Mersenne Digest Monday, June 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 578
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:21:46 -0700
From: Michael Gebis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote the following on Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:16:28 -0600
Aaron> Certain tools are better suited to certain jobs. Find the
Aaron> job that your slower computer is best suited for and go for
Aaron> it.
I think this argument also applies to your computers...why not put
your faster computers on the bigger exponents where they are needed,
instead of poaching smaller exponents?
Aaron> Am I just wrong in thinking this?
I think that most people's concern is that they will have their
exponent "stolen" from under them. It's not clear exactly how you
will go about determining which exponents need to be reclaimed, since
you're sort of doing it unofficially. I know that you have the best
of intentions in mind, and it's clear that the exponents you picked
are indeed dropped, but that's just because I happen to recognize your
name.
However, it's not TOO big a step to imagine someone else getting even
more anxious and 'reclaiming' exponents that are still actively being
worked on. This is the slippery slope that most people fear. If there's
no official policy on exponent reclaiming, and just many little ad hoc
ones, the whole concept of reserving exponents goes out the window.
If I were you, I'd let George and Scott determine which exponents need
to be reclaimed. (Perhaps you could offer them suggestions :) Getting
their official blessing before doing work would make everybody more at
ease.
Mike Gebis
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:36:51 +0100
From: "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: LL and factoring & quitting
On 14 Jun 99, at 6:41, lrwiman wrote:
> We will of course have to check factors considerably further than we are doing
> on our current exponent range (due to the increased LL iteration time.)
Yes - on the principle that it's worthwhile to spend 5% to 10% of the
LL testing time attemptimg to find at least one factor before we run
a LL test, the pre-factoring should be run for 3 or 4 weeks per
exponent first (assuming PIII-500 class power). At a rough guess,
that's up to 2^66 or 2^67, but we don't have any benchmarks yet.
> think that someone (Brian...?) did test for all 10,000,000 digit primes
> <36,000,000 for factors <2^40. Maybe George can add these to his database, or
> something.
George advised "don't bother" but I did it anyway. Just for fun. But
I checked the results carefully enough to be sure I'm not making an
idiot of myself.
You can find the results in standard format in the /gimps/DecaMega
directory on my anon ftp server lettuce.edsc.ulst.ac.uk
Of course, trial factoring to 2^40 is very quick - I spent only about
2 (PII-350) CPU hours spread over all 159,975 candidate exponents in
the range I selected. But that's enough to eliminate a third of them.
If anyone's _really_ keen I could send them the source of the program
I used (needs MS VC++). It's reasonably efficient & will go to 2^63.
Exponents in the 30 millions are not acceptable to Prime95 v18 and
its derivatives.
The factors found were verified against a much simpler program run on
an Alpha & I have lots of confidence in them.
Regards
Brian Beesley
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:35:25 -0400
From: Yvan Dutil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
At 07:40 AM 6/14/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Sheesh, well it has been a rough past week... :-) Call it "testing the
>waters". I'm good at that. To my knowledge, the issue of poaching numbers
>has never been discussed (on the list anyway), so at least we got to talk
>about it. We now know that some people are a bit bothered by numbers that
>will take 2 years to finish, and some people could care less. What we do
>with that knowledge is to find a happy balance, I guess. Let's see if the
>"ever trustworthy" Scott and George have any comments on the matter...maybe
>something along the lines of the automated emails sent to the REALLY slow
>(over a year for one number) computers.
That was exactly my first suggestion: send an email to those who have not
show up in the last year and ask them if they are still working on them.
Personnaly, I will 'poaches' those number only if they their progression is
a way behind the tail of the distribution.
By the way, I order to share the negative reaction with Aaron, I checked again
for the snail (a snail is a calculation with an to go date larger than 365).
Last time I did it (29 sept 98) there was 80 snails, now there is 135.
However,
since we check about twice the number of exponent than we were checking at
that
time, this should be consider as a progress. This is 0.3% of the overall
assingment.
