20200519, 02:22  #12 
Apr 2020
3·181 Posts 
For what it's worth, here are the 95^128+1 factors:
Code:
p61 factor: 6257613858583898709261755903084673553330399368418555296798721 p109 factor: 8402352391630827885506737623084809472170424349385439829494702478551900066063207448078203277908726932399787521 
20200519, 15:57  #13 
Sep 2009
2^{2}·3^{2}·61 Posts 
cownoise and factordb are the only places I would submit it to.
Thanks for the factors. Chris 
20200628, 16:38  #14 
Apr 2020
3·181 Posts 
One more data point: the c169 from 9+8_638M.
Parameters were Code:
tasks.I = 14 tasks.qmin = 7000000 tasks.lim0 = 50000000 tasks.lim1 = 70000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 58 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 20 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 25 Code:
Sun Jun 28 15:03:04 2020 Msieve v. 1.54 (SVN 1030M) Sun Jun 28 15:03:04 2020 random seeds: 020987c2 2e14909e Sun Jun 28 15:03:04 2020 factoring 6323148101178192997454526289605277170954218433278054116052056166051527590848248128865718264727023155963463084305589386151325042874693217587179972005266685135356161079181 (169 digits) Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 searching for 15digit factors Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 commencing number field sieve (169digit input) Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 R0: 424000671411315695105034591696768 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 R1: 72112096043794064331337 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A0: 24834769717672015656695526227332911290885 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A1: 20316186393429687042949998116877192 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A2: 1818007152430589614430877325 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A3: 200551169527456827261 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A4: 8997719941109 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 A5: 459900 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 skew 1.00, size 1.828e16, alpha 6.733, combined = 1.955e15 rroots = 5 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 commencing relation filtering Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 setting max relations to 170000000 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 setting target matrix density to 100.0 Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 estimated available RAM is 15845.9 MB Sun Jun 28 15:03:05 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 1 ... Sun Jun 28 15:19:16 2020 found 49673476 hash collisions in 169989969 relations Sun Jun 28 15:19:16 2020 commencing duplicate removal, pass 2 Sun Jun 28 15:22:21 2020 found 65292334 duplicates and 104697635 unique relations Sun Jun 28 15:22:21 2020 memory use: 1321.5 MB Sun Jun 28 15:22:21 2020 reading ideals above 136511488 Sun Jun 28 15:22:21 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass Sun Jun 28 15:29:47 2020 memory use: 2756.0 MB Sun Jun 28 15:29:48 2020 reading all ideals from disk Sun Jun 28 15:29:52 2020 memory use: 1584.8 MB Sun Jun 28 15:29:54 2020 commencing inmemory singleton removal Sun Jun 28 15:29:56 2020 begin with 104697635 relations and 98408402 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:30:11 2020 reduce to 41074643 relations and 24856975 ideals in 15 passes Sun Jun 28 15:30:12 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 21 Sun Jun 28 15:30:14 2020 reading ideals above 720000 Sun Jun 28 15:30:14 2020 commencing singleton removal, initial pass Sun Jun 28 15:35:16 2020 memory use: 753.0 MB Sun Jun 28 15:35:17 2020 reading all ideals from disk Sun Jun 28 15:35:18 2020 memory use: 1560.4 MB Sun Jun 28 15:35:20 2020 keeping 39923650 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 224283 Sun Jun 28 15:35:23 2020 commencing inmemory singleton removal Sun Jun 28 15:35:25 2020 begin with 41074647 relations and 39923650 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:36:03 2020 reduce to 39865811 relations and 38709614 ideals in 16 passes Sun Jun 28 15:36:03 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 200 Sun Jun 28 15:36:16 2020 removing 3404962 relations and 3004962 ideals in 400000 cliques Sun Jun 28 15:36:17 2020 commencing inmemory singleton removal Sun Jun 28 15:36:19 2020 begin with 36460849 relations and 38709614 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:36:36 2020 reduce to 36261732 relations and 35502896 ideals in 8 passes Sun Jun 28 15:36:36 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 192 Sun Jun 28 15:36:49 2020 removing 2549850 relations and 2149850 ideals in 400000 cliques Sun Jun 28 15:36:50 2020 commencing inmemory singleton removal Sun Jun 28 15:36:52 2020 begin with 33711882 relations and 35502896 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:37:09 2020 reduce to 33582756 relations and 33222484 ideals in 9 passes Sun Jun 28 15:37:09 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 184 Sun Jun 28 15:37:21 2020 removing 725709 relations and 625606 ideals in 100103 cliques Sun Jun 28 15:37:21 2020 commencing inmemory singleton removal Sun Jun 28 15:37:23 2020 begin with 32857047 relations and 33222484 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:37:36 2020 reduce to 32846772 relations and 32586570 ideals in 7 passes Sun Jun 28 15:37:36 2020 max relations containing the same ideal: 181 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 0 large ideals: 757 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 1 large ideals: 797 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 2 large ideals: 13803 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 3 large ideals: 143045 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 4 large ideals: 826045 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 5 large ideals: 2883247 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 6 large ideals: 6400583 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 relations with 7+ large ideals: 22578495 Sun Jun 28 15:37:42 2020 commencing 2way merge Sun Jun 28 15:37:58 2020 reduce to 20116382 relation sets and 19856180 unique ideals Sun Jun 28 15:37:58 2020 commencing full merge Sun Jun 28 15:42:35 2020 memory use: 2417.9 MB Sun Jun 28 15:42:36 2020 found 9692453 cycles, need 9672380 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 weight of 9672380 cycles is about 967669235 (100.04/cycle) Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 distribution of cycle lengths: Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 1 relations: 733278 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 2 relations: 915189 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 3 relations: 994301 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 4 relations: 930915 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 5 relations: 871603 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 6 relations: 780528 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 7 relations: 688823 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 8 relations: 597770 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 9 relations: 523494 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 10+ relations: 2636479 Sun Jun 28 15:42:38 2020 heaviest cycle: 28 relations Sun Jun 28 15:42:39 2020 commencing cycle optimization Sun Jun 28 15:42:52 2020 start with 69254191 relations Sun Jun 28 15:44:19 2020 pruned 2098869 relations Sun Jun 28 15:44:19 2020 memory use: 2077.5 MB Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 distribution of cycle lengths: Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 1 relations: 733278 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 2 relations: 937882 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 3 relations: 1033609 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 4 relations: 959962 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 5 relations: 899206 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 6 relations: 796546 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 7 relations: 700849 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 8 relations: 603393 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 9 relations: 524575 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 10+ relations: 2483080 Sun Jun 28 15:44:20 2020 heaviest cycle: 28 relations Sun Jun 28 15:44:34 2020 RelProcTime: 2489 Sun Jun 28 15:44:37 2020 Sun Jun 28 15:44:37 2020 commencing linear algebra Sun Jun 28 15:44:37 2020 read 9672380 cycles Sun Jun 28 15:44:52 2020 cycles contain 32650243 unique relations Sun Jun 28 15:48:25 2020 read 32650243 relations Sun Jun 28 15:49:03 2020 using 20 quadratic characters above 4294917295 Sun Jun 28 15:51:08 2020 building initial matrix Sun Jun 28 15:56:02 2020 memory use: 4429.8 MB Sun Jun 28 15:56:44 2020 read 9672380 cycles Sun Jun 28 15:56:45 2020 matrix is 9672203 x 9672380 (3951.6 MB) with weight 1209714091 (125.07/col) Sun Jun 28 15:56:45 2020 sparse part has weight 919819428 (95.10/col) Sun Jun 28 15:57:58 2020 filtering completed in 2 passes Sun Jun 28 15:57:59 2020 matrix is 9671585 x 9671762 (3951.6 MB) with weight 1209689275 (125.07/col) Sun Jun 28 15:57:59 2020 sparse part has weight 919814498 (95.10/col) Sun Jun 28 15:58:46 2020 matrix starts at (0, 0) Sun Jun 28 15:58:48 2020 matrix is 9671585 x 9671762 (3951.6 MB) with weight 1209689275 (125.07/col) Sun Jun 28 15:58:48 2020 sparse part has weight 919814498 (95.10/col) Sun Jun 28 15:58:48 2020 saving the first 48 matrix rows for later Sun Jun 28 15:58:49 2020 matrix includes 64 packed rows Sun Jun 28 15:58:50 2020 matrix is 9671537 x 9671762 (3832.6 MB) with weight 1013022612 (104.74/col) Sun Jun 28 15:58:50 2020 sparse part has weight 907971208 (93.88/col) Sun Jun 28 15:58:50 2020 using block size 8192 and superblock size 884736 for processor cache size 9216 kB Sun Jun 28 15:59:14 2020 commencing Lanczos iteration (6 threads) Sun Jun 28 15:59:14 2020 memory use: 3620.3 MB Sun Jun 28 15:59:34 2020 linear algebra at 0.0%, ETA 33h29m 
20200628, 19:00  #15 
Sep 2009
2^{2}·3^{2}·61 Posts 
I've decided to do 86^1311 via NFS@Home. I've found the following poly (9 hours msievegpu searching):
Code:
n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001 # norm 1.306001e16 alpha 8.871987 e 2.977e13 rroots 3 skew: 162345250.84 c0: 577062733978460861005241440490749355102976512 c1: 12260826936151352820546357994499780916 c2: 178538325918319471247024945044 c3: 958590300841474414947 c4: 4423011255032 c5: 11844 Y0: 1770910298352749710979419014235215 Y1: 613792628360770487 type: gnfs If Max could see if he can spin it up I would be very grateful. Also is anyone interested in 24^179+1 ? If not I'll put it through NFS@Home in a week or so. Chris 
20200629, 01:32  #16 
Apr 2020
3·181 Posts 
Here are a couple better polys for 86^1311:
Code:
n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001 skew: 41437836.858 c0: 5389519387337140565345516459794841317758000 c1: 143043284702103460455094028784037830 c2: 2239398228891059427583897507 c3: 889691908139885268641 c4: 3496913201934 c5: 95760 Y0: 1659129166378730128203133792666517 Y1: 1742363546744996502291193 # e 3.392e13 n: 206291417462093576497275239580773052795596055350565606087502662805051224044201602337850673455835775692863740037805407606265476824913591751307682500480113600344276700606001 skew: 3357702.047 c0: 112975106982991917173660977635799247400 c1: 111002282144221726406217931664406 c2: 64145260501719297021407541 c3: 30825474695526305746 c4: 4452459053820 c5: 543690 Y0: 823750842791353826106062726508889 Y1: 34863622316774006451893 # e 3.334e13 
20210510, 02:31  #17 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2×17×149 Posts 
Bur requested a 165 params file, so I attach a draft here.
If you use this file, please report: 1. Did filtering work the first time, or did CADO bounce back and forth between filtering and sieving? If filtering ran multiple times, how many relations were needed for sieving to finish? 2. What was the finalQ sieved? 3. What was the matrix size, in dimensions or "total weight"? I'm still not sure if 3LP is useful in 165170 digit range; CADO uses 3 large primes starting at 145 or 150 digits in the default files, so I ought to explore it. One of these days.... Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20210510 at 18:50 
20210510, 06:06  #18 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
2·11·19 Posts 
Ok, I started the factorization. I think final q and the matrix properties can be looked up in the log file?
Should I have cado do the linear algebra or doesn't it matter? 
20210510, 14:35  #19 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
1001111001010_{2} Posts 
Doesn't matter whether msieve or cado does the matrix; I use matrix size as a marker for whether target_relations was set too high or too low.
Final Q can be found in the log, though it's not in the summary. It's easiest to find by scrolling up on the terminal window to find the last Q sieved before filtering. 
20210510, 17:18  #20 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
2×11×19 Posts 
Currently sieving ETA is already saturday, 15th, but it usually increased significantly after a while. I report back once the factorization is finished.

20210517, 06:36  #21 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
1A2_{16} Posts 
LA is still running, but everything seems to have gone fine:
1) the initial 220,000,000 relations were enough, no going back to sieving after the first filtering 2) last qrange was 66,450,00066,460,000 3) Merged matrix has 5579102 rows and total weight 836915933 (150.0 entries per row on average) ETA for krylov is 8 hours from now, mksol will also take a while but I expect a total of less than 8 days. That's fast compared to the ~75 hours a C153 and a C154 took on the same machine. And a question: How do number of relations, matrix weight/density and time for LA depend on each other? From some posts it seems to me that having more relations allows for a matrix with higher density and those will result in shorte LA times. Is it like that? So increasing target_density will increase the number of required relations but decrease LA time? 
20210517, 12:14  #22 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
2·17·149 Posts 
Having more available relations allows filtering to work harder, generating a smaller matrix. Setting target density higher explicitly tells filtering to work harder, but even holding target density fixed you'll get a smaller matrix from more relations.
The catch is that it usually takes more time to gather those extra relations than one saves in LA phase. There's a productive amount of oversieving when one is right at the cusp of building a matrix, a small number of extra relations has a fairly strong effect on matrix size, but diminishing returns sets in rather quickly. My previous GGNFS/msieve jobs around C165 have had matrices around 9M in size, so this job was rather strongly oversieved. We should cut rels_wanted to 210M for this file and see what matrix comes out. If you are interested in seeing the effect of the extra relations, zcat all your 220M relations out to a single file, and run msieve's filtering on the file to see what size matrix comes out. Then, restrict the number of relations msieve uses (via a filtering flag, see the h option list for msieve) to 215, 210, 205 and let us know what size matrices pop out. I suggest a TD of 100 or so for msieve, but you might enjoy trying 100/110/120 on the full dataset to see how target_density affects matrix size. tasks.qmin can be changed down to 10M. I target a qmintoqmax ratio of 7 to 8; your finalQ of 66.5M suggests the chosen qmin of 17M was a little high. Smaller Q sieve faster but yield more duplicate relations, so changing tasks.qmin to 10M should make jobs run a little bit faster because 1017M will produce more relations (and faster) than 5966M. Since this job ran faster than expected (based on your ~155 digit experience) and Q is smaller than I expected, you may have found a lucky poly for this job. Thanks for your data report! 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Some CADONFS Work At Around 175180 Decimal Digits  EdH  CADONFS  127  20201007 01:47 
Sigma parameter in ecm  storm5510  Information & Answers  4  20191130 21:32 
PrimeNet error 7: Invalid parameter  ksteczk  PrimeNet  6  20180326 15:11 
Parameter Underestimation  R.D. Silverman  Cunningham Tables  14  20100929 19:56 
ECM Work and Parameter Choices  R.D. Silverman  Cunningham Tables  11  20060306 18:46 