20081224, 12:15  #1 
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
2^{5}×151 Posts 
Strange behavior of polynomial selection
After a success on a C123 using msieve 1.38, on December 15th I decided to try a factorization of a smallish C104 with Msieve 1.39.
I thought I could finish it in less than a week, but after 9 days I'm still at 25%. msieve 1.39 chose the following FB with the standard time constraints: Code:
R0: 102172704072372988898 R1: 21141487499 A0: 14062647916862846429413389 A1: 1904450414314729737512 A2: 34268272102003159 A3: 3038101613532 A4: 54319668 A5: 900 skew 30714.64, size 1.720911e10, alpha 4.946097, combined = 8.949099e10 FRNUM 170863 FRMAX 2319997 FANUM 170864 FAMAX 2319997 SRLPMAX 67108864 SALPMAX 67108864 SLINE 8400000 Before wasting more time, I'm asking: is the chosen selection correct? Should I run polynomial stage for more than the indicated time to look for better selections? My question arises from the information related to the new improved poly selection that comes with v1.39 of msieve: has it been improved for larger composites only? Luigi Last fiddled with by ET_ on 20081224 at 12:17 
20081224, 12:39  #2 
Oct 2004
Austria
2·17·73 Posts 
I always import my msievefound polynomials to GGNFS, for your poly this would look like this:
Code:
n: <insert your number here> Y0 102172704072372988898 Y1 21141487499 c0 14062647916862846429413389 c1 1904450414314729737512 c2 34268272102003159 c3 3038101613532 c4 54319668 c5 900 skew: 30714.64 rlim: 2300000 alim: 2300000 lpbr: 26 lpba: 26 rlambda: 2.6 alambda: 2.6 mfbr: 49 mfba: 49 Edit: The smallest composite I GNFSed with a msievefound poly was a c120, the largest was c136, so I don't know how msievefound polys behave for smaller composites. Last fiddled with by Andi47 on 20081224 at 12:43 
20081224, 12:48  #3 
Just call me Henry
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)
5·1,187 Posts 
if you import the msieve poly into ggnfs i would expect it to finish in ~8hours for a C104
small GNFSes have been done with msieve poly selection Last fiddled with by henryzz on 20081224 at 12:49 
20081224, 12:59  #4  
Nov 2008
2322_{10} Posts 
Quote:
ET_, your alpha of 4.9 is much worse than all three alphas I have got using msieve poly selection. My C97 gave a poly with an alpha of 5.8, with a few better than 6. Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 20081224 at 13:01 

20081224, 13:20  #5  
Banned
"Luigi"
Aug 2002
Team Italia
2^{5}×151 Posts 
Quote:
Thank you to all who answered my post, and merry Christmas. Luigi 

20081224, 14:45  #6 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
3·1,181 Posts 
There's nothing wrong with the polynomial chosen, sometimes a polynomial has excellent size properties but only moderately good root properties. What matters is how well both work together.
The problem is that this polynomial wants a sieving region skewed by a factor of about 30000, meaning the 'a' values in relations average 30k times larger than the 'b' values. It also means that the polynomial will generate a huge number of relations as long as 'b' is very small, but will stop doing so once 'b' starts to get larger. The line sieve in msieve has no idea that this is happening. Luigi, while I appreciate the vote of confidence, there is no substitute for the lattice siever in GGNFS. Using it would make the difference between taking forever and being done very quickly. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Polynomial selection  Max0526  NFS@Home  9  20170520 08:57 
2^8771 polynomial selection  fivemack  Factoring  47  20090616 00:24 
Very strange mem timing behavior, Asus M3A67EM  jwh  Information & Answers  1  20090130 18:04 
Strange Computer Behavior  jinydu  Lounge  23  20040608 09:00 
Strange behavior on 1.7G Celeron  willmore  Software  0  20020909 20:17 