At 11:35 AM 10/23/02 -0400, you wrote:
Crunching for distributed computing projects can be thrilling. Watching
the number of work units you put out per day can make you excited about
your throughput. The work pours in quickly and the results leave even faster.
I want a computer JUST LIKE THAT.
At 12:14 AM 10/23/02 -0700, you wrote:
I always get asked what is the purpose or use for such large prime
numbers. Since I'm not a math geek, I don't know what to tell them.
The stock answer is usually somewhat of a lie.
Huge prime numbers are useful in cryptography and and encryption, and hel
At 09:09 AM 10/22/02 -0600, you wrote:
Folding@Home's success:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021022070813.htm
Again, they mention SETI@home. As if that were the only other
distributed project out there. *sigh*
Two years ago, Pande launched Folding@home a distributed computing
At 08:24 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
>There is a lot of interesting data in this spreadsheet. Our overall error
>rate is roughly 3.5%. If you have an error-free run, the error rate is
>in the 1.4% to 2% area. If you have an SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS) error
>or ROUNDOFF > 0.40 error that
At 11:41 AM 8/29/02 -0400, you wrote:
>>I am continuing processing on the very same exponent using the new
>>version. Is this allowed?
>
>Yes.
In fact, I have a massively multibooting machine that can boot anything
from DOS 6.22 to Windows .Net Server Beta, plus Linux. The Microsoft OS's
al
On 23 August, we had 18021 accounts and 31701 machines, per the website.
Today, 4 days later, we have 17916 accounts and 31511 machines.
We lost over 100 members in 4 days, and almost 200 machines?
What's up with that?
We've also done only about half our usual throughput today. Is this relat
At 09:47 AM 8/26/02 -0400, you wrote:
>We have been forced to upgrade several computers to Win2K (pro). The users
>leave the machines on but log out at the end of the day. Run as a Service
>in 22.8 is checked, but it doesn't seem that the machines are running
>Prime95 when logged off. I am not
At 02:34 PM 8/25/02 -0700, you wrote:
>PPS - I sure hope to talk about this again in 93 years.
By then, "95" will stand for exaflops in your quantum computer, and we'll
be working with FFT's in the gigabyte size range. ;-)
_
At 08:58 PM 8/18/02 +, you wrote:
> > One of these days I'll drop some DDR in there (sad to say, I don't have any
> > spare right now), and see if it truly does drop down to 0.091 or
> > thereabouts.
>
>Note that it is not often possible to use SDRAM or DDRAM in the same board.
>SDRAM DIMMs a
21000 of the 31000 participating machines are P-III or better.
Less than 2,000 true Pentium-class machines remain in the mix.
George et. al.: Could it be time to change the baseline reference machine
away from the Pentium-90, and wipe the P-90 off of all pages, from rankings
to status to year
What a difference RAM makes.
I didn't find my specific configuration on the benchmarks page, so I am
sending in this.
CURRENTLY on the benchmarks page:
Athlon XP1800+, 1533 Mhz, 133 DDR, L2=256-Full, 15-17M timing: 0.091 sec
I have a virtually identical machine, except it is using mere 133 M
At 07:16 AM 8/17/02 -0700, you wrote:
>It is my understanding from reading the documentation that setting the
>available memory only affects the P-1 factoring stage and not the main
>LL test. Is this correct?
>
>The reason I am asking is because of a great difference that I have
>noticed in the
At 11:33 AM 8/10/02 +0100, you wrote:
>A short time ago there was a discussion relating to the prime95 process
>running as System on NT/2000, and the subject of security issues relating
>to it being accessible from a normal user's desktop came up. The article
>linked below describes a serious
At 12:46 AM 6/26/02 -0400, you wrote:
>I've spent a few days fighting with Windows and MFC to make Prime95 run as
>a true
>Windows NT Service. That is, when you check the "Start at Bootup" menu
>choice,
>prime95 is installed as a service. At next bootup it starts before anyone
>logs in.