Alos of the 80 'snails' of the last year, only 20 survive up to now the others
have be checked by someone else. In those survivor, only 7 are expected to
survive
another four months. There is also four silent runner in this list. One
weird
bahavior: 5292757. Which as appear to have been resetted recently by its
'owner'
to an duration as long as the initial one! Maybe it is the imfamous NSA which
try to hide their own prime :)
Surviving 'snail'
prime fact current days
exponent bits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date
assigned account ID computer ID
- -------- -- ---- --------- ----------------- ---------------
- --------------- -------------- ------------
4369949 61 393215 476.5 15.1 75.1 14-Jun-99 11:53 23-Feb-98
02:21 madpoo cosy2k-1
4465127 61 458752 473.2 14.2 74.2 13-Jun-99 19:01 26-Feb-98
09:23 madpoo cdry2k-2
4580201 61 405780 481.5 15.1 75.1 13-Jun-99 17:11 18-Feb-98
01:42 madpoo cosy2k-4
4664917 60 424.3 349.6 409.6 11-Jul-98 05:09 16-Apr-98
07:26 markb P-90
4771433 61 48.5 9.5 64.5 12-Jun-99 03:37 27-Apr-99
03:45 sgrupp ocap
4774129 61 49.3 -11.3 48.7 26-Apr-99
06:03 Ri auweia
4787599 61 376.9 661.1 721.1 02-Jun-98
16:42 andres
4833901 61 404.9 404.1 464.1 05-May-98
16:35 andrewf tom1
4933207 61 427.8 -55.0 5.0 24-Jan-99 12:49 12-Apr-98
18:53 kampela kampela
5016679 61 388.5 380.5 440.5 22-May-98
02:09 redwine
5103829 61 2292622 396.0 127.7 17.7 05-Apr-99 07:13 14-May-98
14:27 Vesa
5292757 62 71.5 -55.5 4.5 04-Apr-99
01:16 S06537
5293451 62 310590 28.8 1775 57.0 10-Jun-99 15:50 16-May-99
20:38 DOC KING
5362403 62 1725634 345.6 399.3 72.3 26-May-99 20:27 04-Jul-98
00:30 tp68spa
5635247 62 17.3 6.7 66.7 28-May-99
06:15 glcross
5834261 62 64.3 -2.5 37.5 25-Apr-99 02:04 11-Apr-99
07:54 kosh jobb_2
5920043 62 2490367 60.3 -13.0 47.0 13-May-99 13:25 15-Apr-99
06:29 kevinrosenberg Ferret
5963843 62 3407872 33.7 12.4 72.4 08-Jun-99 23:29 11-May-99
22:11 GScharf SAI
5977801 62 2196233 264.3 373.2 84.2 10-Jun-99 18:12 23-Sep-98
08:21 S02408
5996143 62 17.3 42.7 102.7 28-May-99
06:17 glcross
Situation in September 1998
4369949 60 218.7 480.8 98-May-22 12:13 98-Feb-23
02:21 Walkabout BamBam
4465127 60 215.4 568.6 98-Feb-26
09:23 koma magek072
4580201 60 223.7 826.6 98-Feb-25 09:06 98-Feb-18
01:42 MIT rhansen2
4664917 60 166.5 607.4 98-Jul-11 04:09 98-Apr-16
06:26 markb P-90
4771433 61 169.7 835.3 98-Apr-13
01:30 x69-irc2 IRC-USER
4774129 61 196608 64.4 506.2 98-Aug-10 22:41 98-Jul-27
07:45 josephg
4787599 61 119.1 918.9 98-Jun-02
15:42 andres
4833901 61 147.1 661.9 98-May-05
15:35 andrewf tom1
4933207 61 170.0 385.0 98-Sep-29 17:41 98-Apr-12
17:53 kampela kampela
5016679 61 130.7 638.3 98-May-22
01:09 redwine
5103829 61 138.3 592.6 98-Sep-17 07:41 98-May-14
11:27 Vesa romu
5292757 62 561206 125.8 574.5 98-Aug-16 06:05 98-May-26
23:36 watcher ircwarez
5293451 62 98361 111.9 1557.2 98-Aug-27 23:13 98-Jun-09
20:38 DOC KING
5362403 62 210610 87.9 423.1 98-Sep-14 21:17 98-Jul-03
21:30 tp68spa
5635247 * 55 1 24.8 1416.7 98-Sep-29 10:52 98-Sep-04
22:05 king
5834261 62 177615 38.9 644.0 98-Sep-21 17:37 98-Aug-21
19:47 rfulton
5920043 62 66993 26.9 2161.4 98-Sep-14 04:45 98-Sep-02
19:50 CHAUVET HOME
5963843 62 7.9 852.1 98-Sep-21
19:47 timesau se486-50
5977801 62 6.5 462.5 98-Sep-23
05:21 S02408
5996143 * 52 3.9 663.1 98-Sep-25
21:32 jhuck frontx
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:59:01 +0000
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: new frost free computers
Aaron Blosser wrote:
> One nut is working on total immersion of his system in oil, with
> an air-conditioner coil submersed as well. This would solve the problem of
> condensate, but there is concern that the mineral oil will break some of the
> components on the board.
