20221001, 21:06  #67 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
11790_{10} Posts 
In this thread, when I say something is fully ECM'd, it means I've done it to 31% of factor size. That's generally been my standard for anything <= 145 digits. I've only fully ECM'd C<=135 with the index 1 effort plus there are some that I had fully ECM'd prior to this effort that are in the low 140s that happened to show up here.
All that said, the above is likely too much for > ~145 digits from what I've read. Consideration: ECM using the default in the the aliqueit.ini file: factor size * .235 + 9.4. We definitely need to run a lot of these to t45. Based on the aliqueit.ini formula above, anything C>150 would need almost that full amount or more. C144150...somewhere between t40 and t45. In the long run, based on all past postings I've seen, you should get slightly more splits per hour or per day by running ECM to the optimal depth, whatever that depth happens to be. Of course in the short run you might have very good or bad luck. Even at only 1215% splits when running from t35 to t40, I was clearly getting more splits per day than had I tried to run NFS on some of those. Of course it will be more challenging for t40 to t45, timewise. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20221001 at 21:16 
20221001, 21:11  #68 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
2·3^{2}·5·131 Posts 
Ed, how about I finish up the ECM from t35 to t40 for the 90s? I'm averaging about 4 of these per hour on the Ryzen. I see that there are ~30 sequences remaining for bases 94 to 99. I could knock those out in 78 hours and we would be done with ECM to t40 on everything.
Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 20221001 at 21:12 
20221001, 21:15  #69  
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
2×3^{2}×5×131 Posts 
Quote:


20221001, 21:22  #70  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·5·521 Posts 
Quote:


20221001, 21:26  #71 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
2·3^{2}·5·131 Posts 

20221001, 22:27  #72 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
2×3^{2}×5×131 Posts 
Taking all of the C134s. Time to be done with this phase of index 1.

20221001, 22:35  #73 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·5·521 Posts 

20221002, 02:58  #74  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
5621_{10} Posts 
Quote:
1e6 for T35 is good. I'd use 8e6 for T40, or I'd stick with 6e6 but send "k 2" to GMPECM for stage 2 to run bigger and faster than it does with 6e6. k=6 on a smaller B2chunk (default) is slower than k=2 on a bigger B2chunk, even though the latter is 30% bigger B2. Alternately, you could manually set the larger B2 for your stage 2, and GMPECM will select k=2. For T45, I'd do 2 runs of B1=2e7. 34e6 is also pretty fast (in terms of expected time to find a 45digit factor in stage 2), if you prefer having different B1's for each step you could use 2e7 and 34e6. I think I like this better than two 2e7 runs, actually. T50 is fastest at 6e7, with 8e7 close to same speed. Since many composites are a size where you'd want a portion of a T50 anyway, I think I'd do a run at 6e7, one at 8e7, then one at 15e7. The 15e7 is the right size for T55, too.... If I want more of a T55, I'd do a second or even a third run at 15e7 before going bigger, and bigger would be 3e8 or 42e7 or 65e7, but those are sizes fast for finding a 60 digit factor rather than 55 digit. Advantage: Shorter GPU runs that have strong chances to find a factor, so less wasted GPU effort on stage1's that you never use stage2 on. Also, easier to have steps that are portions of a T45 or T50. Raising B1 too quickly leaves you doing curves rather inefficient for the Tlevel you're targeting; but if you're going to do a T60 or T65 anyway there's merit in skipping from e.g. T40 to T50 to T60 directly, or only doing enough curves for 2535% of a Tlevel before going up. So, if you wanted a T50, you might do a GPU run at 1e6, then 8e6, then 2e7, then 6e7 and 8e7, ending with 15e7. If you want less than a T50 you might omit 15e7 and end up with something like T48 = half a T50. Note that 6e7 + 8e7 + 15e7 will finish all 3 runs before the 4e8 finishes to get to T50. 

20221002, 12:01  #75 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×5×521 Posts 
Wow! Excellent! I'll work on my scripts today. And, last night I successfully got my larger GPU running GMPECM. I'll work with these values when I set it up with its scripts. Thank You for all that work figuring out the best use numbers.

20221002, 22:46  #76 
"Gary"
May 2007
Overland Park, KS
27016_{8} Posts 
All of the C134s are done.
All sequences with cofactor C<145 digits have been cleared. 
20221002, 22:49  #77 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×5×521 Posts 
Excellent! I'll try to update post #1 tonight. My c145 work will take slightly longer. . .

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A new idea for OEIS "triangle read by rows" sequence  sweety439  sweety439  4  20220528 06:20 
Aliquot Sequence 18528  Team Project?  EdH  Aliquot Sequences  45  20210627 12:30 
Is there a copy of "the" aliquot tree anywhere?  Dubslow  Aliquot Sequences  11  20161102 05:05 
Possible extention to the "GPU to 72 Tool" project?  chalsall  GPU to 72  332  20120104 01:45 
Collaborative mathematics: the "polymath" project  Dougy  Math  11  20091021 10:04 