--On Monday, November 03, 2003 5:08 PM -0800 John R Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Woltman wrote:
At 04:35 PM 11/3/2003 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
I don't know if the affinity stuff will work in linux, however..
Mprime ignores the affinity settings in the ini files. We'll have to
--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:15 PM -0400 George Woltman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possibilities are:
1) The original run was flawed or there is a bug in the version of
prime95 used. It is hard to imagine a bug or hardware glitch that
generates an all zero LL result. If memory is zeroed at
--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:58 PM -0400 George Woltman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2) I'll change prime95 to NOT delete the save files when a new prime is
found. When a prime is reported, I'll ask for the save file and rerun the
last 30 minutes of the test. I think this would have helped
--On Sunday, January 26, 2003 10:01 PM + Gordon Spence
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. It has correctly been pointed out that life doesn't end if a milestone
slips. Well guess what? That is a double-edged sword - life doesn't end
if an exponent gets poached either.
What if your prime had
Okay, to start with, GIMPS lost the very first prime we ever found to a
member of another project who beat George to finding the exponent by a
matter of hours. This is simply the way math and other fields of research
work. Darwin's theory of evolution was very nearly duplicated by another
--On Friday, January 24, 2003 8:59 PM + Brian J. Beesley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think perhaps what may be needed is a new rule that users who don't
complete assignments in a reasonable period of time (say 1 year?) should
lose the right to the assignment, even if they do check in
I'm in DALnet #mersenne, if anyone wants to stop by and say hello...
I've got classes all day, so I'll kind of be in and out though.
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne
I'm getting a lot of error 2250's in the past few days.
I have enough work to keep me busy until January, so this isn't the
end of the world, but I still wonder - is it a known issue?
Thanks much!
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe
No, not me, my computer ;-)
But seriously - I did two things, took a plate out of an empty slot,
and bought a can of compressed air, which I'd never used before.
When I used the compressed air, besides giving me a headache for the
past hour (I have a *tiny* dorm room), it knocked a lot of dust
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:25:53 -0500, I wrote:
I'm now testing M132049, and the only error so far has been this
exponent is not assigned to us. If the system finishes all the
Mersennes (much) below 3Mbits without bluescreening, I'm going to run
the two 3M primes, and then bring it back to LL
Looks like things are resolved - I'm more than halfway through the 64K
FFT's self-test, and no errors so far. Probably, again, the tiny
exponents were sitting totally in the L2 cache (or being prefetched to
it) and thus were putting more load on the CPU than normal LL work
would do.
If
Quoting Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4. (Important) Ease of implementation on other platforms. Only the
core
computation stuff really needs to be optimized to all hell. The
server comms
general control stuff would probably be more than efficient enough
if it
was implemented in
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:02:34 -, Daran wrote:
2) To better stress main memory, the torture test will now use up to the
amount of memory specified in the Options/CPU dialog box.
If you haven't allowed it to use this much memory, then it's a bug,
otherwise its a feature.
Thanks to
Hi folks,
I had some problems with unexpected system crashes after bringing my
computer back to school, I think becuase something was knocked out of
alignment - it seems to be gone now.
However, when I tried to run a torture test to verify that everything
was okay, I saw Prime95 suddenly
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 06:52:54 +, Brian J. Beesley
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Other people have mentioned the possibility of automatically disengaging or
updating the client. I have very serious reservations about this; the problem
is that it leaves the system hosting the client wide open to
Quoting Gary Edstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Maybe future versions of Prime95 could have the capability of being
shutdown from the server when the program does a regular check in.
The
server could have a list of obsolete userids/machines. Maybe the
equivalent of a Test/Stop could be commanded,
On Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:28:14 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
The work will not get duplicated if the exponent was picked up by one of
the misbehaving v18 clients
In that case, I assume that we have to wait for the 90 day timeout and
then hope a new client picks it up?
Perhaps the next Mersenne
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:33:04 +0100, Daran wrote:
One way to avoid this disappointment personally would be to focus solely
upon TF or
P-1.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no way in my version (22.8.1) to
set the client to do only P-1.
