mersenneforum.org 2018 14e post processing reservations and results
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2018-05-29, 18:28   #34
VictordeHolland

"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands

23×3×72 Posts
C222_44611351_31 factors

C222_44611351_31
= (44611351^31-1)/4724683554106950

Code:
p100 factor: 3129736754265434313115385777531815325426379555658941464347144096700868465629359448106263791728036343
p122 factor: 91817635573267857528245872303927479264638420438204782306659976328499199398619817645407854972158808897698702806939508021431
Mon May 28 02:07:00 2018  elapsed time 01:38:14
Factors uploaded to factordb.

Truncated log attached and at https://pastebin.com/rMC9HYfA
Attached Files
 2018-05-28 C222_44611351_31.log (31.1 KB, 119 views)

2018-05-30, 03:16   #35
richs

"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California

23148 Posts
C202_M127_k9 factored

Quote:
 Originally Posted by richs Reserving C202_M127_k9
Code:
p89 factor: 28671472257842829465286850812061976846241333899857562772650872397788535503540554845502783
p113 factor: 37619677089167213926945303294913340200839420719711647589426226438636403067966427468055116925715974269789294823587
44.6 hours on 8 threads i7-5500U with 8 GB memory for a 6.13M matrix at TD = 70. Log attached and truncated log at https://pastebin.com/9rBxRU2v

Factors added to factordb.
Attached Files
 msieve.log (653.3 KB, 278 views)

2018-05-30, 08:36   #36
fivemack
(loop (#_fork))

Feb 2006
Cambridge, England

13×491 Posts
C242_137_78 done

Code:
Wed May 30 08:07:13 2018  p81 factor: 212964755526353370590207528158400933000546039169480153256299393636587955035281223
Wed May 30 08:07:13 2018  p161 factor: 61183247576207084139117138075248634109518882435883583354592418681686857383102917177003213130369956245433740861835480483736679555168049838813731566460891903680881
About 277 hours on 7 threads E5-2650v2 for 22.42M matrix at density 124 (126 didn't work)

Log attached and at https://pastebin.com/Hi9RsY7w
Attached Files
 C242_137_78.log (84.3 KB, 195 views)

 2018-05-30, 17:32 #37 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 5·977 Posts Taking C193_194xx723_13.
 2018-05-30, 18:10 #38 debrouxl     Sep 2009 977 Posts For C193_194xx723_13, the generated WUs cover the 6M-36M range, but the management form suggests an upper bound of 40M. I'll raise it to at least 38M.
 2018-05-31, 16:32 #39 RichD     Sep 2008 Kansas 3·5·13·17 Posts While we are talking Q ranges, the following might be considered. C221_691xx579_7 could use just a touch. The sweet spot seems to be about 228-236M for a 31-bit job. A matrix can be built at TD=110 which requires just under a week, instead of 1.5-2.0 weeks for something must less. Likewise, C169_203xx091_19 C217_69655517_29 C172_115xx057_17 could use a little bit more to get into that range. I'm not too familiar with 32-bit jobs but it seems 450-460M might be the sweet spot. Therefore, C176_M127_k24 could use a little bit more also.
2018-05-31, 16:49   #40
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×19×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RichD I'm not too familiar with 32-bit jobs but it seems 450-460M might be the sweet spot. Therefore, C176_M127_k24 could use a little bit more also.
In my experience with 32LP, 450M relations is always oversieved, and sometimes the matrix-building collapses. The number of relations needed scales with the difficulty of the candidate; something like 360M + 7M*(GNFS size - 170) is likely pretty close to optimal for TD-120+ matrix building.
Data points, all 32LP:
GNFS 170 275M relations 9.9M matrix (run on 15e -J 13, so 14.5e)
GNFS 166 274M relations 8.9M matrix TD 104
GNFS 165 265M relations 10.3M matrix TD 96
I sieved these all myself, so I used fewer relations and lower TD than I would for grid-sieved work. I don't think more than 25% oversieving is needed to build TD 120+ matrices.
Data points for 15e/33LP:
GNFS 172 529M relations 9.0M matrix TD 104
GNFS 175 556M relations 10.7M matrix TD 112
Two points is not a trend, particularly since I used different TDs, but based on these I'm using 510M + 10M* (GNFS size -170) for 15e/33 tasks. I'm running GNFS 179 right now, but using 15f and 16f for some of the sieving so the number of relations won't provide useful data.
EDIT: That C176 didn't have good parameters, and the sieving has already run to Q=750M. That suggests duplicate rate will be lousy too, but with Q already over twice the lim's we may collectively just have to eat the large matrix awaiting us (or sieve a little with 15e or 16e at the low end of Q-range). I'll have time to take it on in 10 days or so if nobody jumps before then.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2018-05-31 at 16:57

 2018-05-31, 20:29 #41 debrouxl     Sep 2009 3D116 Posts * I have adjusted the ranges for C169_203xx091_19 and C172_115xx057_17 to match the ending Q values currently recommended by the management page. The latter will probably have to be adjusted again. * the range for C217_69655517_29 matched the recommended range, but sieving hadn't reached 90% yet, and the grid's starving, so I expanded the range by 5M. * the range for C221_691xx579_7 slightly exceeds the recommended range, and there were zero pending WUs, so I've let that sieving job RIP, and I've reserved it for post-processing, as I can't see another reservation in this topic. Technically, the recommendations made by the management page could be adjusted if enough people agree that this is the right thing to do, and we can borrow a bit of time from Greg. Tom ? Others ?
 2018-05-31, 20:42 #42 RichD     Sep 2008 Kansas 3×5×13×17 Posts I don't have enough data points for a recommendation. This is the job that recently came to mind. http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...postcount=2700 It will be interesting to see how your job plays out as each job is unique in its own right.
2018-05-31, 20:54   #43
VictordeHolland

"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands

23·3·72 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VBCurtis In my experience with 32LP, 450M relations is always oversieved, and sometimes the matrix-building collapses. The number of relations needed scales with the difficulty of the candidate; something like 360M + 7M*(GNFS size - 170) is likely pretty close to optimal for TD-120+ matrix building. ... ...
Those are raw relations with normal duplicate rate I assume?

2018-05-31, 23:50   #44
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

3×19×83 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by VictordeHolland Those are raw relations with normal duplicate rate I assume?
Yes, raw relations under 14e (with its higher dup rate than 15e). I really really think 32LP should be used more instead of 31LP, with much lower than 400M relations targeted.

Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2018-05-31 at 23:50

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post fivemack NFS@Home 221 2019-01-04 13:08 pinhodecarlos NFS@Home 8 2018-11-28 13:45 wombatman Msieve 22 2013-12-04 01:37 dleclair NFSNET Discussion 4 2005-04-05 09:51 xilman NFSNET Discussion 3 2003-11-06 14:23

All times are UTC. The time now is 22:11.

Mon Apr 12 22:11:07 UTC 2021 up 4 days, 16:51, 1 user, load averages: 3.44, 3.53, 3.37

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.