mersenneforum.org Planning & Coordination for 2,2330L
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2019-04-17, 03:59 #23 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 13×367 Posts The previous record for C207 deg5 is 1.63e-15. For C206, it's 2.111e-15 (note: we found this a month ago, and it nearly broke the record for C205; it's a really good score for C206). In general, if I ever break the record for one digit smaller than my candidate, I cease poly select and head straight to sieving. If I've done more than half the "reasonable" poly select time and I break the record for my candidate size, I'm quitting and sieving. For this job, I'd take a 1.85 right now, a 1.75 at the end of the month, and I'll hold out for a 1.65 for quite a while. Each digit of difficulty should be roughly 15% better score than one digit tougher; a poly in the low 1.8's would be "as good" as the 2.111 was last month for the C206. The first digit of this number is 3, so we're not super likely to crush the previous record (if the leading digit was 1, I'd add 5% = almost a tenth to all these hoped-for scores). Max may have other ideas/hopes.
 2019-04-17, 04:24 #24 Max0526   "Max" Jun 2016 Toronto 71510 Posts expected E score I say, let's beat 1.63e-15 first. My best lucky spin would be 18% up (raw score times 1.18). So keep posting anything above 1.38e-15 for now.
 2019-04-17, 08:19 #25 DukeBG   Mar 2018 3·43 Posts Is there a guarantee that a higher Murphy's E score means (faster and) better sieving? I haven't ran that many jobs (and not at this size anyway), but for those I tried testsieving a bunch of polys (with ggnfs) i didn't see 1:1 correspondence in order by rels/s and order by e score. I'ld say maybe start test sieving polys as they come asap before finding the blessed champion score poly?
2019-04-17, 08:59   #26
axn

Jun 2003

22×3×7×59 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DukeBG Is there a guarantee that a higher Murphy's E score means (faster and) better sieving?
As a first order approximation, yes. However, if that was all there to it, no one would do any test sieving, but we do. However, we don't do test sieving on all polys, only the top x with the highest Murphy E scores (maybe those that are within 10% of the largest).

2019-04-17, 13:59   #27
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

477110 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DukeBG Is there a guarantee that a higher Murphy's E score means (faster and) better sieving? I haven't ran that many jobs (and not at this size anyway), but for those I tried testsieving a bunch of polys (with ggnfs) i didn't see 1:1 correspondence in order by rels/s and order by e score. I'ld say maybe start test sieving polys as they come asap before finding the blessed champion score poly?
CADO's method of calculating E-score has a stronger correspondence with sieve performance than msieve's. I usually test-sieve any poly within 5% of the best-scoring poly, but when CADO generates the polys I haven't seen variances from score higher than 3% (perhaps due to small sample- I've only tested a dozen or so from CADO, but hundreds from msieve).

For this job, I'll be willing to test-sieve any poly with 0.1 of the best-scoring poly. Others are invited to chip in their own testing!

 2019-04-17, 16:08 #28 fivemack (loop (#_fork))     Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 13·491 Posts I don't know whether CADO has done more work on efficient sieving with very large skews. I trial-sieved the 1.414, 1.424, 1.496 polynomials that appeared here, using gnfs-lasieve4I16e, and indeed the speeds (about 3.3s/rel, about 2.9s/rel, about 2.6s/rel) are in the same order as the E-values, but my suspicion is that that's mostly to do with the spinning process having made the skew significantly smaller. I tend to trial-sieve the top 32 or 40 E-values that I see, and the best-sieving one has always been from the top-10 but isn't that often the top-1. Last fiddled with by fivemack on 2019-04-17 at 16:11
 2019-04-18, 02:50 #29 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 5·983 Posts Yoyo ECM at B1 = 850,000,000; 8,630 / 9,000 curves.
 2019-04-19, 07:24 #30 pinhodecarlos     "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 10011001100112 Posts Could we have a step by step guide on how to install and then point the cores to the CADO server please? Much appreciated. Carlos
 2019-04-19, 08:03 #31 vebis     Oct 2015 22×17 Posts Code: n: 334377437706404684733884220732190564550147039308686365251932207592010868660163280944362994773042289837865752943086095333357861608005044927356022538834108845220872215597190097852981295940487497385774178731621 skew: 533132.085 c0: 13400871167573270650087884944996454257736480 c1: 170662016202584202246103429104502541792 c2: -106489302432833541662856860257198 c3: -1862164478135527803969537503 c4: 375011464350515249437 c5: 1161035722389120 c6: 848502000 Y0: -1694165626316187446160079002429297 Y1: 428100302665617359981 # MurphyE (Bf=3.436e+10,Bg=1.718e+10,area=5.469e+16) = 1.45e-08 # found by revision 9436c2ff8 # f(x) = 848502000*x^6+1161035722389120*x^5+375011464350515249437*x^4-1862164478135527803969537503*x^3-106489302432833541662856860257198*x^2+170662016202584202246103429104502541792*x+13400871167573270650087884944996454257736480 # g(x) = 428100302665617359981*x-1694165626316187446160079002429297 My best (deg-6) Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 2019-04-19 at 13:57 Reason: Clarification; VBCurtis: changed quote tags to code tags
2019-04-19, 10:39   #32
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22·5·373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pinhodecarlos Yoyo ECM at B1 = 850,000,000; 8,630 / 9,000 curves.
Work on this number has slowed almost to a stop and there seem to be no
new numbers in the queue.

2019-04-19, 11:42   #33
swellman

Jun 2012

1011101100012 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman Work on this number has slowed almost to a stop and there seem to be no new numbers in the queue.
Yoyo is aware of the required ECM work for this composite, and has it in queue for another 9000 curves. The server automagically activates the next job when appropriate. It can be maddening to watch the last few curves drip in for a 99% completed task and the next number just won’t seem to advance. A characteristic of BOINC? Fewer WUs to hand out so slower progress towards the end of a task? I don’t know.

But it will get there.

(Note that DONE status indicates the ECM work has started on a number. The graphic indicator sometimes lags this event a few hours.)

Last fiddled with by swellman on 2019-04-19 at 11:43

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post ixfd64 Lone Mersenne Hunters 81 2021-04-17 20:47 henryzz Cunningham Tables 16 2010-08-07 05:08 gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 2 2008-02-16 03:28 gd_barnes Conjectures 'R Us 32 2008-01-22 03:09 wblipp ElevenSmooth 2 2004-02-19 05:25

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:02.

Thu May 6 23:02:30 UTC 2021 up 28 days, 17:43, 0 users, load averages: 2.88, 2.53, 2.34