Nathan
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:59:08 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
Are we losing users? Well, if users can't connect to the server, they're
going to be discouraged. Ditto anyone still using Windows 95 - Prime95 v22.3+
has problems since George apparently upgraded his development kit.
Well, Win95 is
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 22:57:24 -0400, Jeff Woods wrote:
On 23 August, we had 18021 accounts and 31701 machines, per the website.
Today, 4 days later, we have 17916 accounts and 31511 machines.
Personally, I'm unable to contact the PrimeNet server.
At first, I thought it was an issue with the
At 09:40 AM 6/26/2002 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
B) prime95.exe is the GUI... it can either call the DLL directly (win9x
systems), or invoke it as a system service if on a NT derived system. if
the DLL is running as a service, prime95 can exit and restart all day long
without affecting the
At 06:19 AM 4/22/2002 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been running Prime95 on my 2 pc's since January
2002, I started using it as a benchmark to test the
system I just built and ended up starting my own team on
2 pcs. My new system has an AMD Athalon 1400mhz
processor and has been crunching
At 08:56 AM 2/27/2002 +, Brian J Beesley wrote:
1 an increase in the rate at which the NFS people are factoring awkward
Mersenne numbers;
I might point to the primenumbers Yahoogroup, which recently had a
discussion to the effect that NFSnet might be restarting fairly soon
Nathan
At 07:13 AM 12/14/2001 +, Daran wrote:
So what are the other 137,000 faster than P90 machines doing?
Regards
Daran
That's a great point.
Are there huge numbers of GIMPS members out there running machines not
capable of running windows 98?
Nathan
At 12:41 PM 12/12/2001 -0800, Mary Conner wrote:
How would I go about giving an exponent I've been assigned to someone
else? From previous discussions, it seems as though PrimeNet would reject
the assignment as not belonging to him, but I've seen exponents moved from
one account to another
At 05:26 PM 12/6/2001 -0500, Paradox wrote:
1) I have a P4 1.9 GHz with PC800 ram that is testing an exponent in the
333X range,
and it is getting approximately 0.180 sec/iteration when completely idle
on Windows 2000.
According to the benchmark on mersenne.org, it should be around 0.143.
I
At 12:50 AM 12/7/2001 +, Daran wrote:
- Original Message -
From: George Woltman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:50 PM
Subject: Mersenne: More on M#39
I presume Scott will now try get the story really rolling in the press.
Let's wish
Several list members have been kind enough to point out to me that 2^n is
the smallest n+1 bit number - not the smallest n bit number - in the saeme
way that 10^1 is the smallest 2-digit number.
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe list
At 08:40 PM 12/5/2001 -0500, George Woltman wrote in reply to Mary Conner:
On a purely technical note, In the event that the other person does
eventually check back in, is there a mechanism in place to either tell his
machine or mine that it should abandon the exponent
No. The server never
At 10:19 AM 12/4/2001 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
If you find a new prime smaller than M39, you have found something *really*
rare - an out-of-order Mersenne prime. Only one of those as ever been found
when Welsh and Colquitt found M110503. Some argue that M4253 was
found out-of-order, but
At 06:11 PM 12/4/2001 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure. Not quite the same since there appears to be no certificate of
primality, but on 30 Aug 2001 there was a message on this list to
the effect that M727 (c219) = prp98.prp128.
Does anyone know how much CPU time was spent?
So much ECM
At 10:28 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Henk Stokhorst wrote:
(as part of a listing of factors found by himself)
12348829 103 F 9722991869324431663702571958950 22-Feb-01 07:48
SCUM C7375CE26
Is this a bug in the reporting software? I don't have the tools to work it
out exactly, but a
At 07:57 PM 12/2/2001 +, Gordon Spence wrote:
A particularly sore point. If we maintained a top savers list whereby
for every factor found you were credited with the time an LL test would
have taken, then I and the other Lone Mersenne Hunters would pulverise
these big university teams.