>
> I like the idea, but instead of mineral oil, some inert water.
Pure nitrogen would not react to anything and would carry that heat
around in
the case pretty much the same as dry air
For that matter if you're just using dry air the only condensation will
be
on the cooling coils, because everything else will be too hot. Maybe
several
sets of cooling coils that can swap in and out of the insulated chamber
and chip the ice off on the outside.
Anyone want to search www.patents.ibm.com for "refrigeration" and hmm,
what other terms -- condensation will get most anything that
refrigerates --
same with "moisture"
________________________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proud to use and endorse the "last used on top" filing system
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:01:03 -0600
From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: To poach or not to poach, that is the question.
>From the GIMPS page:
"You could be the first person to find a 1,000,000 digit prime number!
However, these exponents take quite a while to test. A 200 MHz Pentium
computer will take 4 weeks to test a single exponent! These ranges are
definitely not recommended for 486 or Cyrix 6x86 owners."
"Slower Pentiums (120MHz and below) can be used in double-checking previous
Lucas-Lehmer tests. You could find a new Mersenne prime if the previous
Lucas-Lehmer test was incorrect. You must use version 18 of the program and
use the PrimeNet server's web pages to get double-checking assignments."
"486/100s or better and Cyrix 6x86s can be used in factoring Mersenne
numbers. You won't find any Mersenne primes this way, but your results will
be used to update the database to help speed up the Lucas-Lehmer testing.
You must use the PrimeNet server's web pages to get factoring assignments."
And there IS a reason why, left to it's own devices, Primenet will hand out
double-checks to machines P166 and under, and why 486 machines will get
factoring assignments. Scott must have considered the "suitability to task"
when deciding on these limits.
And as we can see, George has expressed his opinion also on what machines
are
suitable for what type of work. We're all free to check out first time LL
tests in the 7M range and run it on our 486DX-40, but personally I think
that is a ridiculous concept. While every machine *can* be useful for
GIMPS,
they are useful for different things...486's are fine for factoring, P166
and below are fine for double-checking the smaller numbers. On the other
hand, there is a point where a machine is no longer useful, and I would
certainly lump 386 class machines into this category. At some point,
factoring will take to long for 486's under 120MHz or so, and even
eventually, double-checking assignments will exceed the reasonable limits of
Pentium class machines.
I certainly think that if ANY assignment takes longer than 12 months, you'd
be better off on a codebreaking contest or something of the sort. Something
to consider...maybe even ECM or the like.
Wouldn't it be nice to go out of 1999 having done first time LL tests on all
exponents under 5.26M? C'mon folks, set goals for yourself! Currently,
there's only about 210 exponents under this (which will finish off the 256K
FFT size numbers).
And I'd like to be able to prove M37 and M38 are actually 37 and 38!
There's just under 7,000 exponents to double-check (according to the GIMPS
status page) to prove this...so get those slower machines cracking on the
double-checks! It's just as important as doing first time LL tests if you
ask me. :-)
And I vow not to poach more numbers, though I'd hope that George and Scott
would take the matter of "exponent hoarders" into consideration. Consider
this nasty response my brother and I got from a <name withheld>:
"I'm starting to realise that you probably are the most stupid and ignorant
person I have ever discussed anything with. What makes you think someone
are using a 486 for testing, even if Primenet tells you that it would take
two years to finish one exponent? You don't _know_, and you do not intend
to ask, because you have no repsect for any ideas other than those you
find in your own little world."
