessing.
Those were my thoughts, but wondered if they may have any use, anyway. Thanks!

 2022-04-27, 14:29 #50 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 13×192 Posts The latest c164: Code: N = 231... <164 digits> tasks.A = 28 tasks.lim0 = 60000000 tasks.lim1 = 40000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.qmin = 7000000 tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 88 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10 tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000 Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 496571 Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 31172.8 Lattice Sieving: Total time: 4.28663e+06s (all clients used 4 threads) Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 169728713 Found 119819021 unique, 42731179 duplicate, and 0 bad relations. cownoise Best MurphyE for polynomial is 8.60775398e-13
 2022-04-27, 18:33 #51 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 3×1,789 Posts Looks like a 6% better scoring poly than the last test, but only 4% lower sieve time. Nearly a wash, but I=14 is also lower memory while being not-slower.
2022-04-27, 19:30   #52
EdH

"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009

469310 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis Looks like a 6% better scoring poly than the last test, but only 4% lower sieve time. Nearly a wash, but I=14 is also lower memory while being not-slower.
Sounds like a suggestion to move back to I=14. I'm thinking I'm going to have to move up or down a digit for my next few tests. Is there a preference if I move to mfb1=89?

 2022-04-28, 01:54 #53 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 3·1,789 Posts As long as the input number is close, comparing E-score is pretty accurate (as I did in my previous post). It shouldn't matter whether you go with 163 or 165 or 166 next time for the mfb 89 trial. Note that a larger mfb "should" improve yield, but more raw relations are likely necessary. The tradeoff is murky- if sec/rel is not better when test-sieving, I go with the smaller mfb. When sec/rel is better, a full factorization is likely to educate us. So, please try a full factorization as you planned.
 2022-04-28, 12:25 #54 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 13·192 Posts All my runs are full runs, unless they break. At these sizes, full runs are less than 48 hours, so my patience is still holding.
 2022-04-28, 18:05 #55 EdH     "Ed Hall" Dec 2009 Adirondack Mtns 469310 Posts I've started a c165. I went back to I=14, but forgot to take qmin back up to 10M. Will that throw things off?: Code: N = 309...<165> tasks.I = 14 tasks.lim0 = 60000000 tasks.lim1 = 40000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.qmin = 7000000 tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.83 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 89 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 18 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 10 tasks.sieve.qrange = 5000 tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 175000000

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Shaopu Lin CADO-NFS 522 2021-05-04 18:28 EdH EdH 8 2019-05-20 15:07 henryzz CADO-NFS 4 2017-11-20 15:14 skan Information & Answers 1 2013-10-22 07:00 R.D. Silverman Factoring 4 2008-11-06 12:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:53.

Wed Aug 10 07:53:11 UTC 2022 up 34 days, 2:40, 1 user, load averages: 1.07, 1.00, 1.00