For better or for worse (I think for better - it should attract a few
searchers) the new Mersenne report has made it to the popular
technical/open-source/geek news site Slashdot.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/14/1849203mode=nested
Sadly, there are a few errors in this article, at
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:33:59 -0500, Rick Pali [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Aaron Blosser wrote:
Good old sysinternals... they have the neatest tools.
Damn straight! I've been using (and loving) PageDefrag since I stumbled on
that site. A few other gems have since made their way onto my system...
On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 20:09:20 -0500, Jud McCranie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:43 AM 11/5/2001 +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Speaking of which -- shouldn't we be (statistically) really close to finding
a new prime soon?
Yes, statistically. You'd expect the next one to be before
On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:46:58 -0500, Jud McCranie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:48 PM 11/4/2001 -0500, Nathan Russell wrote:
Of course, this whole argument makes (as far as I can see) heavy use
of the gamblers' fallacy, aka the fallacy of maturation of
probabilities (Hey, I lost the last 50
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:35:40 -0700, Alan Vidmar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
One thing to remember ppl, A LOT of system testers tend to use
Prime95 to test overclocking/cooling. I'm sure that *many*
abandoned assignments are due to this fact.
Due to this usage (which I don't mind BTW,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:05:02 -0800, Aaron Blosser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still the only time I've ever seen Prime95/NTPrime slow down a system is when I was
doing some Netmeeting video conferences.
With it running, the video conference would run DOG slow. Stop the NTPrime service
and
(Sorry Steve, I meant to send this to the list)
On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:11:51 -0500, Steve Harris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henk, I don't have a consistent set of statistics, but I do save the world
test status page every few months. So I can tell you that on 2-apr-2001 it
showed 38652 machines
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:31:15 +0100, David Jaggard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presumably a badly written Linux driver
can cause the same problems as a badly written Windows driver.
IIRC, Linux drivers that are kernel modules do run in real mode;
someone on the list please correct me if I'm wrong.
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:29:52 -0700, Gerry Snyder
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, at least in theory, every Mersenne number proven non-prime will
eventually be factored. Again, to me, so what? At least the LL test
showed that further factoring activity would eventually succeed.
It might be
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:52:42 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However if it could be established that all the missed factors
reported were the work of one user, perhaps it would be worth fixing
the database to force rerunning of trial factoring for those factoring
assignments run by that user
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:56:34 +0200, Jörg Thomsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
it isn't that easy at all. The default parameter for networkretries is, afaik, 10
minutes. So
most clients try to connect every 10 minutes until thy got a timeout. And the timeout
seems to be
very long :-/. I think
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:44:31 -0700, Bob Margulies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That wasn't my experience. During the outage, I'd get the message that
it was trying to contact the server. Then it would sit there for 6
minutes, doing nothing, then state that it would try again in an hour,
then pick
Hi all,
I'm a bit puzzled. The other day, I donated blood and kept my mind
busy by doing LL tests on a few exponents mentally. I kept getting
the result that the LL test for M(2) ends up resulting in a repeating
value of -1, and certainly cannot ever become zero. Am I missing
something really
On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:45:26 -0700 (PDT), Pavlos S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been a while since RSA labs published new
factoring challenges..Does anyone know if there is any
project going on at the moment for these challenges?
(probably with the help of the Number Field Sieve)
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 17:39:31 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 04:53:50PM +0200, mohk wrote:
Are we alone?
1) no, we found something
2) dunno :)
Are there more than 38 (aren't we at 38 now? ;-) ) Mersenne primes?
1) No, we found something.
2) Dunno
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:48:52 -0500, Steve Harris wrote:
Yes the article does go into great detail re Beowulf clusters, but the
penultimate paragraph contains:
An equally important trend is the development of networks of PCs that
contribute their processing power to a collective task. An example
On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 05:57:45 -0400, vincent mooney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George, would you consider adding
Mersenne Number Tests - Version 21.1.1
either after the
Waiting xx seconds for boot to complete (e.g., 13 or 22 or 30 or whatever)
or after
Resuming primality test of nnn...
so
Thanks to all who helped me with the SUMOUT issue.