Well, he/she is right...I don't know what kind of machine it's running on,
just because it'll take 2 years to test oen exponent. In fact, I'd be quite
wrong if I said it was a 486 since a 486 would finish it up MUCH faster in
all likelihood (I mean, we are talking about numbers in the 4M-5M range).
Maybe it is a 386, or a pocket calculator. :-) And, FWIW, ad hominem
attacks are never useful...consider cutting out the words like "stupid" and
"ignorant" if you really want to make a point.
Or these fun quotes:
"Well, since you are stupid, I'll keep two of my assignments below M37,
which are reserved directly from George, outside Primenet. I might even
return bogus results for them sometime next year. They will not be tested
properly until they had a third check sometime in perhaps 2002. Don't that
make you feel smart, while you take the fun out of the project? What the
heck, if you want to kill the fun for other people, I'm free to take your
fun away, right? I can play really dirty too, if I want to.
"I have a 486DX40, and it needs half a year to complete a factoring
assignment, so I find it hard to belive that it can do a LL-test in only
four times longer, but I'll reserve one and try just to nag you. Nah,
thinking about it, I think I'll use my old 386DX20 instead. I can tell it
to pretend to be a PIII and see how long it takes until someone figures."
Well, obviously this person is trying to make their point by stooping even
lower than he/she accuses me of being. Again, not a great way to make a
point, but very helpful in understanding this person's mindset. That's
*all* we'd need is for this person to start sending in bogus reports on the
residue of his/her numbers. Very adult, very smart.
But look, no more poaching for me once I get these done...it'll take my PPro
200 only 2 weeks to finish off an exponent that someone has been camping on
for 1 year (with 2 more years to go) so I don't feel the least bit bad about
doing that. But like I said, after these are done with, the problem is
essentially gone since new assignments follow the new rules where they WILL
expire if you don't check in for 60 days past the next expected checkin
date, making this whole bloody argument a moot point.
George will have to figure out how to deal with weirdo's like the above
guy/gal who threaten to falsify test results and camp on numbers for years
at a time...but that's through his email reservation system and that's his
baby to handle.
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:00:17 -0600
From: "Blosser, Jeremy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: Poaching (was RE: Mersenne Digest V1 #576)
Don't bring me into this. I'll just reply to your attacks on me...
>
> JEREMY BLOSSER:
> >So basically, you are on some sort of drugs or something?
> I think so!
>
> >I hate to jump to my brother's defence here, but I think
> that the point
> >was
> >to prove 100% that M37 was really M37 and not M38 or M39 or whatever,
> >thus
> >being able to get rid of the '?' on the GIMPs page. :)
> Yes, I know...just relax...it'll happen, eventually!
>
How is someone having "fun" finding a prime with thier 486 helping the GIMPS
community as a whole? If they really wanted to contribute to the effort of
finding new Mersenne primes, then their efforts would be better directed by
doing factoring or double checking.
I don't understand the hostility here... so if the EFF builds a Mersenne
finder and does LL tests on M4-M10,000,000 or whatever, are we all supposed
to get mad at them for doing so? Sorry, I'd think it was cool...
> >I think that in the spirit of a "team" effort, assigning an
> LL test to
> >a 486
> >is the stupidest and most incosiderate thing a person could
> do. As far
> >as
> >the GIMPS effort goes, if your LL test is going to take a year, then
> >perhaps
> >you should do a factoring or double check assignment.
> Thank you for your opinion and your intelligent response. Could
> you now leave me and the slowish machine's users to have our own
> opinion too? George does, why can't you and Aaron?
>
If you bothered to look, I'm just saying that sitting on an exponent with a
386 or something is annoying me. I'm against poaching though, and would like
it if Aaron stopped. So, just because he is my brother, don't attribute his
poaching to me...
> >Now, lets say for example, that the EFF decides they want to build a
> >"Mersenne finding machine", which has 56,000 processors all doing LL
> >tests,
> >and they go right on past your exponent you have had checked out for
> >over a
> >year... would you feel slighted by the EFF? Give me a break
> folks, you
> >are
> >being way too anal about your assignments.
> I know...I'm part of D.net, Proth, PiHex, Seti@Home and other
> distributed efforts.