>At
At 06:19 AM 4/22/02 +, you 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 the numbers
http://www.entropia.com/ips doesn't work. I get this:
The page cannot be found The page you are looking for might have been
removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Information Services
---
However, the www.entropia.com main pag
Fairly decent and accurate coverage on news.com (CNet) at the following link.
Apologies for the HTML that is embedded in the text pasted in below. If
your mail software can't read the HTML, follow the link to the original site.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-8159590.html?tag=tp_pr
Dist
The virtual machine's sustained throughput* is currently 2316 billion
floating point operations per second (gigaflops), or 192.4 CPU years
(Pentium 90Mhz) computing time per day. For the testing of Mersenne
numbers, this is equivalent to 82 Cray T916 supercomputers, or 41 of Cray's
most powerf
At 02:31 AM 11/15/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Checking these few possibilities (IPS account ID) against hrf5.txt for "Who"
>@GIMPS and searching GIMPS HomePage (Top Producers/expanded version/"Who"
>leaves only one entry matching the second condition (exponents tested = 3)
>:-)
What was the expected c
At 10:19 AM 11/14/01 -0500, you wrote:
>There has been an unverified prime reported! It passes the 32-bit security
>code that comes on every results.txt line. This is not overly difficult
>to forge
>though. The user reporting the prime has completed 3 other LL tests and
>seems to have signed
At 07:41 PM 9/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Can someone explain to me why (and if) it's better to run Prime95 as a
>service under these OSs? Is there a speed advantage? Also, who would be
>serving whom?
The primary advantage is that it remains running regardless of who (if
anyone) is actually logge
At 04:37 PM 7/31/01 +0200, you wrote:
>>>I stepped away from my machine at 99.92% completion of its iterations,
>>>and when I came back it was 0.04% into processing the next number. Is
>>>there some way I can see what happened? Some sort of log file?
>I think it is more the following situatiuon
At 01:11 PM 7/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I stepped away from my machine at 99.92% completion of its iterations,
>and when I came back it was 0.04% into processing the next number. Is
>there some way I can see what happened? Some sort of log file?
Check the file "RESULTS.TXT" in the Prime95 (or m
At 03:49 PM 5/18/01 +, you wrote:
>1) When testing a new Pc, I obtain two different results from the old and
>the new one
>
>M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F561C3,5448242,
>M9357637 is not prime. Res64: BCB1164E6826255E. WW1: C4F261C3,5448242,0003
The RES
Chris, I don't think he was bashing Outlook PER SE -- just the version
number in question. There have been MANY MANY security fixes to OE since
that release, which came with Internet Explorer FOUR a few years
back. Even the granola OE that comes with IE 5 (v5.00.2314.1300) has been
radically
At 10:03 AM 3/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >even with prime95 running 24/7 on my Windows2000 system, it seems to come up
> >with a FEW idle cycles. I figure its when prime95 gets paged out or
>
>How does idle time accrue *to a process*? Idle time is when the CPU is not
>executing any process.
On a
At 08:13 AM 3/10/01 +0100, you wrote:
>this without any polemic spirit, please belive me, enjoy yourself and try to
>explain yourself why it is tolerable to wait one year or more for testing
>M(3325) and is not tolerable to wait eight years for testing M(325):
>is it the first figure real
At 10:00 PM 3/9/01 +, you wrote:
>Isn't the "problem" just that the milestones are rather a long way
>apart at the moment? Does it _really_ matter that there's an
>outstanding exponent around 3.25 million which needs double-checking
>when there are so many more to go before we complete double
At 11:09 AM 3/9/01 +, you wrote:
> > That would help prevent exponents expiring multiple times.
>
>Is that _really_ a problem? If anything it only points out a lack of
>commitment to the project amongst some of the contributors.