For a variety of reasons, I bit the bullet and bought a hardware,
external modem. Since doing so, I haven't had any problems (in fact,
I had no problems after posting my first message, so it may have been
something transitory involving the
tests
Prime95's ability to test numbers of all sizes.
Regards,
Nathan Russell
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
On Fri, 18 May 2001 10:38:49 -0400, I wrote:
This issue, at least, I can deal with. The two results are the same,
but as it happens, in order to reduce the chance of a fatal code bug,
Prime95 'shifts' the initial inputs into its calculations by a certain
amount; that is why the last number in
On Fri, 18 May 2001 14:47:49 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
Another way to look at it. Roughly speaking supercomputers owned the
region below 1.3M, GIMPS above that. We've roughly tested three doublings
1.3M to 2.6M, 2.6M to 5.2M, 5.2M to 10.4M. There are 1.78 an
expected Mersenne primes per
Is it (at least) theoretically possible that some larger factors are
unfindable with ECM due to the limited number of sigma producable by
George's random number generator?
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe list info --
For those who are interested, Yves Gallot has released Proth 6.6,
which has great speed-ups for some architectures.
His post to the PrimeNumbers list follows.
Regards,
Nathan
Proth 6.6 is on the Web. This new release detects CPU with L2 cache on die
(new PIII and Celeron, P4) and with
On Mon, 14 May 2001 23:33:48 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:00:02PM -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
I fear that many folks may not be aware of the list, or find
that subscribing seems too hard (odd as that may sound to us experts :)
Or perhaps being set back by the
In the course of a single P-1 run, I've gotten 3 SUMOUT errors:
[Tue May 15 08:20:24 2001]
SUMOUT error occurred.
[Tue May 15 12:04:41 2001]
SUMOUT error occurred.
[Tue May 15 20:05:15 2001]
SUMOUT error occurred.
In the past fifteen months with GIMPS, I had gotten only two errors.
I can't help
On Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:47 +0100, Daran wrote:
As someone currently running a legacy machine, (It's taking 4-5 months to run
double-checks in the range under consideration,) I have some thoughts on this.
First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
machines
On Mon, 14 May 2001 17:27:19 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
On 14 May 2001, at 19:04, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
There is already a mechanism where people can opt in or out of being
notified if an assignment is due to expire.
There is? At the risk of looking dim, what is it?
In the user
On Sat, 12 May 2001 16:04:17 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:
At 03:26 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, Nathan Russell wrote:
I think that's more of a 'quick fix', and might make new participants
feel that GIMPS doesn't trust them.
Yes, but a new user need not know that they don't get an exponent that has
On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:17:10 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
Hmm... well, then again, I'm looking at the NTPrime. I've only got one
machine running Prime95, and it's been so long...
I thought it had all the same options though, but I could just be terribly
mistaken.
Running NTSetup (part of the
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:23:45 -, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On 14 May 2001, at 8:45, Nathan Russell wrote:
First of all, as Jud notes, the 'elitism' is already there, in that different
machines get treated differently in the assignments that they are given.
(To clarify, I did not write
On Sat, 12 May 2001 16:38:47 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:
At 08:14 PM 5/12/2001 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
rather small, so the reason a third or fourth run is neccessary is
very probably because results with mismatching residuals are being
submitted for some reason. Most probably random
On Sat, 12 May 2001 10:22:06 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
Why did this affect the server's counts? Well, that's a long story. It has to
do with design decisions (compromises actually) made at Primenet's inception.
Primenet's database is a subset of the master database which I maintain
3000
On Sat, 12 May 2001 14:20:36 -0400, Jud McCranie wrote:
At 01:49 PM 5/12/2001 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
In my last email, I alluded to how the server has some strange behavior when
the double-checking and first-time testing ranges overlap. One such glitch is
that if one of these 26
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:34:07 +0200 (MET DST), Hans Riesel wrote:
Hi everybody,
If 2^p-1 is known to be composite with no factor known, then so is
2^(2^p-1)-1.