>
Then you should understand my argument from above... The D.net coders didn't
get all mad at the EFF for building DeepCrack and beating us by a few hours
on DES2-II.
> >I think it is quite clear to me that George and Scott missed a lot of
> >exponents that slipped thru the cracks and my bro just
> decided to point
> >that out in his own weird way.
> Yes, I know....which is why I'm trying to point that out...his
> weird way just seems like *wrong* thinking to me.
>
I think it is wrong too. Don't get me wrong. I think he was just trying to
force the issue.
> > --<snip>--
> >Lastly, what is the deal with reporting my bro to the FBI for
> >"stealing"?
> >What, he stole your assignment? You know, there is a law
> against making
> >false charges against someone.
> In what country?
>
Well, I know there are a few laws in the US. I suppose you could always be
sued for slander or defamation of character in the long run... Really, it
was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment just like the original one
was... but I guess it slipped past you.
>
> >P.S. This whole argument is stupid, so why not just drop it.
> You can't
> >really stop anyone from poaching, so are gonna go cry to George and
> >Scott and say "Aaron stole my exponent which I've been working on for
> 3 yrs".
> >I would say, "Do some factoring next time stupid!"
> Why don't you read all my replies before deciding to annoy and
> insult me?
> List moderator, do you plan on responding to Jeremy?
>
What? For doing what? Being resonable? Or is it because I think the argument
is stupid? Sorry for trying to contribute. I suppose I can put all my
computers back on d.net and forget the GIMPS project because you've taken
the "fun" out of it for me. Here I was trying to help out by a) writing a
Java client, b) taking all my computers off d.net and putting them on GIMPS,
c) trying to help improve some of the prime95 code for K6 and PPro/PII
machines, but I guess when it comes to me voicing my opinion, I can't
contribute there... (Insert Monty Python cliche here).
> >As a
> >matter of fact, if Aaron finds a prime in his poached exponents, I'm
> >sure
> >he'll be glad to share credit with whoever had it checked out or
> >whatever.
> >Or for that matter, he would probably just give that person the full
> >credit
> >and not want any credit at all really. So if its your "Place in
> >history" you
> >are worried about, I don't really care.
> 1) Why are you speaking for him?
> 2) If you don't care, don't respond to my posts.
>
1) Because I happen to agree with his stance as far as sitting on exponents
is concerned. His poaching exponents is not kosher as far as I'm concerned.
This is really George's baby, and if he wants to wait a few more years for
M37 to be verified as M37, then fine. I'm just saying that there's a good
chance that someone else will beat the GIMPS people to the punch if someone
is sitting on exponents with slow computers.
2) I said I don't care about the credit. And your posts annoyed me...
Now then, can we just call it a truce and everyone just chill out? Aaron can
stop his poaching, George and Scott can decide what to do about "prime
squatters", and everyone will be happy okay? Really...
Note: I find it really odd that when the Java client was brought up, people
were saying "It'll be too slow" (which it really wasn't) or "Its not worth
it", and now people are saying its okay for some 386 to do LL testing...
Sorry, but the response on this list against my Java client were enough to
dissuade me from pursuing it further. Your loss I guess...
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:06 -0600
From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575
> Aaron> Certain tools are better suited to certain jobs. Find the
> Aaron> job that your slower computer is best suited for and go for
> Aaron> it.
>
> I think this argument also applies to your computers...why not put
> your faster computers on the bigger exponents where they are needed,
> instead of poaching smaller exponents?
Indeed, I usually do this...I just set every machine to automatically get
whatever type of job from Primenet. I'm not kidding myself...these PPro
200's I have will only take longer and longer to do LL tests and at some
point Scott will set the limit for first time LL tests to maybe a 233MHz
machine, and at that point I'll be happy to let my PPro 200's get
double-check assignments.
As for these numbers, it just so happens that I have some test machines for
a limited time, and whaddya know, these 4-5M exponents are small enough that
I can finish them up in time before these machines go bye-bye. Otherwise,
they'd be doing first time LL tests also.
> Aaron> Am I just wrong in thinking this?
