mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > NFS@Home

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2021-10-29, 13:35   #89
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1101000111102 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Aren't you lowering alim to 134M? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

I would also make lpbr = 32; I don't see the point of a 31LP job using the 16e siever. That would remove the violation of your (likely useful) rule of thumb "lpb - limbits should be 4 or more".

What size is this number, anyway?
It’s a c193. Too difficult to run comfortably on 15e but an easy 16f_small. (It’s a real slog on 15e as a 33/33 job.)

Apologies for my hashed (and erroneous) remarks a couple of posts back, here are the revised parameters I just finished test sieving based on my interpretation of your original comment:

Code:
n: 12734530900787107377713574161011868289324430536561585108001584634844458530077827798443825688784448329151924256365768391241981555179087907348803260669361241812142769026337465374565031975093261
skew: 26407748.919
type: gnfs
lss: 0
c0: 82995649502610121695803377054054562879174460
c1: -68939390311785240168852442729643236969
c2: -1159047757477660892006812203906
c3: 166840082438286438551781
c4: 583630704694594
c5: 15763440
Y0: -4381990159763602434411484418467631498
Y1: 1351413343517779682402767
# MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=5.469e+16) = 1.091e-08 = 1.892e-14 per cownoise
lpbr: 31
lpba: 32
mfbr: 62
mfba: 94
rlim: 268000000
alim: 134000000
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 3.5
Test sieving on the -a side with Q in blocks of 10K:
Code:
Q(M)   Norm_yield
60        30804
100       28474
150       26688
200       23296
Suggesting a sieving range of 55-190M if we hedge a bit.

I always test sieve the 2/2, 3/2 and 2/3 LP scenarios for a new GNFS. And in this case I also looked at 31/32 as well as 32/31. The 31/32 case was the best performer, with a target number of raw rels of 360M. A 32/32 job would need 460M+ raw rels, though it sieves a little faster.

As to the idea of lim = 2^(lpb-4), it’s an old rule of thumb told to me in the past. I don’t know the theory behind it, or now if there is any. My recent results show this HCN could be sieved faster using ~360M raw rels, but perhaps this choice of parameters makes that estimate null and void? Maybe it should be higher?

I could run this as a 16f/32/32 job with the lims biased towards the rational side but I don’t often see that much improvement. I still feel this number can be sieved quicker/easier as a 31/32 job.

Not sure about sieving with these new parameters but the results were very surprising (to me anyway).

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2021-10-29 at 17:52 Reason: ETA - added two lines to the poly - lss:0, and type: gnfs
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-29, 14:44   #90
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

7·11·67 Posts
Default

Doing things a little differently can reveal new ideas or information- I wouldn't think to try 31/32LP, so I'm curious what the matrix size/ number of rels needed will be. Neat!

My last meddling suggestion- start at Q=30 or 35M. With lim on the sieving side of 134M, even Q=30M isn't that small. Q-max to Q-min of 6 is a conservative setup (i.e. should keep duplicate relations low), and that would be e.g. 30M-165M. The CADO developers suggest 8 for that ratio, and since adopting that plan I've had fairly consistent & reasonable duplicate ratios; using 6 for that ratio here should come with little downside but the upside of sieving smaller Q.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-29, 17:54   #91
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

D1E16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Doing things a little differently can reveal new ideas or information- I wouldn't think to try 31/32LP, so I'm curious what the matrix size/ number of rels needed will be. Neat!

My last meddling suggestion- start at Q=30 or 35M. With lim on the sieving side of 134M, even Q=30M isn't that small. Q-max to Q-min of 6 is a conservative setup (i.e. should keep duplicate relations low), and that would be e.g. 30M-165M. The CADO developers suggest 8 for that ratio, and since adopting that plan I've had fairly consistent & reasonable duplicate ratios; using 6 for that ratio here should come with little downside but the upside of sieving smaller Q.
Cool idea - I will test sieve at 30M too.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-30, 13:05   #92
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·23·73 Posts
Default 3+2,1890L Revisited

QUEUED AS 3p2_1890L

I did test sieve both job files at 30M, results for the first poly file listed below:

Code:
Q(M)   Norm_yield
30       27640
60       28820
100      26626
150      25334
200      23482
Which suggests Q=30-170M for 360M raw relations.


