On 18 Feb 2001, at 14:04, Nathan Russell wrote:
> >Another suggestion I might make is that the first assignment given to
> >every new user/system should be a doublecheck. [... snip ...]
>
> On the other hand, some users might become upset at being assigned a
> double-check, and not realize that they could change the setting in
> question.
If we decide to change this, the fact should be well documented. We
could argue that completing a DC assignment is a sort of "initiation
test". Serious new users with fast systems will not be delayed long;
in any case, they could drop the assignment easily enough, or pre-
select LL testing before the first connection to PrimeNet.
>
> >My feeling is that we should be clearing LL & DC assignments at about
> >the same rate. [... snip ...]
>
> Or course, there's no absolute rule that we must always maintain such
> a balance - if LL assignments start building a backlog, people will
> become upset at the length of time those assignments are taking, and
> will then switch to DC.
No, there's no _rule_, and I'm not implying that there should be. But
I feel that keeping some sort of a balance is a reasonable objective.
>
> >Another way to look at the balance is to examine the PrimeNet status
> >report at 0800 UTC. There tends to be a balance of LL assignments
> >which were recycled at 0600 still to be reassigned, whereas all the
> >recycled DC assignments have usually gone by then.
>
> Of course, many people (particularly members of this list - myself
> included) go out of their way to claim the smaller DC assignments when
> they are reissued. To be sure, I've done the same with LL before, but
> frankly not as often.
I've three "slower" systems running LL tests (a dual PII-350 and a
Celeron 366) and I try to find smaller LL assignments for those. I've
recently retired a couple of P100 systems. Not that they're totally
useless, just that I think I can find better things to do with them.
>
> >Yet another way is to compare the time taken for a DC assignment on a
> >"threshold" system to the time taken for a LL test on a "state of the
> >art" system. At present a typical DC assignment on 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 still usable.
Naturally I agree. (Though the 1.2 GHz Athlon undoubtedly will be
toppled from its perch; I'd guess sooner rather than later!) What I
meant by "threshold" system is one at the cut-off point between
getting LL & DC assignments unless the user overrides the default
assignment type. Which is, I believe, 300 MHz at the moment.
I feel that if the time taken to run a DC assignment on a "threshold"
system (meaning as indicated) starts to approach the time to run a LL
assignment on a SoA system, perhaps it's time to think about moving
the threshold up.
BTW the three indicators of DC/LL balance I indicated do not
neccessarily point in the same direction; indeed they may well be
contradictory to some extent. I see this as an indication that the
cut-off point is not too far wrong at the moment, though it would not
upset me personally if it were to move up to 350 MHz or even 400 MHz.
Regards
Brian Beesley
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