>
> I think that most people's concern is that they will have their
> exponent "stolen" from under them. It's not clear exactly how you
> will go about determining which exponents need to be reclaimed, since
> you're sort of doing it unofficially. I know that you have the best
> of intentions in mind, and it's clear that the exponents you picked
> are indeed dropped, but that's just because I happen to recognize your
> name.
For the official record: I got the assignments report from Primenet, popped
it into a spreadsheet, sorted by when the exponent was assigned, picked the
very oldest assignments then checked for when they had last checked in. If
they hadn't checked in for over a year, then I further looked at how long
before Primenet would expire that number.
What I ended up with was a handful of maybe a dozen or so exponents that
were checked out over a year ago, had not checked in for nearly a year
(about half had NEVER checked in) and still had over 300 days before
Primenet would have expired them (one would not have expired for nearly 2
more years!!).
Again, I must stress that Primenet will currently expire numbers on a much
more rapid schedule, so this problem has been addressed and will go away,
but these are the worst numbers I could find that even the most vocal
opponents of poaching would probably admit are abandoned numbers.
I can only say that I won't be poaching any more numbers *because* after
these are done, there really won't be any more "bad" ones.
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:19:40 +0000
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Poaching (was Mersenne Digest V1 #573)
lrwiman wrote:
> *never ever* cheap out on power supplies.
This is good advice, but personally I have never seen the
point of giving every machine in a rack of computers its own
power supply rather than having one big one and just running
DC all the way up the rack. The fact that it is not done
that way seems to be about politics of having AC wall current
rather than engineering efficiency.
Why not have a single (redundant) big 24VDC power supply for
all the boards instead of supplying them all 120VAC?
Would there be a commercial market for such "unicluster"
devices, where multiple independent boards are associated
with a single power supply transformer --- or maybe an alternate
power standard connector which would provide computer voltages
to computer equipment instead of 120 VAC?
Or is the current state of distributed power supplying really
a best practice because it prevents loading problems and
line resistance problems that running DC lines around the computer
room (using Edison wiring rather than a Tesla wiring) would cause?
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:34:10 -0700
From: Kevin Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: snails (was:Re: Mersenne: Re: Mersenne Digest V1 #575)
One reason for dates getting reset might be the upgrade from v17, they were
partially done, but restarted due to the v17 bug.
Yvan Dutil wrote:
> At 07:40 AM 6/14/99 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Sheesh, well it has been a rough past week... :-) Call it "testing the
> >waters". I'm good at that. To my knowledge, the issue of poaching numbers
> >has never been discussed (on the list anyway), so at least we got to talk
> >about it. We now know that some people are a bit bothered by numbers that
> >will take 2 years to finish, and some people could care less. What we do
> >with that knowledge is to find a happy balance, I guess. Let's see if the
> >"ever trustworthy" Scott and George have any comments on the matter...maybe
> >something along the lines of the automated emails sent to the REALLY slow
> >(over a year for one number) computers.
>
> That was exactly my first suggestion: send an email to those who have not
> show up in the last year and ask them if they are still working on them.
> Personnaly, I will 'poaches' those number only if they their progression is
> a way behind the tail of the distribution.
>
> By the way, I order to share the negative reaction with Aaron, I checked again
> for the snail (a snail is a calculation with an to go date larger than 365).
> Last time I did it (29 sept 98) there was 80 snails, now there is 135.
> However,
> since we check about twice the number of exponent than we were checking at
> that
> time, this should be consider as a progress. This is 0.3% of the overall
> assingment.