*THAT* is precisely the reason that such people should not be a
At 09:39 PM 2/18/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Suggestion: the next version of Prime95 should contact the server after
>every 10% of an LL test. Based on how long this took, the server would
>calculate the probable finishing time. This estimate would probably be
>more accurate than the rough estimate
At 08:15 PM 2/11/01 -0500, you wrote:
Examples (I think these numbers are about right):
>8088 4.77 MHz -> 12 or 12 MHz, factor of about 2.3
>80286 6 MHz -> 20 MHz, factor of 2.5
>80386 16 MHz -> 40 MHz, factor of 2.5
>486
The 486 came in at, I think, 33 Mhz, and only went to the DX2, the 66 Mh
At 11:09 PM 2/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
>George is working on it, but is a long way from completion. Progress is
>slow, primarily due to my own laziness. My estimate for a 512K FFT is 0.4
>seconds on a 1.4GHz P4. You can compare that to other machines at
>http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm.
Ca
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 the calculation of one r
At 02:57 PM 2/3/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >With increasing exponent size (and therefore run time), I'd like to
> >see PrimeNet evolve to track intermediate residues & also to be able
> >to coordinate parallel LL testing & double-checking, so that runs
> >which are going wrong can be stopped for inve
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2671550.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni
Entropia has secured $7 million in funding from Mission Ventures and
Silicon Valley Bank's San Diego Technology Group.
Way to go, Scott!Watch that burn rate. ;-)
Intel issued a RECALL of *all* 1.13GHz Pentium 3's yesterday:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2634198.html
At 09:03 AM 8/29/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>for all of you who couldn't get their 1.13 GHz Pentiums working
>correctly with Prime95, there is a story on that at
>
>http://www.tomshar
At 12:42 PM 8/14/00 +0200, you wrote:
> > I'm now disgusted with GIF images, if only because I'm tired of
> >living in an 8-bit color, 1-bit transparency world. I wouldn't stand for a
> >computer that ran with 256 colors, and I don't have to stand for an image
> >format that tops out at 256-colo
Wanna bet? Unisys strong-armed all developers of .GIF *readers* back in
1994 in to those contracts. I know. I was one of them.Both encoding
and decoding are covered by the patent. Any program that handles .GIF
files in ANY way (including, I might add, web browsers) is one that Unisys
At 01:00 PM 6/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>being found. Currently, all exponents thru Prime95's limit of
>79.3M have been factored to at least 2^50... If a factor is
>found for an exponent, it's eliminated from further testing
>of any kind.
Isn't the factor itself verified?
___
At 10:00 PM 6/12/00 -0600, you wrote:
>I just finished a Lucas Lehmer test on exponent 9822067. My PII 350 was
>doing a iteration every .320 seconds. The next exponent it started was
>103500203. It is now taking .421 seconds per iteration. I have a feeling
>this is due to the fact it is using a d
At 11:46 AM 5/9/00 -0400, you wrote:
>If the PrimeNet assignments reports are to be believed, we have
>double-checked all exponents through 3M and proven M(2976221) and
>M(3021377) to be respectively the 36th and 37th primes in numeric order.
We still have a handful of exponents to go.
The of
Very durable. I have Original P-II/233's two years old still going, have
been 24x7 since day one. I have P-166's that have been going for 3 or 4
years nonstop on either crunching primes or crunching DES. I even have a
handful of P-100's, among the first original Pentiums, still going on
do
At 01:29 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
Is it that the search for prime numbers is perceived to be the domain of
>>geeks while everybody is supposed to be excited about extra-terrestrial
>>life?
The possibility of LGM is "sexy" in a pop-culture kind of way. Prime
numbers are only "sexy" to a ha
I have an exponent that was completed while a Linux box was misconfigured
to NOT have permissions to write the temp files. It looks like it never
checked in its results. It did have permissions to handle writing
results.txt, but didn't have the ability, so it seems, to write NEW files,
whic
>>2) Though I've read the documentation, it's not clear to me whether my
>>manually checked out exponent will be put back into the pool at the end
>>of its "days to go" (about a week from now), or whether I have until
>>"days exp" (about 10 weeks).
