On Saturday 25 January 2003 02:07, John R Pierce wrote: > > But, no, you won't be able to complete a 10M on a P100 ;-) > > my slowest machine still on primenet is a p150 that has 60 days to finish > 14581247, its been working on it for about 300 days now, 24/7, with nearly > zero downtime. 2.22 seconds per iteration, yikes. > > I probably should retire this box after it completes this one, its still > running v16 :D
Obviously if such a change were made one would expect a "period of grace" to accomodate assignments already started to complete. On Saturday 25 January 2003 00:42, Nathan Russell wrote: > > Does this apply to 10M assignments? I don't see why not. > > The machine I used until earlier this month, a P3-600, couldn't do those in > much under 6 months, and some machines which were sold new around 2000 are > unable to do them in a year. > Yes. But given that there is plenty of work left which can usefully be run on systems a lot slower than P3-600, and that the fastest PC systems currently available can run a 10M digit range LL test in about 4 weeks, I'm not sure it is sensible to be running 10M digit assignments on P3-600s any more. On Saturday 25 January 2003 00:39, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > [... snip ...] > What I am saying is that having an assignment expire after a year > does not get at the root of the problem. Even if an assignee could > perform the work in 15 days start-to-finish, a poacher with a Cray > might decide to intervene anyway. But in my experience the majority of poaching is connected with running tests on the lowest outstanding exponents irrespective of the fact they're assigned to someone else. > > My suggestion is that in order to receive "credit" for their work, > everybody MUST "register" what they are doing. Sure. But does this address the problem? > And the registration > process must refuse to give out duplicate assignments. I wasn't aware that it did. But what is the objection to having both LL test and double check for a particular exponent assigned simultaneously? If we're done looking for factors, we need the results of both runs eventually. BTW what about another problem I have come across on several occasions, namely "reverse poaching"? This is when I have properly got an assignment which someone else has let expire, but the original assignee reports a result whilst I'm working on it? Regards Brian Beesley _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