>
> Alos of the 80 'snails' of the last year, only 20 survive up to now the others
> have be checked by someone else. In those survivor, only 7 are expected to
> survive
> another four months. There is also four silent runner in this list. One
> weird
> bahavior: 5292757. Which as appear to have been resetted recently by its
> 'owner'
> to an duration as long as the initial one! Maybe it is the imfamous NSA which
> try to hide their own prime :)
>
> Surviving 'snail'
>
> prime fact current days
> exponent bits iteration run / to go / exp date updated date
> assigned account ID computer ID
> -------- -- ---- --------- ----------------- ---------------
> --------------- -------------- ------------
> 4369949 61 393215 476.5 15.1 75.1 14-Jun-99 11:53 23-Feb-98
> 02:21 madpoo cosy2k-1
> 4465127 61 458752 473.2 14.2 74.2 13-Jun-99 19:01 26-Feb-98
> 09:23 madpoo cdry2k-2
> 4580201 61 405780 481.5 15.1 75.1 13-Jun-99 17:11 18-Feb-98
> 01:42 madpoo cosy2k-4
> 4664917 60 424.3 349.6 409.6 11-Jul-98 05:09 16-Apr-98
> 07:26 markb P-90
> 4771433 61 48.5 9.5 64.5 12-Jun-99 03:37 27-Apr-99
> 03:45 sgrupp ocap
> 4774129 61 49.3 -11.3 48.7 26-Apr-99
> 06:03 Ri auweia
> 4787599 61 376.9 661.1 721.1 02-Jun-98
> 16:42 andres
> 4833901 61 404.9 404.1 464.1 05-May-98
> 16:35 andrewf tom1
> 4933207 61 427.8 -55.0 5.0 24-Jan-99 12:49 12-Apr-98
> 18:53 kampela kampela
> 5016679 61 388.5 380.5 440.5 22-May-98
> 02:09 redwine
> 5103829 61 2292622 396.0 127.7 17.7 05-Apr-99 07:13 14-May-98
> 14:27 Vesa
> 5292757 62 71.5 -55.5 4.5 04-Apr-99
> 01:16 S06537
> 5293451 62 310590 28.8 1775 57.0 10-Jun-99 15:50 16-May-99
> 20:38 DOC KING
> 5362403 62 1725634 345.6 399.3 72.3 26-May-99 20:27 04-Jul-98
> 00:30 tp68spa
> 5635247 62 17.3 6.7 66.7 28-May-99
> 06:15 glcross
> 5834261 62 64.3 -2.5 37.5 25-Apr-99 02:04 11-Apr-99
> 07:54 kosh jobb_2
> 5920043 62 2490367 60.3 -13.0 47.0 13-May-99 13:25 15-Apr-99
> 06:29 kevinrosenberg Ferret
> 5963843 62 3407872 33.7 12.4 72.4 08-Jun-99 23:29 11-May-99
> 22:11 GScharf SAI
> 5977801 62 2196233 264.3 373.2 84.2 10-Jun-99 18:12 23-Sep-98
> 08:21 S02408
> 5996143 62 17.3 42.7 102.7 28-May-99
> 06:17 glcross
>
> Situation in September 1998
>
> 4369949 60 218.7 480.8 98-May-22 12:13 98-Feb-23
> 02:21 Walkabout BamBam
> 4465127 60 215.4 568.6 98-Feb-26
> 09:23 koma magek072
> 4580201 60 223.7 826.6 98-Feb-25 09:06 98-Feb-18
> 01:42 MIT rhansen2
> 4664917 60 166.5 607.4 98-Jul-11 04:09 98-Apr-16
> 06:26 markb P-90
> 4771433 61 169.7 835.3 98-Apr-13
> 01:30 x69-irc2 IRC-USER
> 4774129 61 196608 64.4 506.2 98-Aug-10 22:41 98-Jul-27
> 07:45 josephg
> 4787599 61 119.1 918.9 98-Jun-02
> 15:42 andres
> 4833901 61 147.1 661.9 98-May-05
> 15:35 andrewf tom1
> 4933207 61 170.0 385.0 98-Sep-29 17:41 98-Apr-12
> 17:53 kampela kampela
> 5016679 61 130.7 638.3 98-May-22
> 01:09 redwine
> 5103829 61 138.3 592.6 98-Sep-17 07:41 98-May-14
> 11:27 Vesa romu
> 5292757 62 561206 125.8 574.5 98-Aug-16 06:05 98-May-26
> 23:36 watcher ircwarez
> 5293451 62 98361 111.9 1557.2 98-Aug-27 23:13 98-Jun-09
> 20:38 DOC KING
> 5362403 62 210610 87.9 423.1 98-Sep-14 21:17 98-Jul-03
> 21:30 tp68spa
> 5635247 * 55 1 24.8 1416.7 98-Sep-29 10:52 98-Sep-04
> 22:05 king
> 5834261 62 177615 38.9 644.0 98-Sep-21 17:37 98-Aug-21
> 19:47 rfulton
> 5920043 62 66993 26.9 2161.4 98-Sep-14 04:45 98-Sep-02
> 19:50 CHAUVET HOME
> 5963843 62 7.9 852.1 98-Sep-21
> 19:47 timesau se486-50
> 5977801 62 6.5 462.5 98-Sep-23
> 05:21 S02408
> 5996143 * 52 3.9 663.1 98-Sep-25
> 21:32 jhuck frontx
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:52:09 +0000
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inane Stuff (Was: Mersenne: M38, SETI, and other random stuff )
Chris Nash wrote:
> maybe every electronic device in my house will be
> squaring and subtracting 2 in its idle time.