Days to go is how long Entropia estimates it wi
You're bumping up against the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus here. Pi
DOES have a precisely defined value, but you cannot express it in decimal
form. You can express it as an infinite expansion, however.
Just as you can never get to the end of pi, though its value is known, you
can never P
Why, when there's a synchronization, do some VERY old results get left in
my "cleared since last sync" report?
--- Exponents Cleared since last Synchronization ---
prime factLucas-Lehmer residue or factor
exponent bits[residues partially masked] date returned computer
At 05:23 PM 2/6/00 -0600, you wrote:
>What do we have now? I *do* find it troublesome to contact the
>server to say "I'm still here" - that is "compulsion" rather than
>"trust". As my post indicated, if I am considered untrustworthy
>for failing to do it, I will simply choose to not participate
In other words, David is "pre-emptively poaching" these numbers, to prevent
them from getting taken by quitters, in thinking he can clear them before
others So, he's a poacher himself, it stands to reason on this side
of the aisle...
To me there's no difference between hoarding and poach
It's a joke.
Heinlein jokingly wrote in 1969 about some fictionl legislature trying to
legislate pi to be exactly three in "Stranger in a Strange Land".
Someone else started this urban myth.
Here's a reference about it you can trust:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctc676.htm
Headlin
I particularly liked the line in which the alleged lawmaker said that the
mathematicians were being irrational:
> "I think that it is the mathematicians that are being irrational, and it
> is time for them to admit it," said Lawson.
Of COURSE they're being irrational! It's PI! ;-)
At 12:4
I hate to open a can of worms here, but feel I must However, I am not
a poacher myself, nor do I advocate it. I only write this to tell you why
I don't feel sorry for folks who queue up WAY too much work and then gripe
about it when someone else calls them on the carpet about it by poach
Thanks to all who answered!
At 10:23 PM 12/7/99 +, you wrote:
>Assuming the processor in your 233 system really is a PII, you would
>seem to have a slow clock (perhaps it's running in doze mode?
This seems to have been it. Check
>the BIOS settings & disable power-saving) or another applic
DING! Give that man a ceegar! While I didn't find a setting for
anything like that anywhere in the BIOS, I took a risk and let the BIOS
reconfigure itself for "optimal settings" in the hopes it wouldn't FUBAR
everything and the system is back to its snappy old self
again... Thanks, J
No, it shows the NTPrime service taking 98% of the CPU time. I've run
benches on it, too, and it is just plain running slow, like a 66 Mhz or
slower machine I'll be looking for that compatibility mode thing shortly.
At 03:11 PM 12/7/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Dec 199
I have a P-II/233 running NT 4.0 that I think is severely
underperforming. It has 256 MB of RAM, and much of it remains free. Some
applications take literally MINUTES to load, and I suspect a CPU problem,
although PrimeNT reports no calculation errors. I suspect that the CPU is
simply unde
Won't happen on schedule. Look again:
1987523 D 60 1491838 109.4 1.0 61.0 18-Oct-99 15:54 01-Jul-99 06:03
diamonddave Ebi
It has taken him from 1 Jul through now to get to 1.5MM iterations. He
still has almost 500,000 iterations to go, a fourth of the number. While
we don't know how long
At 06:12 PM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>math stuff. Im in nerdvana here. So, thanks George. How
>about posting a picture of yourself so we can print it
>out and frame it? {8^D spike
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/bios/bio.html#Woltman
__
At 11:00 AM 10/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm okay with that. But I think, if possible, it'd be good to break up
>primes into like, 1 month chunks, & distribute them. I'm sure it'd be
>possible, I just don't know if/how much it'd impact speed.
