> My question is, does the
> PrimeNet server look at the actual speed a machine is achieving to
> determine what it should assign?
None of PrimeNet's rules are currently contingient upon machine speed, though we
can easily support that. What you are seeing is Prime95 requesting 'whatever
types of work makes the most sense' on the basis of your settings and the
rolling average cycle rate stored in the local.ini file.
If you uncheck the 'whatever makes sense' box and instead check all 3 types of
work, your assignment types will remain invariant under those same test
conditions.
> > Just curious: Is anyone else waiting for PrimeNet to achieve 1 TeraFLOP/s
> > (except Scott, of course :-))?
> >
> > Scott, do you have a time estimate for that when extrapolating the
> > current growth?
>
> Scott has the official numbers, but based on the past
> six months, it looks like it will occur by year end.
Looks like it. To toss a date out for fun, sometime during October. Recent
non-linear positive effects on GIMPS participation like SETI@home, a CNN story,
radio ads, and the last newsletter have made an accurate guess tough. Assuming
M#38 news gets out, we'll see another upward spike.
How about this: if the FBI quote is right, GIMPS/PrimeNet is at today's rate of
738 GFLOP/s worth between $182,000 and $486,000 per day in CPU time. Of course,
'past performance is no guarantee of future results'!
Regards,
scott
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
