Wouldn't the run time at 4.231 be about 10 years? --- Eric Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, okay... obviously a lot of people were awake > <sigh> > (you can stop flooding me with emails!!) > > In a previous message I wrote: > > >P.S. At the 79.3M range, you'll probably not want > to set it > >at 100 iterations... Per iteration time on 266MHz > PII with > >64MB RAM is 58.781 seconds!!! (Yes, it's true, but > I'm also > >just checking to see if anybody's awake :)) > > I went back to the exponent in question and ran > another test. > > There are a couple of notes here: > 1) This originally was done for a particular test > in QA. > 2) George didn't have the new timings up at the > time. > 3) I thought it was high myself, but what did I > know? > > What I found was: > 1) I obviously had something running in the > background > I was not aware of. > 2) The actual time dropped to 4.231 sec/iter > 3) Amazingly, there didn't appear to be much HDD > paging > happening except went you hit 'STOP'! > > BTW, for those of you who don't know (or actually > asked), > these exponents use 4096K FFT runlengths, and 16M > save > files... > > Eric Hahn > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & list info -- > http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm > Mersenne Prime FAQ -- > http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
