20180421, 03:23  #166 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×3^{2}×7×43 Posts 
Preliminary results do not look very favorable. Using scripts to run msieve and ggnfs, it took my conglomeration of machines 14:43:33 to complete the factorization of the C150 described above, if my time math is correct. ( 10:53:46 to 01:45:00 )
I started the CADONFS run today at 08:39:34. Currently, the LA (krylov) stage is estimating 20:19:55 tomorrow and with each print line the ETA is drifting later, sometimes adding more than 10 minutes. I'm not sure how well the parameters can be tweaked, but it would need to be a pretty huge change to be anywhere toward the msieve/ggnfs package. The only machine running now is the server doing LA. A quick check shows it's only using 5 of the 16 available GB, so memory shouldn't be an issue ATM. But, I don't remember the time comparisons for the rest of the steps after krylov, or how the memory use may change. If the time holds, it's going to be way more than double that of the other setup. 
20180421, 05:39  #167 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
5^{2}×229 Posts 
My C130 test with improved parameters lists 62k threadseconds for LA, while C140 lists 126K threadseconds (2.3ghz dualquadxeon, core2 era). If C150 with good parameters doubles time again, 260K threadseconds rounded generously for newer hardware would be 12ish hours on a quadcore for just the LA. That definitely does not compare favorably with msieve/ggnfs!
I was really hoping overall package performance would converge in the 150s or 160s... 
20180421, 06:28  #168 
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 89<O<88
1110000110101_{2} Posts 
But isn't CADO's polyselect+siever better though? Why can't we combine the best of each?

20180421, 12:44  #169  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2·3^{2}·7·43 Posts 
Quote:
Now that I'm able to distribute the msieve poly selection among my machines, I think msieve/ggnfs is the way to go for a LAN based system. CADO_NFS would still have appeal if I was to add outside machines. If further details are of interest: 170 cores of various flavors were used for the msieve/ggnfs run. A weak dual core laptop failed to run CADONFS. This should only be a very minor loss. The msieve/ggnfs run started poly selection at 10:53:46. Sieving started at 11:01:27. Matrix solving began at 19:01:45 LA began at 19:01:46. Square root started at 00:57:58 The three factors were logged at 01:45:00 The advantage I had originally considered for CADONFS was (and still is to some degree), the ease of setting it up and the distributed poly select. But, now I have the scripts and the ability to distribute poly select. 

20180422, 02:00  #170 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
1010100101010_{2} Posts 
Hey Curtis,
I'm not sure you can adjust the params enough to make up the difference. Now the server is running LA (mksol) and giving an ETA of 07:46:58. It's looking well over three times as long for CADONFS. Ed 
20180422, 02:59  #171 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
165D_{16} Posts 
Ed
Even if you don't run this factorization again with my params, your default run's timing results will help me choose parameters for my own future use. I'll post them, of course, in case someone wishes to try them. C150 is about where I started to tinker with factmsieve parameters too, so I think CADO will be even worse off against those. 
20180422, 13:17  #172  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2×3^{2}×7×43 Posts 
Quote:
I still expect to give your params a test run when you get them set. I just can't see running CADONFS as a norm at this point, but I have a script alternative for msieve/ggnfs. And, the results are in: Code:
Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Aggregate statistics: Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): potential collisions: 56795 Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): raw lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 57461/46.070/54.041/58.840/0.891 Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): optimized lognorm (nr/min/av/max/std): 57461/44.100/48.552/54.860/1.446 Info:Polynomial Selection (size optimized): Total time: 91122.7 Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Aggregate statistics: Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Total time: 8478.5 Info:Polynomial Selection (root optimized): Rootsieve time: 8477.14 Info:Generate Factor Base: Total cpu/real time for makefb: 36.18/8.17465 Info:Generate Free Relations: Total cpu/real time for freerel: 624.23/82.0787 Info:Lattice Sieving: Aggregate statistics: Info:Lattice Sieving: Total number of relations: 53833827 Info:Lattice Sieving: Average J: 3798.46 for 2342851 specialq, max bucket fill: 0.697496 Info:Lattice Sieving: Total CPU time: 6.52511e+06s Info:Filtering  Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Total cpu/real time for dup1: 165.89/578.793 Info:Filtering  Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: Aggregate statistics: Info:Filtering  Duplicate Removal, splitting pass: CPU time for dup1: 577.6000000000001s Info:Filtering  Duplicate Removal, removal pass: Total cpu/real time for dup2: 1273.34/1043.39 Info:Filtering  Singleton removal: Total cpu/real time for purge: 1078.85/1214.3 Info:Filtering  Merging: Total cpu/real time for merge: 3665.72/3278.51 Info:Filtering  Merging: Total cpu/real time for replay: 230.56/198.062 Info:Linear Algebra: Total cpu/real time for bwc: 945170/0.000172853 Info:Linear Algebra: Aggregate statistics: Info:Linear Algebra: Krylov: WCT time 78981.07 Info:Linear Algebra: Lingen CPU time 2012.76, WCT time 306.77 Info:Linear Algebra: Mksol: WCT time 42773.62 Info:Quadratic Characters: Total cpu/real time for characters: 205.42/64.8022 Info:Square Root: Total cpu/real time for sqrt: 11575.4/1607.64 Info:HTTP server: Shutting down HTTP server Info:Complete Factorization: Total cpu/elapsed time for entire factorization: 7.58874e+06/171384 Info:root: Cleaning up computation data in /tmp/cado.vzafj00h 35912223503197268109418424875344813700437442706880566137398291217213 22947545427314151445011966017377 584458412373341050558641690854880477452541557046361 Let me know when you get some changes made for the params... Ed 

