Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 361 to 386 of 386

Thread: P-1 factorer

  1. #361
    Senior Member dmbrubac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    112
    Is it me or did we loose a bunch of factorer's?

    (EDIT: removed reserved ranges from post. /ceselb)
    Last edited by ceselb; 03-16-2004 at 03:25 PM.

  2. #362
    Sieve it, baby!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Potsdam, Germany
    Posts
    959
    Originally posted by dmbrubac
    Is it me or did we loose a bunch of factorer's?
    Well, I'm currently using my P4 for Riesel PRPing. I likely switch back when my range there is complete - which should still take approx. 2 more weeks...

  3. #363
    Senior Member Frodo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jutland, Denmark
    Posts
    299
    I just found another of these blasted factors ...
    3 | 55459*2^5769706+1
    I had the hope that this bug was removed with the new version of the factorer, but sadly that does not seem to be the case ...

  4. #364
    I would like to set a P4 on factoring but the file won't run I'm not sure what i need to do to get it running. What files do i need with it can i just download the factoring package from the link above adn will it run after that. What about updating the results.txt file? When i run it it just opens and then shuts the window before i see what it says. am i maybe missing something. Do i need ot edit the bat file or perhaps something else?

  5. #365
    Senior Member dmbrubac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    112
    I assume you are on Windows.
    Open a command prompt and navigate to the directory with sobsieve. Better yet use the the "Command Window Here" powertoy available from Microsoft.
    type run start end then enter.
    For instance on one of my machines I've typed run 5880000 5882000

  6. #366
    I love 67607
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    752
    As dmdrubac suggested, you should:

    Click start,
    Click run,
    Browse, and find run.bat, click open
    Add your nmin and nmax at the very end of the command line at run window,
    Click ok.

    I guess that would solve your problem.


    But, before that, if you want, you can also edit the run.bat file. I guess it should be as below in the original file.

    @ECHO OFF
    IF !%2==! GOTO BADFORMAT
    sbfactor.exe %1 %2 47 1.5 256
    :BADFORMAT

    Things to think about changing:

    47: As there is only 30% of the range is left on the 2^27 to 2^48 range at sieving, I think you might consider changing it to 48 (the effect will be lower B1 and B2 determined by the program, thus faster finish time per test. If you change to 48, it will not look for possible factors below 2^48. Therefore, you will end up with less factors per test. As I've mentioned above, as more than 70% of the ranges between 2^47 and 2^48 is already sieved, that will not be much of a problem in terms of the project.)

    1.5: I guess anything between 1.2 and 1.5 would be fair for the moment.

    256: I think you should lower this to something below 200 if your machine uses 256 MB of ram. It it's more than that, no need to change.


    PS: Do not forget to update your results.txt file from the link above. This might save you from testing one (or more) tests for the k/n pairs for which a factor was found within the last couple of days since the package was compiled.

  7. #367
    can the factorer be modified so that stage one and stage 2 can be done seperatly. Perhaps on different machines so that a machine that has large amounts of mamory can concentrate on only doing the second stage and other machines that don't have alot of memory can perform the first stage and still be productive once sieving becomes a little less favorable than it is now. I've been noticing myself that the benefits of sieving has decreased and will continue to do so. Once we reach about 500T It'll be pretty pointless to continue except for the fact that machines that don't have internet connections and have low memory would otherwise be useless to the projet.

  8. #368
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    can the factorer be modified so that stage one and stage 2 can be done seperatly.
    Yes it can. As I see it the main problem is that the current format for the save files doesn't support 'stage 1 done' as a state.

    Perhaps on different machines so that a machine that has large amounts of mamory can concentrate on only doing the second stage and other machines that don't have alot of memory can perform the first stage
    There's been a little talk about that in the ' SOURCE CODE RELEASED FOR FACTORER' thread (which hasn't been active in the last 60 days, so ou might need to change that setting to see it the thread listing) - We can even split stage 2 among several machines.

    (Well If I'm going to do it, the main problem is that the code is terrible to work with, it's C with way too many global variables and .c files including other .c files. - The fact that I got practically no comments on the changes I made doesn't help on my wish to work on in).
    Last edited by hc_grove; 04-10-2004 at 05:48 PM.

