|
2022-01-21, 16:40
|
#23 |
Sep 2009
91F16 Posts |
What model is your CPU and how many cores has it got? Just saying it's i9 isn't enough (there are several models of i9).
What polynomial did you find for the 100 digit test number? That will tell us how well you have things working. To use CUDA you will need a Nvidia GPU and a fair amount of time to get it working. A one off job will probably take longer to get CUDA working than it will save factoring the number. Or you could post the number to the "Polynomial Request Thread" in the Msieve forum and ask someone else to find a polynomial for you. Last fiddled with by chris2be8 on 2022-01-21 at 16:51 Reason: Mention Polynomial Request Thread |
|
|
|
2022-01-21, 19:32
|
#24 | |
|
Jan 2022
19 Posts |
Quote:
p50 factor: 78150410244532086207477976585474103072228479860491 p50 factor: 90188340437269674235154778537705218377404620911427 |
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-22, 11:01
|
#25 |
|
Jan 2022
19 Posts |
Another question arises: how does RAM affect search? And does it affect at all?
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-22, 13:33
|
#26 |
Apr 2020
2×5×71 Posts |
Factorization speed does not depend on RAM, but for large numbers the postprocessing phase is RAM-intensive and this puts an upper limit on the size of numbers that can be run on a given machine. 16GB is enough to handle up to ~190 digits, and 32GB gets you over 200 digits. But such large numbers would take a long time to sieve anyway; I'd guess ~6 months for 190-digit GNFS on your i9-9900k using CADO, slightly longer with GGNFS/msieve.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-22, 17:21
|
#27 |
|
Jan 2022
1910 Posts |
I have 128 GB of RAM
And I need to look for a 154-digit number. |
|
|
|
|
2022-01-22, 19:09
|
#28 |
|
Apr 2020
13068 Posts |
You'll never have any RAM issues with 128GB.
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-25, 19:18
|
#29 |
Aug 2020
79*6581e-4;3*2539e-3
503 Posts |
As mentioned earlier you can roughly go by the rule that sieiving times double per 5 additional digits.
I have a i10-10900k that takes about 3-4 days for a 155 digit number. Should be similar in your case. Actually if you only want to factor this one number and that's it, I would just go for it. If there's trouble you loose a few days, nothing too dramatic. Maybe you'll find yourself get hooked by factorization though... Last fiddled with by bur on 2022-01-25 at 19:18 |
|
|
|
|
2022-01-26, 12:39
|
#30 |
|
Jan 2022
19 Posts |
Thank you all very much.
Found it in 4 days. |
|
|
|
|
2022-01-27, 16:00
|
#31 |
|
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
35·41 Posts |
Ok, now you know how it's done, come and factor few numbers here, for example, aliquot sequences, or other stuff...
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-27, 21:55
|
#32 |
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
26×11 Posts |
@Lessiv: Could you please post the number (if you factored it)?
|
|
|
|
|
2022-01-28, 11:14
|
#33 | |
|
Jan 2022
19 Posts |
Quote:
Unfortunately, these numbers are confidential, this is used. for business. And I want to warn6 I don’t use anything criminal, I don’t hack anyone and I don’t harm anyone. I honor and respect the laws! |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Breakthrough in Very Large Integer factorization? | jpcu1237 | Tales From the Crypt(o) | 18 | 2020-07-16 22:23 |
| Methods of attacking a large factorization | CRGreathouse | Factoring | 55 | 2014-04-11 15:05 |
| An equivalent problem for factorization of large numbers | HellGauss | Math | 5 | 2012-04-12 14:01 |
| Fermat numbers factorization | ET_ | Factoring | 15 | 2008-03-12 21:24 |
| How do I get LARGE numbers | Bundu | Software | 5 | 2004-08-26 01:56 |