20180427, 12:47  #173  
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands
3^{2}×131 Posts 
http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.ph...53&postcount=6
Quote:


20180427, 13:18  #174  
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Liverpool (GMT/BST)
2×13×233 Posts 
Quote:


20180427, 13:52  #175 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
12452_{8} Posts 
The same i72600 @ 3.4 GHz with 16GB ran both LAs on 8 threads (4c x 2t).
edit: Also note that I hard stopped the polyselect for the msieve/ggnfs run. I don't know what msieve would have preferred. edit2: msieve wanted 193.43 CPUhours.I think this would have far out done the time CADONFS used. Last fiddled with by EdH on 20180427 at 14:10 
20180427, 21:21  #176  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
165D_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Here are my bestguess params for C150: Code:
tasks.polyselect.degree = 5 tasks.polyselect.P = 600000 tasks.polyselect.admax = 25e4 tasks.polyselect.adrange = 5e2 tasks.polyselect.incr = 60 tasks.polyselect.nq = 15625 tasks.polyselect.nrkeep = 100 tasks.polyselect.ropteffort = 12 ########################################################################### # Sieve ########################################################################### lim0 = 13000000 lim1 = 32000000 lpb0 = 29 lpb1 = 30 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 60 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 16 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 21 tasks.I = 14 tasks.sieve.qrange = 2000 tasks.sieve.qmin = 3000000 ########################################################################### # Filtering ########################################################################### tasks.filter.purge.keep = 175 tasks.filter.maxlevel = 30 tasks.filter.target_density = 155.0 1. Ditched 3 large primes. 2. I = 14 rather than 13. I'm not sure this is correct, as I think with CADO the transition from 13 to 14 is right around 150. However, this means that if it's a mistake it should be a small one. 3. Reduced target density from 170 to 155. 4. Almost tripled polyselect effort. Your data showed 100k sec on poly select on a job that took ~7.6M seconds, meaning poly select was around 1.5% of total time. I've found best results at 45%, so I added a bunch in hopes that overall time will drop a bunch to make my selection ~5%. 5. Set qmin = 3M. I think in the absence of this parameter CADO defaults to begin sieving at lim0, which was 16M. I expect you'll complete sieving before 16M, so almost no Q's will overlap your previous run! I look forward to your test results. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
CADO help  henryzz  CADONFS  6  20220913 23:11 
CADONFS on windows  jux  CADONFS  25  20210713 23:53 
CADO and WinBlows  akruppa  Programming  22  20151231 08:37 
CADONFS  skan  Information & Answers  1  20131022 07:00 
CADO  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  4  20081106 12:35 