mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Aliquot Sequences

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-03-23, 08:26   #12
10metreh
 
10metreh's Avatar
 
Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
Currently, it is stuck on a c103 (which I'm not going to do), so it's up for grabs.
I'll run the poly search.

Edit: very odd - msieve only found one poly! (And this is v1.40!)

Code:
n: 6715778986509437351659355479537317503862077567628701560157424823155957703109875481494795372990506112001
c0: 28509115761858954126279375
c1: -5610188709933878015066
c2: -299245357257746597
c3: 8739030406140
c4: 111593376
c5: 1320
Y0: -87357695058887796682
Y1: 39569762047
skew: 36124.47
I don't particularly want to sieve this, but can you check whether this performs well against other C103 polys?

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2009-03-23 at 09:04
10metreh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-23, 17:54   #13
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10metreh View Post
I'll run the poly search.

Edit: very odd - msieve only found one poly! (And this is v1.40!)

Code:
n: 6715778986509437351659355479537317503862077567628701560157424823155957703109875481494795372990506112001
c0: 28509115761858954126279375
c1: -5610188709933878015066
c2: -299245357257746597
c3: 8739030406140
c4: 111593376
c5: 1320
Y0: -87357695058887796682
Y1: 39569762047
skew: 36124.47
I don't particularly want to sieve this, but can you check whether this performs well against other C103 polys?
If you'd rather not do the sieving, I'll take it (though of course I won't start until someone's verified that the polynomial is OK).
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-23, 18:05   #14
10metreh
 
10metreh's Avatar
 
Nov 2008

44228 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
If you'd rather not do the sieving, I'll take it (though of course I won't start until someone's verified that the polynomial is OK).
BTW: I'd be happy to do the easy (i.e. computing iterations, doing small ECM etc.) work on this one.
10metreh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-23, 18:16   #15
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

141418 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10metreh View Post
BTW: I'd be happy to do the easy (i.e. computing iterations, doing small ECM etc.) work on this one.
Oh, I didn't mean I would take the whole sequence--just the C103. Sorry for any confusion there.

Though, of course, since it sounds like 4788 is going to be done as a group effort, that would be great if you'd like to do the ECM/computing iterations/etc. portion of the work for it.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-23, 18:23   #16
10metreh
 
10metreh's Avatar
 
Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Oh, I didn't mean I would take the whole sequence--just the C103. Sorry for any confusion there.

Though, of course, since it sounds like 4788 is going to be done as a group effort, that would be great if you'd like to do the ECM/computing iterations/etc. portion of the work for it.
The poly works fine, it's only its speed I was wondering about. You have done GNFSs in the C103 range (I think), so you should be able to check whether the poly is good and start now. Otherwise I'll get pol51 to find a poly.
10metreh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-23, 18:26   #17
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

11000011000012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10metreh View Post
The poly works fine, it's only its speed I was wondering about. You have done GNFSs in the C103 range (I think), so you should be able to check whether the poly is good and start now. Otherwise I'll get pol51 to find a poly.
Yes, I've done a number of C103 GNFSs; however, I never did remember to save the sec./rel numbers for any of them so I'm afraid that won't do much good.

Nonetheless, OK, I'll go ahead and give it a try. I should be able to get started on it sometime within the next few hours. I'll post the sec./rel amount here as soon as I get started, so others can do an approximate comparison with their figures.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2009-03-23 at 18:27
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-24, 05:00   #18
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

624110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Yes, I've done a number of C103 GNFSs; however, I never did remember to save the sec./rel numbers for any of them so I'm afraid that won't do much good.

Nonetheless, OK, I'll go ahead and give it a try. I should be able to get started on it sometime within the next few hours. I'll post the sec./rel amount here as soon as I get started, so others can do an approximate comparison with their figures.
Okay--the C103 has finished GNFS, and splits as follows:
Code:
prp37 factor: 6847689178574549212561159545722372429
prp66 factor: 980736539199553596521652049069316443450476568626535381565747233669
Here's a sec./rel readout taken from the end of the last q-range that was done:
total yield: 278800, q=1900009 (0.00686 sec/rel)
I presume that's within a reasonably normal range for an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2Ghz)? (Note: it may be slightly slower than normal for this CPU, since there were some other programs stealing a small amount of CPU cycles. Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too far out of normal range.)