And the results for the second poly file:
Code:
Q(M)   Norm_yield
30       29419
60       30804
100      28474
150      26688
200      23296
Suggesting a sieving range of Q=30-160M.

Both sieving range estimates have with a bit of hedging up to allow for a few extra dups at low Q.

I’m hesitant to go with the novel set of parameters (i.e. the second job file) for this factorization. The sievers seem to work just fine with inflated rlim but I have no feel for the “quality” or dup rate of the relations generated. Maybe I’ll try this strategy on a composite more suited for 14d or 15e_small first before bringing it to 16f_small.

On flip side - what’s the worst possible outcome? More sieving?

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2021-11-04 at 13:28
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-30, 16:46   #93
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

7·11·67 Posts
Default

I can't imagine what negative outcome would take place, but a lack of imagination is what holds us back from finding faster params choices so I shouldn't claim that as any sort of green light!

I got the idea from the stock CADO params files, and I think the reasoning is that a 2LP relation with a large lim will also be found as a 3LP relation with a small lim, in the cases where one of the large primes is between the new small lim choice and the old large lim choice. So, going with a small lim "costs" very few missed relations when chosen on the 3LP side.

However, increasing lim on the 2LP side categorically finds more relations- many more than the shrunken lim on the 3LP side "loses".

Charybdis has made a similar argument for going with 3LP on both sides for big 16f jobs; this would make up for the artificially low lim's at the cost of a lot of cofactorization effort. I hope that using a small mfb on the side "promoted" to 3LP might make up some of the cofactorization cost, but I haven't test-sieved anything yet. CADO does this on the default files starting surprisingly small, like c190.
CADO params for c190:
lpb0 32
lpb1 33
mfb0 85
mfb1 96

It's that 85 that interests me to experiment with.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-30, 17:27   #94
charybdis
 
charybdis's Avatar
 
Apr 2020

59310 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
Charybdis has made a similar argument for going with 3LP on both sides for big 16f jobs; this would make up for the artificially low lim's at the cost of a lot of cofactorization effort. I hope that using a small mfb on the side "promoted" to 3LP might make up some of the cofactorization cost, but I haven't test-sieved anything yet. CADO does this on the default files starting surprisingly small, like c190.
CADO params for c190:
lpb0 32
lpb1 33
mfb0 85
mfb1 96

It's that 85 that interests me to experiment with.
I don't think both-sides 3LP will be useful for NFS@Home except to stretch the upper limit of 16e by a couple more digits, maybe around SNFS-330. It just sieves that much more slowly.

That mfb0=85 in the c190 file is 2LP in disguise: it might as well have said mfb0=64. There is no difference because the lim0 value of 340600000 = 228.34... is large enough that any product of 3 large primes will be larger than 285. (OK, strictly speaking there is a difference, because without a strict lambda value a few small 3LP composites will sneak through to resieving before being eliminated for being too large - so in fact 85 will perform slightly worse than 64.) This isn't the only odd/misleading mfb choice in the CADO default params either, e.g. the c180 file has lpb1=32, mfb1=99 which is no different from 96.

Last fiddled with by charybdis on 2021-10-30 at 17:30
charybdis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-10-30, 18:51   #95
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

120478 Posts
Default

Aha! When I glanced at the lim's, I reversed lim0 and lim1 and estimated lim0 ^ 3 to be 80 or so.

On the bright side, at least the cado lim choices match the observation that the lim on the 3LP side can be made quite small- 120M compared to 340M on the 2LP side (now that you've shown me 85 is still 2LP!).
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-11-04, 17:47   #96
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

2·23·73 Posts
Default

I’ve enqueued 71111_329 per discussions here.