  9. #369
    well i have some experience programming in C but no knowledge of P-1 factoring. If i can get a copy of the source maybe some time when I'm bored i can spend a few hours pouring over it and try ot neaten it up a little. I can't promise i won't muck things up though. Exactly howmany files and of what size are there?

    How much work are we taling about? Hours/days/weeks/ not in my lifetime.?

  10. #370
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    well i have some experience programming in C but no knowledge of P-1 factoring.
    I don't think much is needed. You don't have to modify the function doing the factoring.


    If i can get a copy of the source
    There should be plenty of links in the source code thread, but else the newest version I've uploaded is
    here


    maybe some time when I'm bored i can spend a few hours pouring over it
    and try ot neaten it up a little. I can't promise i won't muck things up though. Exactly howmany files and of what size are there?


    There are quite a few files in that zip, but only 5-7 relevant, each containing about a few hundred lines of code. (AFAIR)


    How much work are we taling about? Hours/days/weeks/ not in my lifetime.?
    That probably depend on your ambitions. I guess a lot could be done in a couple of hours.

  11. #371
    Well that is encouraging this weekend I'm of course busy wiht the holidays and next week i will be working nearly 60 hours so i can't hope to get much done but next weekend i should have acouple days of peace and quiet so I'll probably sit down and work on it then. Unless of course anyone familiar with the code would like ot tackle it before then.

  12. #372
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    132
    Input: sbfactor 6110000 6111000 [depth] [value] [mem]

    If [depth]=48 and [value]<1.2 it gives this error (sbfactor 1.2 et 1.25.5):
    B1=0 B2=0 Success=0.000000 Squarings=0
    P-1 factoring doesn't make sense for this input.
    If [depth]=47 it works fine with any [value].Could anybody please explain me why? Thanks!

    Edit: Another question. Why sbfactor 1.25.5 gives a lower number of expected factors than sbfactor 1.2? (using the same parameters, of course).
    Last edited by Troodon; 05-03-2004 at 08:56 AM.

  13. #373
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Troodon
    Edit: Another question. Why sbfactor 1.25.5 gives a lower number of expected factors than sbfactor 1.2? (using the same parameters, of course).
    Same n's too?

    I haven't touched the bounds estimation code which is what calculates the expectation values.

    Which set of parameters do you use?

    I just tried your range (6110000-6111000) with 47 1.6 640 and got an expectation of 0.317969 from both 1.2 and 1.25.5.
    Last edited by hc_grove; 05-03-2004 at 09:35 AM.

  14. #374
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    132
    Originally posted by hc_grove
    Same n's too?

    Which set of parameters do you use?
    My bad!!! The results.txt files were not the same - sbf 1.2 had one a bit older!!!
    Last edited by Troodon; 05-03-2004 at 10:40 AM.

  15. #375
    Trodoon as sieving depth deepens the factoring becomes less efficient because the regions where factors are most likely to be found have already been searched. Hence as sieving gets deeper factoring will become less and less necessary. Eventually if won't make sense (at least to the bounds optimizer) to check any N values for factors because the sieve will get to deep. I believe that there isa problem with this however because many ofthe factors found from P-1 factoring would never have been found fro mregular sieving. Perhaops the Optimal bounds selection could be improved. Is there a way to control them so that they only search for factors larger than the sieve depth rather than just using the sieve depth t opick optimal bounds?

  16. #376
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Keroberts1
    Trodoon as sieving depth deepens the factoring becomes less efficient because the regions where factors are most likely to be found have already been searched. Hence as sieving gets deeper factoring will become less and less necessary. Eventually if won't make sense (at least to the bounds optimizer) to check any N values for factors because the sieve will get to deep. I believe that there isa problem with this however because many ofthe factors found from P-1 factoring would never have been found fro mregular sieving. Perhaops the Optimal bounds selection could be improved. Is there a way to control them so that they only search for factors larger than the sieve depth rather than just using the sieve depth t opick optimal bounds?
    No, the nature of the P-1 factoring algorithm makes it find any sufficiently smooth factor regardless of it's size.

    The n's also affect the optimal bounds, so while some parameters might not make sense with current n's they might make a lot of sense for larger n.

  17. #377
    How does the sieve dept hdetermine the optimal bounds? What do these bounds mean?

  18. #378
    I just started factoring last night because I was reading how a couple more people were needed to factor and I like to try new things.
    Does this look like a good way to factor on my p4 3.2ghz with 512mb of ram or should I change 47 to 48 for the next range I reserve.

    sbfactor.exe 6182000 6183000 47 1.5 256


    This computer is just being used for distributed computing projects and to encode video files.

