20230116, 23:52  #89  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
7×829 Posts 
Quote:
I'd go 260/340 or 250/350 and expect both yield and speed to be better than 300/300. However, I think you're reaching a job size where 3LP on both sides may be nearly as fast as the typical 2/3 settings, at least given that lims used are so small. If you'd like to post the poly for your next job, I'm happy to test a variety of mfb choices for your 35/36 LP setting; perhaps I can find a '3LP on both sides' setting that is faster than what you're otherwise planning to use. 

20230119, 04:23  #90  
Jul 2003
So Cal
A53_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Code:
n: 385391677907023068816875399702625816359161842943133261369673832051936437247070622270782933158404692445296119872430400383813398898811140980240524745812750729966969876527198830673858429779606449065686186811518577347751947370710959080728712731829 skew: 1.54407 type: snfs c6: 1 c5: 0 c4: 0 c3: 2 c2: 0 c1: 0 c0: 2 Y1: 1 Y0: 24519928653854221733733552434404946937899825954937634816 rlim: 300000000 alim: 300000000 lpbr: 36 lpba: 35 mfbr: 105 mfba: 71 rlambda: 3.9 alambda: 2.8 

20230120, 07:49  #91 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
2^{2}·1,291 Posts 
Easy ones... you wouldn't say that a few years ago...lol
I suppose you are talking about 2,1497+ SNFS 300 and 2,1497 SNFS 300. Glad you are doing these ones, at least I get bored of running the more difficult ones, just because I have a very slow computer and I do like to see that status page update more often. Anyway, with the overall CPU momentum available at the moment it is wise to do these quicker ones. 
20230120, 18:56  #92 
Jul 2003
So Cal
3×881 Posts 

20230130, 23:02  #93  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
7×829 Posts 
Quote:
3LP on both sides is good for 40% better yield, but at the expense of 60% longer sec/rel. Since you're not running out of Q to sieve, this seems unhelpful but I'll test sec/rel at the projected "last" Q, as it's possible that 3LP on both sides for small Q (like 200400M) may be a net benefit still. Here are the fastest params I've found so far: Code:
rlim: 250000000 alim: 350000000 lpbr: 36 lpba: 35 mfbr: 105 mfba: 70 rlambda: 3.85 alambda: 2.55 I've tested only at Q=500M so far, so next time I have some free time I'll test a more full range of Q to make sure the new params are faster everywhere. I'll also test a couple other small variations on these params with 2LP on A side. 

20230201, 03:59  #94  
Jul 2003
So Cal
3×881 Posts 
Quote:


20230201, 06:43  #95 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
7·829 Posts 
I'm giving exams this week, so I can't try other tweaks to get more speed. I hope this works (better)!

20230205, 00:20  #96 
Jun 2012
2^{4}×3×83 Posts 
2,2194M was factored today by NFS@Home. Very nice!
2,2206L is currently sieving, personally I’m hoping for it to be factored by mid March but it’s not a race. Yoyo@Home’s throughput is proving to a bit higher than NFS@Home so I’m just going to throw the rest of the Gang of 31 into Yoyo’s queue. Latest estimate for Yoyo to complete all base2 (1987) work is NLT Halloween 2024. YMMV. 
20230217, 07:34  #97  
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
2^{2}×1,291 Posts 
Quote:
Thank you and we'll done! Regarding Yoyo, was wondering what his plans are for future since one of his apps will be completed soon. Will the server feed or force the idle clients with sieving and ECM apps?! If all clients have ticked to run all apps for sure there will be a boost on ECM side. Only Yoyo to confirm. Last fiddled with by pinhodecarlos on 20230217 at 07:40 

20230305, 07:38  #98 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK
2^{2}·1,291 Posts 
I believe we shall see an increase of ECM activity on Yoyo. One of his projects is about to end, tiny amount of work to be done. Not sure what would be for our case the impact of more CPU deployed but overall all ECM projects might receive a little nice boost.

20230305, 17:26  #99 
Jan 2023
61 Posts 
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I saw this thread pop up on the new posts and figured I'd ask here, is there a current record of ECM done for various Cunningham numbers? Or a general rules for what can realistically be expected to have been performed?
I've attempted to fill out this page's ECM status of Cunningham numbers, but for higher bases (or large n, for that matter) I'm not certain enough to make up data, especially if it seems no factors have been found via ECM (>30 digit seemingly nonalgebraic factors). FWIW, I've checked all the places listed in the "Sources" section. If there are any ECM figures that seem inaccurate on that page, let me know and I can update them. I mostly just want to make sure I'm not wasting cpu time if I attempt to factor Cunningham numbers starting at the work listed there. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Recommended bases and efforts  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  190  20230226 09:01 
Doublecheck efforts; S66/S79 to start with  gd_barnes  Conjectures 'R Us  16  20140807 02:11 
Cunningham ECM Now Futile?  R.D. Silverman  GMPECM  4  20120425 02:45 
ECM efforts mistake?  10metreh  mersennewiki  1  20081228 13:31 
ECM Efforts  R.D. Silverman  Factoring  63  20050624 13:41 