mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Operation Kibibit

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-12-06, 05:35   #34
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

3×5×137 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
the more effective root sieve developed by Shi Bai
Steal it and put it in msieve?
frmky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-11, 22:07   #35
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

3·5·137 Posts
Default

From my 1.3 million stage 1 hits, so far I've gotten a

# norm 4.371817e-20 alpha -11.383344 e 2.347e-19 rroots 4

The run continues...
frmky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-12, 01:49   #36
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

2×3×19×31 Posts
Default

I sent a batch of hits computed with a cutoff of 5e33 instead of the previous 1e33, and apparently the polynomials generated with the looser cutoff are similar in quality. So if you use 5e33 for the stage1_norm you'll generate hits about 5x faster.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-12, 09:17   #37
pinhodecarlos
 
pinhodecarlos's Avatar
 
"Carlos Pinho"
Oct 2011
Milton Keynes, UK

24·3·101 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
and then run

msieve -v -np1 "stage1_norm=5e33 X,Y"

where X and Y is a range of numbers with magnitude 10^12 to 10^15.
So it's better to update first post.

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2012-12-12 at 12:32 Reason: yup, done
pinhodecarlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-13, 23:52   #38
bai
 
May 2011

23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poily View Post
Here's my slightly better (according to msieve) polynomial
Code:
SKEW 28338177.70                                                                                                    
R0 -3626941552197564826492128852700460060642852                                                                     
R1 48957407582916194761589                                                                                          
A0 -26101732745933806144485280988037796254029367990700826499285                                                     
A1 -2408464141902741608017790242140644715688145388490381                                                            
A2 -174314770228113076791419006080421369720970639                                                                   
A3 28697722660097589508721192118263624637                                                                           
A4 1036456362256909021188219944324                                                                                  
A5 -21292410351587764080336                                                                                         
A6 181000001476800 
skew 28338177.70, size 4.381e-20, alpha -12.189, combined = 2.348e-19 rroots = 2
jasonp, what score does CADO show for your or my polynomial?
Hi poily, in cado, it's
Code:
Y1: 48957407582916194761589
Y0: -3626941552197564826492128852700460060642852
c6: 181000001476800
c5: -21292410351587764080336
c4: 1036456362256909021188219944324
c3: 28697722660097589508721192118263624637
c2: -174314770228113076791419006080421369720970639
c1: -2408464141902741608017790242140644715688145388490381
c0: -26101732745933806144485280988037796254029367990700826499285
skew: 20504576.000
# lognorm: 83.45, alpha: -12.19 (proj: -3.18), E: 71.26, nr: 2
# MurphyE(Bf=10000000,Bg=5000000,area=1.00e+16)=3.39e-19

Last fiddled with by bai on 2012-12-13 at 23:53
bai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 01:30   #39
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

2×3×19×31 Posts
Default

Msieve computes an E-value of 2.339e-19 when using the skew computed by CADO. Would it be worthwhile to find out what causes such big differences?
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 09:31   #40
poily
 
Nov 2010

5010 Posts
Default

Ok, here are about 1.8M hits for the new bound 5e33. It seems the tighter bound was better: with 1e33 as a bound on stage 1 after size optimizations I saw norms of about Xe32 whereas the new bound gives only Xe33 and worse. The best e for this pack was about 2.2e-19.

Bai, I used E.sage from the public CADO repository and got almost the same Murphy e values as msieve shows. Do you compute it somehow different now?

Last fiddled with by poily on 2012-12-14 at 09:35
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 16:13   #41
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
Would it be worthwhile to find out what causes such big differences?
As a bystander who has no knowledge of either how to go about such finding out or how much work it might be, I would be very interested in the results. (poily's post directly above this makes it all the more interesting!)
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 16:26   #42
debrouxl
 
debrouxl's Avatar
 
Sep 2009

17218 Posts
Default

For the purposes of generating several hits with CPUs (as I can't currently use my GPU...) more quickly, I resurrected poily's MPI polsel patch, from http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...39&postcount=9 .
Mainline msieve changed somewhat since then (e.g. separation of the size optimization and the root sieve), so I started by upgrading and expanding the additions to the code; I also changed whitespace to follow the coding convention of the surrounding code more closely

