Daran - you ask why highest and not lowest? The discussion started regarding old machines running v18 which are no longer in the care, custody & control of an active GIMPS participant, AND which are asking for factoring assignments which they cannot handle. Whatever assignment is given to them, there is no telling how long until (or even if) they will finish it. We would not want to give them something that would hold up a milestone a year or so down the road. So I agree with Brian, give them the highest available (I don't mean 33M) which will keep them busy for a while, but probably on the order of a year rather than a few months. If it takes them a year and a half to finish, no problem; if it stops running then it goes back to the server, again no problem. As for runaway v18 clients asking for DCs, they would continue getting what they ask for.
You make a good point about P-1 completed assignments, but on further reflection I don't think that is necessary. There aren't that many available and certainly not at the higher end of the current range. They will more than likely be P-1 tested when double-checked. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Daran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:37 AM Subject: Re: Mersenne: On v18 factoring >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 7:52 AM >Subject: Re: Mersenne: On v18 factoring > >> Given that the server can tell the difference between a v18 client and a >> later one, would it not make most sense to have the server assign a LL >> test on the _highest_ unallocated exponent which v18 can handle if a >> v18 client asks for a factoring assignment and none suitable are >> available. This action would effectively remove the client from the >> loop for a while (probably a few months, given that most v18 clients >> will be running on slowish systems), thereby alleviating the load on >> the server, and buying time to contact the system administrator - when >> this is still relevant, of course. And some useful work may still be >> completed, eventually! > >Why highest? Why not give it the lowest? There's a case for only giving >version 18 and below clients DCs regardless of the work requested. (I'm >assuming that this is possible.) > >The only other point I'd add, which isn't particularly relevent to this >question, is that these clients should always be given P-1 complete >assignments if available. > >> Regards >> Brian Beesley > >Daran G. > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm >Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
