20071213, 17:35  #12  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
1024_{10} Posts 
Quote:
from 93 on Sunday, to 90 then 89 then 86. I've taken the opportunity to reset eight cpus that people had rebooted since I last did resets on Sunday. I could probably pick up a few more, but it's finals week here; primetime for user complaints (these are Macs in our digital lab, running the nfsnet version of the line siever), so I'll hold off for next week. One can also see Saturday's cpu count down to 76; looks like there was an extra quota of resets on Friday. Not that resets here are the only source of variations; but my impression is that the other two large contributors are more stable. Again, here's your chance to make a bump in the cpu count; if our max goes up above 93, that'd be due to your cpu(s). Bruce 

20071213, 20:09  #13 
Sep 2004
2·5·283 Posts 
Sam replied and as soon as he permits I'll post his reply...it's very funny. The link was added by him as a joke!!!!
Carlos Last fiddled with by em99010pepe on 20071213 at 20:15 
20071214, 13:57  #14  
Nov 2003
2^{2}·5·373 Posts 
Quote:
I have finished sieving 6,299 and have started 2,776+. 

20071214, 18:27  #15  
Jun 2005
lehigh.edu
400_{16} Posts 
Quote:
from the line siever. Both Greg and now Richard are lattice sieving; and the count yesterday was Quote:
the line siever (without too much attention); as well as contributions from experienced lattice sieving people. To recall, the number in question is a base2, M787, which has been the #1 most wanted number on Sam's Cunningham page for some time. Bruce 

20071214, 21:23  #16 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}·11^{2} Posts 
I estimate about one more week for 2,787.
During that time, I hope to get the version of the lattice siever that puts out tracking info from its current manually run state to something that will work like our linesiever. 
20071214, 22:04  #17 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
3×19×113 Posts 
I've added that information to the stats page. Effectively distributed lattice sieving will be a fantastic addition to nfsnet; I suspect linear algebra will start to be the bottleneck on numbers not very much larger than the present morewanteds.
I presume from the most recent Wagstaff circular that 2,787+ is the next project; what are the plans for the one after that? 
20071214, 22:53  #18 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}×11^{2} Posts 
After 2.787+ ... well, that is next year :)
As for the LA being the bottleneck, that partly depends on Paul. With at least 3 of us capable of handling a reasonably large matrix, I'm not sure that we cannot keep ahead of the sievers. If we pick something sufficiently difficult, we might even be able to allow "off line" sievers to participate and still have time to send in their relations by banana boat. 6,383+ might be interesting .... :) 
20071215, 00:41  #19  
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
3×19×113 Posts 
Quote:
Fitting a curve to the last few runs suggests that weight hits 8e8 at about 825 bits and 1e9 around SNFS difficulty 255 (850 bits), which is just above anything in the current wanted list. I did some parameter selection for 2,841 and got an expected runtime with lattice sieving using the source code from ggnfs.sourceforge.net of about 12 GHzyears, or not very many weeks on a hundred modern CPUs. 6+383 is, I reckon, no more than 4 GHzyears; a minnow too small to be worthy of the appetite of the enhancedNFSnet whale ... I hope I am well into verifying that with proper choice of parameters a 516bit GNFS is not significantly more than 1 GHzyear, and a large enough whale might be able to take a good bite into 170digits territory. Sadly, 170digits territory is fairly bare; 2^2154+1, given that 2,2154L is done and 2,2154M reduced to C171 ? Last fiddled with by fivemack on 20071215 at 00:42 

20071215, 11:36  #20  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
2·5,477 Posts 
Quote:
That is well under 1GHzyear. I doubt very much that the postprocessing will take the total cost over 1 GHzyear. Paul 

20071221, 20:11  #21 
Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country
3^{2}×11^{2} Posts 
Well, we now have about 90M unique relations for 2,787.
The sievers are switched to 2,787+. It should take a few weeks. Greg reports the factors of 10,239 c228 as prp54 factor: 383155477843726029783939406113226468701730728790004161 prp81 factor: 128780300340244872385688233345188210841783983757299260103530718169486826135819357 prp94 factor: 3290967632861131703281828943635774383301940171982919699073443165222894023742681701403432993547 
20080107, 22:59  #22 
(loop (#_fork))
Feb 2006
Cambridge, England
3·19·113 Posts 
I've updated the nfsnet.html page; sorry, I'd got out of the habit over Christmas. Roughly how many relations have the latticesievers brought in to date?
How's the linear algebra for 2,787 going? Assuming there were no power outages over Christmas, it ought to be finished pretty soon. Tom 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Considering current hardware on the status page  petrw1  PrimeNet  20  20070524 18:10 
Current status  fivemack  NFSNET Discussion  90  20061113 13:37 
Current Status  moo  LMH > 100M  0  20060902 01:15 
Current status "fishing"  HiddenWarrior  Operation Billion Digits  1  20050819 21:42 
Current Status of the Cunningham Tables  rogue  Cunningham Tables  4  20050610 18:28 