mersenneforum.org Extension to the Base 2 tables from 1300 to 1500, LM to 3000
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-06-12, 13:43 #23 ryanp     Jun 2012 Boulder, CO 409 Posts Got an ECM hit on the 2+ table yesterday. Code: GMP-ECM 7.0.5-dev [configured with GMP 6.2.0, GWNUM 30.4, --enable-asm-redc, --enable-assert] [ECM] Due to incompatible licenses, this binary file must not be distributed. Input number is (2^1361+1)/228211667657412909230323001705434042549018058879196001936615244070298287105666185870832703670953992780536531240215594078779119204857385398683700824873931077687558812068274836107 (234 digits) Using B1=850000000, B2=15892628251516, polynomial Dickson(30), sigma=1:3479069830 Step 1 took 2572853ms Step 2 took 495384ms ********** Factor found in step 2: 6901216084212062896491856436448111443188245170307294941500166249 Found prime factor of 64 digits: 6901216084212062896491856436448111443188245170307294941500166249 Composite cofactor ((2^1361+1)/228211667657412909230323001705434042549018058879196001936615244070298287105666185870832703670953992780536531240215594078779119204857385398683700824873931077687558812068274836107)/6901216084212062896491856436448111443188245170307294941500166249 has 170 digits I'm going to take the remaining c170 via GNFS.
2022-06-12, 16:00   #24
xilman
Bamboozled!

"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

11,423 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ryanp Got an ECM hit on the 2+ table yesterday. ... I'm going to take the remaining c170 via GNFS.
Nice work!

Interesting the second stage took so much less time than the first. To me that suggests you could raise B2 substantially unless it takes too much memory. Theoretical optimum is to spend equal effort in each stage.

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2022-06-12 at 16:02

2022-06-12, 16:10   #25
charybdis

Apr 2020

32×89 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Theoretical optimum is to spend equal effort in each stage.
Hmmm, can you point me to a reference for this? Surely the optimum ratio is implementation dependent?

2022-06-12, 16:23   #26
mathwiz

Mar 2019

2×3×72 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by xilman Nice work! Interesting the second stage took so much less time than the first. To me that suggests you could raise B2 substantially unless it takes too much memory. Theoretical optimum is to spend equal effort in each stage.
Would that be better than just letting GMP-ECM pick a B2?

Last fiddled with by mathwiz on 2022-06-12 at 16:25

2022-06-12, 23:16   #27
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

124028 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by charybdis Hmmm, can you point me to a reference for this? Surely the optimum ratio is implementation dependent?
This "spend equal time on stage 1 and stage 2" was pushed really hard by RDS years ago, and the paper he wrote that caused him to push this so hard itself showed stage 2 using much less time than stage 1. Explanations about the difference ranged from "implementation hiccup, it's theoretically correct" to a big shrug.

When using GMP-ECM, stage 2 time half of stage 1, or a bit less (like 40%), appears optimal via experiment. Alas, GMP-ECM itself does not follow that by default when B1 is above 300M or so, as shown by Ryan's result here.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Uncwilly PrimeNet 32 2020-08-22 21:24 LaurV Data 9 2019-04-14 00:13 vsuite GPU Computing 7 2017-07-10 20:45 ET_ Operation Billion Digits 5 2012-06-12 08:48 bsquared Factoring 9 2007-05-18 19:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:25.

Sat Aug 13 21:25:30 UTC 2022 up 37 days, 16:12, 2 users, load averages: 1.42, 1.52, 1.35