I'll submit the factors to Syd's database shortly, and crank as many further lines as possible using the workers. I'll report back here as soon as I run into one that survives full ECM.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-24, 06:02   #19
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

The next line (2358) has a C92 that survived full ECM. My resources are completely tied up for tonight, so if anyone else wants to do QS on this, go ahead. If nobody's grabbed it by the time I get on tomorrow (probably late morning) I'll do it myself since things should be freed up a bit by then.

The number is:
Code:
23815769543009537132187278752799013868767385674615392411879275450950012601757447373080004859
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-24, 07:21   #20
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

32×72×13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Okay--the C103 has finished GNFS, and splits as follows:
Code:
prp37 factor: 6847689178574549212561159545722372429
prp66 factor: 980736539199553596521652049069316443450476568626535381565747233669
Here's a sec./rel readout taken from the end of the last q-range that was done:
total yield: 278800, q=1900009 (0.00686 sec/rel)
I presume that's within a reasonably normal range for an Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 (2.2Ghz)? (Note: it may be slightly slower than normal for this CPU, since there were some other programs stealing a small amount of CPU cycles. Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too far out of normal range.)

I'll submit the factors to Syd's database shortly, and crank as many further lines as possible using the workers. I'll report back here as soon as I run into one that survives full ECM.
i did a comparison with a pol51m0b poly that i generated in about 30 secs and i got about 0.0038 sec/rel for both although the pol51m0b seemed to be slightly slower if anything
how did you get such a bad time? i ran on a Q6600 overclocked to 3Ghz
i suspect you underestimated the amount the other program slowed it down
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-24, 07:28   #21
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryzz View Post
i did a comparison with a pol51m0b poly that i generated in about 30 secs and i got about 0.0038 sec/rel for both although the pol51m0b seemed to be slightly slower if anything
how did you get such a bad time? i ran on a Q6600 overclocked to 3Ghz
i suspect you underestimated the amount the other program slowed it down
Well, the other program (mprime, which I have doing TF on both cores at lowest priority to soak up any otherwise-wasted CPU cycles between factorization jobs) that was running normally doesn't take any more than 7-10% of the CPU at a time, so it couldn't have been nearly that much. Something seems a little fishy there...

Here, I've got an idea. I'll try again with the same polynomial as before, in approximately a similar q-range, but this time set to a nice value of -20. That should ensure that nothing else gets in its way. I'll report back here with my results in a few minutes.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-24, 07:35   #22
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Here, I've got an idea. I'll try again with the same polynomial as before, in approximately a similar q-range, but this time set to a nice value of -20. That should ensure that nothing else gets in its way. I'll report back here with my results in a few minutes.
Okay, I've tried that, with no other applications running, and got the exact same thing:

total yield: 2149, q=1900511 (0.00638 sec/rel)

BTW--I've got a taskbar gadget that reads out my CPU temperatures continuously and they're well below the throttle limit, so thermal throttling can be ruled out as the cause of any problems.

Edit: Oh, wait! I just realized what's going on. henryzz, are you by chance using the 64-bit version of gnfs-lasieve4I12e? I'm using the 32-bit version, which of course is about half as fast--so that would explain the discrepancy perfectly.

Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2009-03-24 at 07:36
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reserved for MF - Sequence 3366 RichD Aliquot Sequences 432 2020-10-29 00:57
Primes in n-fibonacci sequence and n-step fibonacci sequence sweety439 And now for something completely different 17 2017-06-13 03:49
ECM for c166 from 4788:2661 frmky Aliquot Sequences 36 2011-04-28 06:27
ECM work on 4788:2549.c170 schickel Aliquot Sequences 51 2011-01-05 02:32
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved petrw1 Lone Mersenne Hunters 82 2010-01-11 01:57

All times are UTC. The time now is 02:50.

Thu Oct 29 02:50:23 UTC 2020 up 49 days, 1 min, 1 user, load averages: 1.96, 1.69, 1.64

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.