At 12:45 PM 1999/04/11 -0600, Aaron Blosser wrote:
...
>IE4 and IE5 have that (probably Netscape too?), and I think the web site
>that checks and sends emails is www.mindit.com.
mindit.com is not the one I was thinking of; there's one based in a US
university (Dartmouth?).
>> This combined with being able to remotely stop an NT service and deposit
>> updated files from a batch procedure on one workstation makes managing
>> large numbers of workstations practical and quick.
>
>Remember, you're talking to a guy who installed thousands of instances of
>NTPrime remotely, across 3 different states, in a matter of days (using
>nothing more than 4NT batch files and RCMD/NETSVC programs from the resource
>kit). But we won't go there. :-) I'm not saying it can't be done, but it'd
>be so much easier with some sort of built-in method for self-updates.
I remember. It can be done with less (just what's built in to NTWS).
>> I would find a popup box a terrible nuisance, so I'd like an option
>> to turn it off or on, with default off.
>
>If it were an option, there should be a way for REALLY important alerts to
>get through, so that anyone running v17 would have been alerted about the
>bug even if normal alerting were turned off. Wouldn't you rather have some
>exceptions get through, with the decision about what qualifies as
>"exceptional" being made by George and/or Scott?
No. I would not want it popping up on each of my computers, requiring
a mouse click on each; too tedious. Email is sufficient.
A popup for each instance on each multiple-cpu system is really a nuisance.
Imagine if USWest had seen 2500 of those popups on the same day.
VIRUS!!! Lynch whoever's responsible!!
>> The feature I'd like to see at some point is the LLtest code made dual-cpu
>> aware
...
>Amen. In fact, if it were possible to code it to split the work among
>multiple CPU's in any way, then it *is* technically possible to have even
>seperate machines work on the same number, though you'd be limited by the
>network link speed.
I think even gigabit ethernet would be insufficient. Networking means
driver overhead. The point of doing it is to regain efficiency and
reduce total runtime of one exponent so it's small compared to the machine's
working lifetime, even for 8-digit exponents.
>Consider. If you had a chip with multiple FPU engines, couldn't you code
>the program to take advantage of that? From there, it's only a small step
>to using the FPU processors on *seperate* CPU's, and from there, given a
>fast enough link, seperate CPU's on entirely different machines.
Several big if's.
Factoring could easily be parallelized, since it consists of 16 passes.
And the total amount of data being transported is very small.
Ken
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