Greg has generously agreed to run the LA for it.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-10, 08:58   #97
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

43178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
QUEUED AS C202_3408_1693
This suggests sieving with specQ range of 60-360M should produce 850M relations. A good start at least.
I'm extending the sieving range for this one because I goofed and lost part of the relations file.

Last fiddled with by frmky on 2021-12-10 at 08:58
frmky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-16, 10:27   #98
Batalov
 
Batalov's Avatar
 
"Serge"
Mar 2008
Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2

100101110111002 Posts
Question

Let's maybe do a Cunnigham 2,2862L c282 as a sextic (diff.287) in small 16e framework? I would do the matrix.

(Note: 2862 is divisible by 9.)
Code:
#2,2862L c282
n: 545629750739501799280194070406487970378506858957770879330178979671814625379370778997434467805416136050292493686629273066713825676666897481896675700300513633128088404372464823275499457071462468015411161576673380683274045519676777704972676354086496793742260326047144865678794200433121
Y1: 604462909807314587353088
Y0: -730750818665451459101842416358141509827966271489
c6: 1
c5: 0
c4: -12
c3: -4
c2: 36
c1: 24
c0: -8
skew: 1.414
Batalov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2021-12-16, 12:56   #99
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

1101000111102 Posts
Default 2,2862L c282

This appears to be a 33/33 job, and quite in line with the 16_small performance envelope.

I can look at 2 vs 3 LPs, run test sieving etc. to at least establish a baseline job file.

Safe to assume ECM due diligence is met?
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queue management for e_small and 15e queues VBCurtis NFS@Home 254 2022-01-02 01:59
Queue management for 14e queue VBCurtis NFS@Home 77 2021-12-29 15:23
Run down the queue on MPRIME without quitting GIMPS Rodrigo Software 7 2018-05-25 13:26
Improving the queue management. debrouxl NFS@Home 10 2018-05-06 21:05
split a prime95 queue & client installation joblack Information & Answers 1 2009-01-06 08:45

All times are UTC. The time now is 04:32.


Mon Jan 24 04:32:13 UTC 2022 up 184 days, 23:01, 0 users, load averages: 1.17, 1.09, 1.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.

≠ ± ∓ ÷ × · − √ ‰ ⊗ ⊕ ⊖ ⊘ ⊙ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≺ ≻ ≼ ≽ ⊏ ⊐ ⊑ ⊒ ² ³ °
∠ ∟ ° ≅ ~ ‖ ⟂ ⫛
≡ ≜ ≈ ∝ ∞ ≪ ≫ ⌊⌋ ⌈⌉ ∘ ∏ ∐ ∑ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ⨀ ⊕ ⊗ 𝖕 𝖖 𝖗 ⊲ ⊳
∅ ∖ ∁ ↦ ↣ ∩ ∪ ⊆ ⊂ ⊄ ⊊ ⊇ ⊃ ⊅ ⊋ ⊖ ∈ ∉ ∋ ∌ ℕ ℤ ℚ ℝ ℂ ℵ ℶ ℷ ℸ 𝓟
¬ ∨ ∧ ⊕ → ← ⇒ ⇐ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∄ ∴ ∵ ⊤ ⊥ ⊢ ⊨ ⫤ ⊣ … ⋯ ⋮ ⋰ ⋱
∫ ∬ ∭ ∮ ∯ ∰ ∇ ∆ δ ∂ ℱ ℒ ℓ
𝛢𝛼 𝛣𝛽 𝛤𝛾 𝛥𝛿 𝛦𝜀𝜖 𝛧𝜁 𝛨𝜂 𝛩𝜃𝜗 𝛪𝜄 𝛫𝜅 𝛬𝜆 𝛭𝜇 𝛮𝜈 𝛯𝜉 𝛰𝜊 𝛱𝜋 𝛲𝜌 𝛴𝜎 𝛵𝜏 𝛶𝜐 𝛷𝜙𝜑 𝛸𝜒 𝛹𝜓 𝛺𝜔