Not possible. Well, POSSIBLE, but it would actually
At 08:51 PM 9/19/99 -0400, you wrote:
>prime, unless we find a factor. Interestingly enough, when we find the next
>Mersenne prime, searching for a factor of M(M(p)) might allow us to find an
>even bigger prime. If for example, 6*M(p)+1 divides M(M(p)), then it must
>be prime!
Which one must b
The actual ITERATION takes the same, no matter how long the screen output
takes. The report on the screen is NOT time for iteration PLUS time to
display the report... It's time for the iteration WITHOUT the screen display.
At 10:29 PM 9/15/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I was wondering why t
At 09:27 AM 9/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>It is very likely that we will succed to reach the Y2K goal. Maybe it is
>time now to set a new one? I stick with the suggestion I made a few months
>ago: 10 000 000 before the new millenium?
>
>What do you think?
I think we'll now endlessly debate whether t
At 03:22 PM 7/25/99 -0400, you wrote:
>This is my fear. Right now, GIMPS is the only major concerted effort to find
>Mersenne Primes, and we ought to keep it that way. This has led to orderly
>searching, and not a mad free-for-all. The prize money should (and must!) go
>entirely to the discoverer
I have seen this before, on one particular machine. The sound does appear
to come directly from the CPU. It isn't harmful as far as I can tell --
that same CPU has been testing for three years now, and continues to chug
along It only tends to happen on slower, older Pentiums, from what I'
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/12/5progs.idg/
They don't mention the new find, and totally munged the quoting of past
finds. They do link to the site. Can someone LART the folks at IDG and CNN?
Unsubscribe & list info --
At 08:57 AM 7/12/99 +0200, you wrote:
> The law of leading digits predicts that, for decimal numbers,
>log10(2) ~= 30.1% will have leading digit 1.
Uh, won't they *ALL* have a leading digit of one? Anything with a leading
digit of ZERO can be totally discounted
___
NOW it does, after the official announcement Remember when Roland
found M37? Someone found a 0x000 residue in the report and
beat George to the punch, so Scott modified the reports so that they would
NOT post a zero residue automatically. So THIS time, when word came that
At 07:34 PM 7/1/99 +0100, you wrote:
>My reading of the "island" theory is that the centre of the next
>"island" should be closer to 6 million than 7 million.
How so? If indeed p=6972593 is one of a pair in an island, then it is not
the middle. It is either the higher or the lower of the two
At 08:04 AM 7/1/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Well either that or I am *SEARCHER SUPREME*, but then I would have been
>the first to find it, on Landon's site.
>
>I would assume that George would know since he probably gave the exponent
>to him in the first place.
There is a very short list of people tha
Very well -- I will now predict that the NEXT Mersenne prime we find will
be discovered very shortly (within 60 days, sans verification time), and
will be PRECISELY:
2^7682383 - 1
I say this only because I have that number reserved, and because it falls
within the subjective "Mersenne Island"
At 07:08 AM 6/28/99 +0100, you wrote:
> > I *suspect* that in light of GIMPS' success, he is likely looking much
> > higher than we are now (and has been for some time, again as a
> guess). He
> > knows our current program cannot top P > 20,000,000, so I suspect he's
> > above that range, perh
At 12:14 PM 6/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>How large will the exponent be for a 10,000,000 digit prime number?
P will be over 33,000,000 or roughly thereabouts. I'm sure someone can
give a more precise number.
>Has the prime number that was found a week ago been announced on this list?
>I.E. Wh
>WHY are these others so concerned about a few exponents not being
>finished soon? What possible difference does it make to them?
It doesn't affect me personally in the slightest, other than wanting to see
that line item on the GIMPS home page under "Milestones", that we know M37
is truly M37
Exponents are only re-assigned if the machine they are assigned to has not
been heard from AT ALL over the past 60 days. So long as the machine
checks in and tells PrimeNet that it is still working, it will let them
take as long as they want to check the exponent.
This was my complaint from
74 matches
Mail list logo
