Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2014-02-22, 05:53 #34 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 33158 Posts Running 297903607^23-1
 2014-02-28, 04:58 #35 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 6CD16 Posts Running 8970971^29-1 Having some trouble with the SNFS poly. FactorDB gives: Code: n: 4288882318725178503864985939002570343870783101076222294692132636882637343988982346014447015553752612504342250262840696959794627098440959386503033787331436025332337203640782929696973892811770840659915530 m: 58102827030430867738060703578743851 deg: 5 skew: 0 type: snfs c5: 6476760099930193480511831281 c0: -1 rlim: 18610400 alim: 18610400 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 mfbr: 58 mfba: 58 rlambda: 2.7 alambda: 2.7 but GGNFS doesn't like the skew of 0. Phi gives: Code: n: 2580482901793422593005519906534751048235270635043096719781698476519957422481996978800942266020020022345900390998498545851996437063629641295043489044129593444543441973751813443723 # 8970971^29-1^29, difficulty: 208.59, skewness: 24.58, alpha: 0.00 # cost: 2.95737e+017, est. time: 140.83 GHz days (not accurate yet!) skew: 24.579 c5: 1 c0: -8970971 Y1: -1 Y0: 521238776308011431982978168044507303749321 m: 521238776308011431982978168044507303749321 type: snfs This one works but seems to give low relations. Any thoughts? Last fiddled with by wombatman on 2014-02-28 at 05:32
 2014-02-28, 07:44 #36 axn     Jun 2003 23×607 Posts For the first one, the correct skew would be 0.00000274. For the second one, the larger rational side coefficient implies that you should use larger rational side parameters.
 2014-02-28, 14:12 #37 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 174110 Posts Much obliged for the response. On the 1st one, with the skew set appropriately, GGNFS still gives: Code: gnfs-lasieve4I14e (with asm64): L1_BITS=15, SVN $Revision$ Please set a skewness For the second, factsmieve sets the parameters as follows: Code: rlim: 21300000 alim: 21300000 lpbr: 29 lpba: 29 I'm still slowly learning both the theory and the practical applications here, so I'm not too good at determining whether these are set properly.
 2014-02-28, 16:31 #38 chris2be8     Sep 2009 7D216 Posts Don't bother with the poly provided by factordb. c5: 6476760099930193480511831281 is ridiculous for snfs. In general the smaller the coefficients are the better it will sieve. phi generated a reasonable poly. How may relations per special Q does it give? A rule of thumb (originally from Fivemack) is that if you are getting less that 2 relations per Q you should go to a larger siever or raise LPB[AR] and/or MFB[AR]. There was a "ggnfs pearls of wisdom" thread to collect such advice. It's worth reading. Chris
 2014-02-28, 16:52 #39 wombatman I moo ablest echo power!     May 2013 1,741 Posts I'd have to check to get an exact number, but it was something like 1.5 relations/Q or so, which seemed really low to me. I'll try and track that wisdom thread--I can definitely use any of that I can find!
 2014-02-28, 19:54 #40 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 132728 Posts The other problem with factordb polys is that it gives you the whole number to factor even if it has very small factors. msieve will find those factors and complain at you.
2014-03-01, 16:43   #41
chris2be8

Sep 2009

2·7·11·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz The other problem with factordb polys is that it gives you the whole number to factor even if it has very small factors. msieve will find those factors and complain at you.
I think using msieve compiled without ECM will stop it finding small factors when you don't want it to. But it's better to remove the small factors first. It might be useful for SNFS around 85 digits.

Chris

2014-03-01, 16:53   #42
chris2be8

Sep 2009

37228 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman I'd have to check to get an exact number, but it was something like 1.5 relations/Q or so, which seemed really low to me. I'll try and track that wisdom thread--I can definitely use any of that I can find!
In that case you would be better off raising LPBR and LPBA to 30 (and MFB[AR] to 60). That should double the yield, but it will nearly double the number of relations you need to collect. Raising just LPBA and LPBR would raise yield and relations needed a bit less.

In practice the job would still work with a yield around 1.5 per Q. It would take a little longer than with better parameters though (I've run a few like that by mistake).

Chris

2014-03-01, 21:21   #43
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

2·2,909 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 I think using msieve compiled without ECM will stop it finding small factors when you don't want it to. But it's better to remove the small factors first. It might be useful for SNFS around 85 digits. Chris
It will still do trial division I think.

2014-03-03, 20:57   #44
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

33158 Posts

I upped LPBR to 30 (totally arbitrary choice), and the yield went from ~1.5 to ~2 relations/Q, so that did indeed help. It still hasn't finished gathering relations yet, but we'll see how it does with the matrix building.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 In that case you would be better off raising LPBR and LPBA to 30 (and MFB[AR] to 60). That should double the yield, but it will nearly double the number of relations you need to collect. Raising just LPBA and LPBR would raise yield and relations needed a bit less. In practice the job would still work with a yield around 1.5 per Q. It would take a little longer than with better parameters though (I've run a few like that by mistake). Chris

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Xyzzy GPU Computing 1 2017-05-17 20:22 Mark Rose GPU Computing 52 2016-07-02 12:11 firejuggler GPU Computing 12 2016-02-23 06:55 Elhueno Homework Help 5 2008-06-12 16:37 jchein1 Factoring 30 2005-05-30 14:43

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:04.

Sun Feb 28 08:04:31 UTC 2021 up 87 days, 4:15, 0 users, load averages: 1.59, 1.59, 1.44