mersenneforum.org Use Msieve NFS for small numbers?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-02-26, 01:37 #1 skan     Apr 2012 2·47 Posts Use Msieve NFS for small numbers? How can I force Msieve to use NFS instead of SIQS even on smaller numbers? (without recompiling). Currently +80 digits. Just to test speed. next time you upload the windows version, could you please lower that limit? thanks
 2013-02-26, 12:41 #2 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 353710 Posts Right now you can run NFS postprocessing on any size number, but modifying polynomial selection to handle numbers smaller than the current limit requires the ability to select degree 3 polynomials and to find GNFS polynomial selection parameters suitable for numbers smaller than the current limit. Both of those would take some time, and in the meantime you'd find that if it works at all then factoring, say, a 60 digit number will take maybe 30 seconds if you're lucky and it doesn't crash, whereas if it does crash then I'd have additional work to do. You know that QS is a better choice at that size (YAFU would finish a 60-digit job in maybe 1 second), so getting the same answer in a much longer time is not useful, especially compared to what I could be doing on the codebase in its place. Note that the CADO tools can perform complete factorizations down to 60 digits.
 2013-02-26, 12:58 #3 skan     Apr 2012 2×47 Posts Hi I know that NFS is not as efficient as SIQS or ECM with small numbers, I just want to try it. The number I'm factorizing is 78 digits long. "2^(2^8)+1". I'm trying "msieve -n .." but it runs siqs instead Last fiddled with by skan on 2013-02-26 at 13:06
 2013-02-26, 17:38 #4 chris2be8     Sep 2009 2·5·7·29 Posts That's an easy SNFS target. Set up a file called test.poly containing: Code: n:115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639937 m: 18446744073709551616 c4: 1 c0: 1 And it should split quite fast if you point factMsieve.pl or factmsieve.py at it. SNFS can beat QS at this size range if you can find a good enough poly. Chris
2013-02-26, 17:42   #5
bsquared

"Ben"
Feb 2007

2·13·131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by chris2be8 SNFS can beat QS at this size range if you can find a good enough poly. Chris
I don't have factmsieve.py set up right now to compare... but here's a target time:

Code:
xxx.xxx.xxx 327 % yafu "siqs(2^(2^8)+1)" -threads 8

starting SIQS on c78: 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639937

==== sieving in progress ( 8 threads):   37456 relations needed ====
====            Press ctrl-c to abort and save state            ====
39500 rels found: 21514 full + 17986 from 189784 partial, (23483.89 rels/sec)

SIQS elapsed time = 10.6089 seconds.

***factors found***

P62 = 93461639715357977769163558199606896584051237541638188580280321
P16 = 1238926361552897

Last fiddled with by bsquared on 2013-02-26 at 17:43 Reason: trim quote

 2013-02-26, 17:54 #6 Dubslow Basketry That Evening!     "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40
 2013-02-26, 18:30 #7 bsquared     "Ben" Feb 2007 D4E16 Posts It is: Code: detected Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4650 0 @ 2.70GHz but the timing is kinda misleading because there are 4 of these cpu's in the system. When the threads can be spread out over multiple cpus then there isn't as much of a memory bandwidth bottleneck. If I force it to use one node (8 cores) with numactl then I get 11.8 seconds.
 2013-02-26, 19:19 #8 Batalov     "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 5·1,879 Posts Nice servers at Mayo detected!
2013-02-26, 20:35   #9
bsquared

"Ben"
Feb 2007

2·13·131 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Batalov Nice servers at Mayo detected!

Just too bad that I have to share it...

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Erich PrimeNet 16 2012-09-29 23:08 Unregistered Information & Answers 2 2011-08-22 22:53 Christenson Information & Answers 36 2011-02-16 04:29 geoff Factoring 23 2010-09-13 23:50 cheesehead Math 7 2009-02-06 20:49

All times are UTC. The time now is 08:05.

Wed Apr 21 08:05:05 UTC 2021 up 13 days, 2:45, 0 users, load averages: 2.93, 2.59, 2.27