For that matter, the same argument can be made with regard to
2^(2^R-1)-2 for some RSA factoring challange number R, and probably
(Sprry Spike, I mistyped the list address the first time on the copy i
sent to you)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:37:11 -0700, Spike Jones wrote:
Nathan Russell wrote:
http://www.half-empty.org/servlet/LoadPage?pageID=ideaideaid=1644sortmode=3viewmode=3
I thought the prime community might want
I just posted an article on one of my favorite discussion boards,
known as Half-Empty, about distributed computing, asking people on the
site to vote for, and post comments about, their favorite project.
http://www.half-empty.org/servlet/LoadPage?pageID=ideaideaid=1644sortmode=3viewmode=3
I
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:15:13 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
perhaps just have Prime95 update some SNMP counters... I think it'd be
"neato" to use MRTG to track various counters of the machines I have running
Prime95/NTPrime. Then you're just offloading the task of doing charts and
stuff to some
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:49:49 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
"Should I be worried about Juno downloading data and software to my
computer?"
No. Juno has been downloading data and software to your computer since
the
day you first subscribed.
Gotta give 'em credit for being honest.
Dang, I
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:25:45 -0400, Vincent Mooney wrote:
Someone on this list earlier warned about Juno using subscriber's
computers. Here is a portion of the current Juno Virtual Supercomputer
Project data.
(BIG snip)
No. Juno has been downloading data and software to your computer since
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:25:04 -0700, Aaron Blosser wrote:
From time to time, we also download new versions of the Juno software to
bring your version up to date, and we expect to download new scientific
software from time to time as part of the Juno Virtual Supercomputer
Project.
NO mention
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:53:33 +0200, Martijn Kruithof wrote:
Hello,
if that what you describe is the problem the solution is obvious
If a client checked out an (set of) exponent(s) and has not returned it yet
just re-assign that same (set of) exponent(s).
The problem is that the two machines
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:40:41 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
NO Mail lately, just wanted to know if the list is
active!
We're here, all right!
Nathan
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Regards,
Tobias
Nathan Russell
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
On Tuesday 10 April 2001 14:20, you wrote:
Hi and thank you mr Leyland for the reply
I have another question. If you are doing ECM factoring on a Fermat number
with prime95 should you check the "Factor 2^N+1" box, since "Every factor
of a Fermat number fermat(n) has the form 2^(n+2) * k +
On Saturday 31 March 2001 03:09, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On 30 Mar 2001, at 15:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
processes are running. However, under Solaris, something
run at priority 19 still tends to get a
not-insignificant share of CPU time - a typical number
is 15% on a system with one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 19:09:02 +0200, Steiner wrote:
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 10:03:01AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
How does idle time accrue *to a process*? Idle time is when the CPU
is not executing any process.
Just like the brain, your computer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:10:06 -, Brian J. Beesley wrote (re gray
bits):
This is an example of the sort of "copy protection" I find
acceptable, because I can make as many perfect copies as I like for
my own use; nonetheless the copies can be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:12:49 -, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On 20 Mar 2001, at 18:42, Nathan Russell wrote:
Slashdot takes a particular interest in this program because many
of their editors and members believe that CSS is an infringment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 19:57:13 +0100, Steiner wrote:
Now, I wonder what this juno.com _is_... and how they possibly could
get anybody to accept that. Looking at their pages, they look like
an ISP -- but how could possibly their Internet connection be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:17:02 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
Hi all,
As promised, the server now has about 1000 small exponents
to give out for triple-checks.
Out of curiousity, am I the only one who, while running triple-checks
by arrangement
ddenly start selling videotapes for the Betamax VCR.