  19. #379
    Senior Member Frodo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jutland, Denmark
    Posts
    299
    Does this look like a good way to factor on my p4 3.2ghz with 512mb of ram or should I change 47 to 48 for the next range I reserve.

    sbfactor.exe 6182000 6183000 47 1.5 256


    This computer is just being used for distributed computing projects and to encode video files.
    Looks fine to me, I have changed from 47 to 48 a while ago, but 47 does stille make sence since there are factors remaining in this range.
    With a 3.2 GHz I would guess that range is done in less than two days.
    If you find any factors these will be placed in fact.txt and they should then be submitted to http://www.seventeenorbust.com/sieve (remember to log in before submitting) and you should then be able to follow your scores on http://www.aooq73.dsl.pipex.com/ (use the scores link).

    Good luck with factoring, your resources are needed if we are to P-1 factor ahead of prp.

  20. #380
    Looks like my last 2 k/n pairs took 48 and 47 minutes to complete and there are 42 k/n pairs in the range I specified so that under 2 days estimate looks about right.

    I was wondering what these other files in my sbfactor dir are.
    276536182025
    554596182266
    276536182241
    etc

  21. #381
    Senior Member Frodo42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Jutland, Denmark
    Posts
    299
    I was wondering what these other files in my sbfactor dir are.
    276536182025
    554596182266
    276536182241
    etc
    They are files created for each test, they help you to be able to pick up stage 1 again if you want to do a test with higher bounds or if you for some reason stop the client then it's a save so that you don't have to start all over.
    276536182025 is the test for 27653*2^6182025

    You can safely delete these files when you are done with you range or else after some time of factoring they can begin to fill a quite big part of your HD.

  22. #382
    Originally posted by Frodo42
    They are files created for each test, they help you to be able to pick up stage 1 again if you want to do a test with higher bounds or if you for some reason stop the client then it's a save so that you don't have to start all over.
    276536182025 is the test for 27653*2^6182025

    You can safely delete these files when you are done with you range or else after some time of factoring they can begin to fill a quite big part of your HD.

    Thanks for the reply. Your explantion was nice and easy for me to understand. I am not going to start to understand what exactly I am doing beside eliminating k/n pairs so they don't have to be prp tested. I'd have no idea how to figure out that 276536182025 is the test for 27653*2^6182025 even though I worked on it.

  23. #383
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    132
    Originally posted by jjjjL
    That is bad. As I pointed out in the other thread, I did test several other numbers with no problems but not many test points were available (ie I had to sieve most of my own using your program ).

    hc_grove is hinting that he may have fixed this but I don't really know what would have been wrong.

    Cheers,
    Louie
    Just got
    33661*2^6195480+1 stage 2 complete. 18930 transforms. Time: 6570 seconds
    Starting stage 2 GCD - please be patient.
    P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=15000, B2=120000.
    5 | 33661*2^6195480+1
    Total factoring Time: 110 minutes
    Using v 1.25.5.

  24. #384
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Troodon
    Just got
    33661*2^6195480+1 stage 2 complete. 18930 transforms. Time: 6570 seconds
    Starting stage 2 GCD - please be patient.
    P-1 found a factor in stage #2, B1=15000, B2=120000.
    5 | 33661*2^6195480+1
    Total factoring Time: 110 minutes
    Using v 1.25.5.
    I've never said that I solved that problem, but as I've moved a little forwarding in my understanding of the code in the last couple of days I guess I could take a look. Did you use manual or optimal bounds, and in the latter case what parameters?

  25. #385
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    132
    The input was sbfactor 6195200 6196000 and the parameters were optimal bounds, 1.3, 48, 325 Mb. Anyway, I'll try to refactor it when I have some free time to see if it's reproducible.

  26. #386
    Hater of webboards
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    København, Denmark
    Posts
    205
    Originally posted by Troodon
    The input was sbfactor 6195200 6196000 and the parameters were optimal bounds, 1.3, 48, 325 Mb. Anyway, I'll try to refactor it when I have some free time to see if it's reproducible.
    I can't reproduce it neither with those settings (which gives me different bounds from the reported) nor with the reported bounds, that makes it impossible to debug, sorry.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •