![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus
24×52 Posts |
![]()
Here we'll collect potential GNFS targets which need some more ECM work. Usually ECM is stopped when the expected factor size is about 31% of GNFS difficulty.
Sean Wellman already suggested some candidates. There's a small table with work-to-do information (r means reserved): Code:
Composite | 300M | -------------|--------| C194_144_91 | done | fivemack 07-Jan-2017; 23040 completed 24-Jan-2017, no factor C195_130_121 | r/25k | C195_148_83 | r/25k | fivemack 01-Feb-2017; 25600 completed 25-Feb-2017, no factor C196_135_124 | r/30k | fivemack 20-Mar-2017; 30720 completed 07-Apr-2017, no factor C196_146_83 | 0/30k | C197_149_70 | 0/35k | C198_143_115 | 0/40k | C198_143_98 | 0/40k | There are also some larger targets: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...3&postcount=66 Any ECM help will be greatly appreciated :-) Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2017-04-07 at 22:38 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2·7·461 Posts |
![]()
I will throw 18000@110e6 at C177_127_126
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus
24·52 Posts |
![]()
C182_147_125 will go to NFSNET without any 850M?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
144668 Posts |
![]()
I believe yoyo@home did a t60 on C182_147_125, though I can no longer find it in the logs. In any case I'm happy to go to GNFS.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Sep 2008
Kansas
34·47 Posts |
![]()
From the XY queue.
Code:
DONE(1431617275) C182_147_125 42000 260000000 12093067009074704252675846002984141121780806423978283707584938383776570609066866061171700718946230640458535178724274435114415218181957483177454610233405802361841498168902737677281291 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Jun 2012
23×13×37 Posts |
![]()
I'll run ECM on C173_146_90 for 18k curves @B1=110.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
193616 Posts |
![]()
Factor 23172365109205234480749903714762635294556007388744597227 found for C177_127_126
Running some@110e6 on C175_131_96 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Jun 2012
23·13·37 Posts |
![]()
C173_146_90 is fully factored
prp53 = 47267995382581897196022456493523794792603190460855617 curve 689 stg2 B1=110000000 sigma=1435980417 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Jun 2012
F0816 Posts |
![]()
I will run ECM on this number for 18000 curves. Thanks.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
2·7·461 Posts |
![]() Code:
Composite | 110M | 260M | 850M | C175_131_96 | 0/18k | 0/30k | | C190_149_91 | 0/18k | 0/42k | 0/60k | On the hardware here, sieving C175_131_96 using a polynomial that results from only two hours of polynomial search would take about 300M relations to be gathered in about 42 million thread-seconds, whilst one curve at 110M takes 943 seconds and at 260M takes about 2200 seconds; 30k curves at 260M would be a lot longer than the sieving! For C190_149_91, one curve at 850M is 6200 seconds, and 500M relations with a quickly-sought polynomial is about 650 million seconds, so the proposed ECM would take something like 75% as long as the sieving; still a bit much. Maybe 20k@850M rather than 60k to get the ECM time in case of failure down to a third of the sieving time. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Jan 2005
Minsk, Belarus
24×52 Posts |
![]()
I overestimated the sieving time. Now it looks better probably.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ready GNFS targets | XYYXF | XYYXF Project | 87 | 2022-04-27 10:59 |
SNFS targets which need more ECM | XYYXF | XYYXF Project | 57 | 2017-07-04 19:15 |
Ready SNFS targets | XYYXF | XYYXF Project | 25 | 2016-11-20 21:35 |
3,697+ (GNFS 220.9) | pinhodecarlos | NFS@Home | 0 | 2014-12-24 19:13 |
3,766+ (GNFS 215.5) | pinhodecarlos | NFS@Home | 34 | 2014-04-01 21:27 |