At 10:45 PM 1/26/03 +, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote:
[ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ]
Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2
clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64
On Sunday 26 January 2003 19:55, Mary K. Conner wrote:
[ big snip - lots of _very_ sensible ideas!!! ]
Primenet, and Primenet should preferentially give work over 64 bits to SSE2
clients, and perhaps direct others to factor only up to 64 bits unless
there aren't enough SSE2 clients to
On Saturday 25 January 2003 02:07, John R Pierce wrote:
But, no, you won't be able to complete a 10M on a P100 ;-)
my slowest machine still on primenet is a p150 that has 60 days to finish
14581247, its been working on it for about 300 days now, 24/7, with nearly
zero downtime. 2.22 seconds
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 22:50, Richard Woods wrote:
Here's what I've just posted in the GIMPS Forum.
- - -
_IF_ PrimeNet has automatic time limits on assignments, ordinarily
requiring no manual intervention to expire assignments or re-assign
them, then why would any GIMPS participant,
I participate in other distributed_computing projects as well.
Though I personally could care less about the statistics of any
project, I notice that there is an entire subculture focused on
tracking one's own work vs. that of the other participants.
My proposal is simple -- If someone poaches
On Friday 24 January 2003 02:27, Richard Woods wrote:
Let's put it this way: Maybe you don't give a fig for fame, but
some of the rest of us do. A chance at real, honest-to-gosh
mathematical fame has a value not measurable in CPU years, but
poaching steals that.
So what we want is a
--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 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 regularly.
Does this apply to 10M assignments?
As George proposed on the GIMPS forums
But, no, you won't be able to complete a 10M on a P100 ;-)
my slowest machine still on primenet is a p150 that has 60 days to finish
14581247, its been working on it for about 300 days now, 24/7, with nearly
zero downtime. 2.22 seconds per iteration, yikes.
I probably should retire this box
I sometimes make forecasts about number of exponents in some ranges
to be checked in in particular periods. Just for fun.
So the system administrators could either (a) provide you the password
for the full version of the assignments report, or (b) produce a report
with aggregate data that is
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 22:50, Richard Woods wrote:
Here's what I've just posted in the GIMPS Forum.
- - -
_IF_ PrimeNet has automatic time limits on assignments, ordinarily
requiring no manual intervention to expire assignments or re-assign
them, then why would any GIMPS participant,
Brian J. Beesley wrote:
Sure. So would eliminating the report altogether.
1) Exaggeration is unnecessary. My proposal was not that extreme. :)
2) After much discussion on the GIMPS forum, I've withdrawn my
current proposal (which had been extended from the initial one I
sent to this mailing
Here's what I've just posted in the GIMPS Forum.
- - -
_IF_ PrimeNet has automatic time limits on assignments, ordinarily
requiring no manual intervention to expire assignments or re-assign
them, then why would any GIMPS participant, other than a system
administrator or a would-be poacher,
13 matches
Mail list logo