That allowed the computer to produce a number of hits with:
$ mpirun -n 6 msieve -np1 "stage1_norm=2e33 1100000000000,1100010000000" -v

I think it would be great to see the MPI polsel patch integrated to mainline msieve. This way, every user of multi-threaded polsel (even on a single computer) would benefit without having to apply (and upgrade) an out of tree patch
However, AFAICS, the patch requires improvements before this can happen. Indeed, I noticed that when a child process has finished working ("polynomial selection complete"), it sticks its core to 100% usage. One of the processes found no suitable leading coefficient in its range and gave up on polsel immediately; after ~2h47 of CPU time wasted by that one, soon after another process had exhausted its range as well, I tried to kill one of the inactive processes... which killed all of its siblings, as I should have expected...
293 stage 1 hits generated in ~10h40 CPU time on Xeon E3-1230 @ 3.2 GHz.

I have zero MPI experience, and therefore, no clue how to make finished jobs not waste significant CPU power
Attached Files
File Type: zip mpi_polysel_mod.diff.zip (1.7 KB, 121 views)
debrouxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 18:01   #43
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

2×3×19×31 Posts
Default

The patch makes all the MPI processes wait at a barrier when poly selection is finishing, and my experience with OpenMPI is that this is a computationally expensive operation. I suspect that's what is burning up 100% CPU.

Unfortunately there's no real way around that, if you wanted processes to stop waiting on each other then you wouldn't be using barrier synchronization; put another way, MPI is a poor substitute for a distributed client-server architecture :)
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-14, 20:22   #44
firejuggler
 
firejuggler's Avatar
 
Apr 2010
Over the rainbow

2×1,259 Posts
Default

ran a 15 min 'search' on a 560, got 227 hit, best poly

Code:
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  Msieve v. 1.51 (SVN 766)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  random seeds: ccf343ec 7dcd68de
Fri Dec 14 21:18:19 2012  factoring 412023436986659543855531365332575948179811699844327982845455626433876445565248426198098870423161841879261420247188869492560931776375033421130982397485150944909106910269861031862704114880866970564902903653658867433731720813104105190864254793282601391257624033946373269391 (270 digits)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  no P-1/P+1/ECM available, skipping
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  commencing number field sieve (270-digit input)
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  commencing number field sieve polynomial selection
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  polynomial degree: 6
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  max stage 1 norm: 1.08e+035
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  max stage 2 norm: 1.05e+035
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  min E-value: 0.00e+000
Fri Dec 14 21:18:21 2012  poly select deadline: 1079999
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  polynomial selection complete
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  R0: -3334009071282816277832905784211277620964254
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  R1: 100281358245707420758237
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A0: 372828901627475347894334652824133151170797461276260673
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A1: 77826863799406908305447316219479205604506482315
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A2: -8440449792077225990613216882014698768493181
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A3: -434343399475320970345769932599595433
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A4: 27102576369602076901509411656588
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A5: 139702468047107462100798
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  A6: 300000002082000
Fri Dec 14 21:20:02 2012  skew 1498026.43, size 1.811e-020, alpha -8.436, combined = 1.092e-019 rroots = 4
(yeah I know, score is pretty bad, but thats a 15 min run)
and the msieve.dat.m file to be run in cado
Attached Files
File Type: zip msieve.dat.m.zip (6.3 KB, 113 views)

Last fiddled with by firejuggler on 2012-12-14 at 21:09
firejuggler is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volunteers needed axn GPU Computing 28 2012-05-28 12:05
call for volunteers: RSA768 polynomial selection jasonp Operation Kibibit 200 2011-11-05 21:31
Call for help Wacky NFSNET Discussion 13 2005-07-14 00:25
Volunteers needed! Xyzzy Hardware 23 2003-04-18 23:27
We need two volunteers... Xyzzy PrimeNet 8 2003-02-27 02:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:24.

Fri Jan 22 19:24:08 UTC 2021 up 50 days, 15:35, 0 users, load averages: 1.95, 2.05, 2.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.