Regards
Brian Beesley
Nathan Russell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use http://www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBOrfq1IvPBwdDF2xqEQKDdgCeJhTSRtZD3bW+im46//1Ye7hkmCcAoL4n
PFTvO4XgT1LaUfvTuSG+RBP4
=MQax
--
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:03:47 -0500, Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
The vast majority of computers still aren't doing any form of distributed
computing. Here are a few suggestions to help increase GIMPS participation:
1. Get people at major universities + colleges to become "active
recruiters,"
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:32:03 +0100, Martijn Kruithof wrote:
I have verified the possibility of a buffer overflow exploit in primenet.c
(used in linuxs mprime)
It seems NOT vurneralbe (so it seems safe to me)
NO buffer overflow is likely to occur.
Notwithstanding I am running mprime as user
. However many laptops appear to turn on an extra
cooling fan almost immediately a program which makes use of the FPU
starts.
My desktop does the same - the sound changes noticably when a
distributed computing program is running.
Nathan Russell
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:24:36 -0600, you wrote:
I for one found my way to the Prime95 project through overclocking. In the
OCing community Prime95 has been considered the single best stress test
tool available for some time now (especially when used in conjunction with
a game that makes heavy
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:02:09 -, Brian Beesley wrote:
I know what you mean ... but the fact is there's no such thing as
_bad_ publicity.
True enough.
However I do wonder how much of the recycling of expired exponents is
due to people picking up Prime95 just to run a hardware test. The
a 300 MHz PII
takes about half as long to run as a typical LL assignment on a 1.2
GHz Athlon. Personally I don't feel this is unreasonable.
Of course, the 1.2 Ghx Athlon is right at the top of the "state of the
art", while systems well slower than a PII are stil
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:31:50 -0500, Jud McCranie wrote:
I've edited my WorkToDo file to put the tests in order so that the ones
that take the least time will be done first. Will my doing this mess
anything up?
Not to my knowledge. The one thing to be careful of, however, is that
if you have
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:42:17 -0800, you wrote:
This is mildly amusing.
http://radified.com/Overclocking/oldest_overclocker.htm
read the text below the picture, specifically, the 3rd paragraph :)
-jrp
This reminded me of a discussion I had with a friend. He mentioned he
used SETI:
"Ever
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:29:01 -0500, you wrote:
This frankly makes me wonder how much longer there will be a place in
GIMPS for slower machines. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - after
all, 486s and original pentiums were the workforce when GIMPS began,
and I wouldn't feel comfortable with the
Let's assume that the P4 is, as George estimates, capable of doing the
512K FFT at 0.04 iterations per second.
In this case, with some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I estimate
that a thousand P4s (which might well be on PrimeNet in a year, or a
little more - the P4 is approaching the
Jud, you wrote:
I wonder how many people are going to have P4s. Presently, the Athlon is
faster for most things, and cheaper. I don't know if the P4 will pull
ahead of AMD chips for most things, so will people buy them?
My understanding is that they are designed to perform well for
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:56:26 EST, you wrote:
Just my 2 cents' worth with respect to the screen saver
proposals: how about the following?
1) (This is along the lines of the popular "swarm of
bees" screensaver) Have some bee (or other - perhaps
allow the user to choose from a menu) icons move
Jeff Woods wrote:
At 04:48 PM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:
After hanging around the Anandtech DC forum for awhile, I'm convinced
that this completion time "problem" might be GIMPS biggest hurdle to
getting more participation. Very few "loonies" like us are willing
to wait 14 months for
Alexander Kruppa wrote:
"Brian J. Beesley" wrote:
Some people have indicated they'd like a version of the program with
a pretty screen-saver interface. Fair enough, provided we can keep
the "classic" version without the extra overhead.
The screen-saver idea is important for another
Ken Kriesel wrote:
At 09:23 AM 2/3/2001 -, "Brian J. Beesley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George has announced the development of new FFT code optimised for
Pentium 4. The FFT code is the true heart of the program: it's really
hard for me to put into words just how much we all owe to
Well, unless there is an announcement within the next few hours, 2000
will be the first calender year in the history of GIMPS without a
Mersenne prime.
Is the number of searchers, and the power of their hardware, increasing
enough to keep up with the increased runtimes and (slightly) decreased
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