<voice character="futurist" aspect="tut-tut">
make that every stitch in your clothing
<voice>
________________________________________________________________________
David Nicol 816.235.1187 UMKC Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proud to use and endorse the "last used on top" filing system
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:41:29 -0400
From: Jud McCranie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mersenne: Re: Poaching
At 11:29 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Paul Becker wrote:
>
>I've got a slower computer working on this project, and I've been
>involved for perhaps two years. My machine IS contributing to the
>project 24/7, and I'd like that to continue.
>
How long is it taking per exponent? What % complete is it for the one it is
working on?
+----------------------------------------------+
| Jud "program first and think later" McCranie |
+----------------------------------------------+
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:53:44 -0600
From: "Aaron Blosser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Mersenne: Poaching (was Mersenne Digest V1 #573)
> Why not have a single (redundant) big 24VDC power supply for
> all the boards instead of supplying them all 120VAC?
>
> Would there be a commercial market for such "unicluster"
> devices, where multiple independent boards are associated
> with a single power supply transformer --- or maybe an alternate
> power standard connector which would provide computer voltages
> to computer equipment instead of 120 VAC?
>
> Or is the current state of distributed power supplying really
> a best practice because it prevents loading problems and
> line resistance problems that running DC lines around the computer
> room (using Edison wiring rather than a Tesla wiring) would cause?
There are actually lots of good examples of just this sort of thing. The
"Cluser in a box" idea is but one, where you actually have a bunch of
computers on plug in cards, all sharing the same video, disk drive, CD, but
having separate CPU, memory, SCSI controller and drives, etc. And they all
plug into the same backplane on an N+1 power supply system.
Remote access concentrators are the same way, like the 3Com (USR) Total
Control console, and a good many routers/hub/switches have those plugs for
RPS connections.
It probably won't catch on big for mainstream products though. It would
help cooling though to take the power supplies out of a rack of computers.
I have one system here of 3 Compaq racks bolted together...5 servers, LOTS
of hard drives (a little over a terabyte I think), etc. Even in the
air-conditioned server room, you can still behind this beast, where all
those case fans blow out, and warm up a bit. :-)
Aaron
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:44:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: lrwiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mersenne: Re: factoring 10^7 digits (was LL and factoring & quitting)
Brian,
>>We will of course have to check factors considerably further than we are
>>doing on our current exponent range (due to the increased LL iteration time.)
> Yes - on the principle that it's worthwhile to spend 5% to 10% of the
> LL testing time attemptimg to find at least one factor before we run
> a LL test, the pre-factoring should be run for 3 or 4 weeks per
> exponent first (assuming PIII-500 class power). At a rough guess,
> that's up to 2^66 or 2^67, but we don't have any benchmarks yet.
Sounds about right for a SWAG estimate.
> Of course, trial factoring to 2^40 is very quick - I spent only about
> 2 (PII-350) CPU hours spread over all 159,975 candidate exponents in
> the range I selected. But that's enough to eliminate a third of them.
Maybe we should start checking factors in (the range of prime numbers used in
your database) in 2^40 segments, between you and me (and others?).
> If anyone's _really_ keen I could send them the source of the program
> I used (needs MS VC++). It's reasonably efficient & will go to 2^63.
> Exponents in the 30 millions are not acceptable to Prime95 v18 and
> its derivatives.
Just call me "Mr. Keen." ;)
When you send me the source, I'll try to port it GCC (then maybe we can make
something useful out of it :-)
A few questions:
What type of sieving did you do (if any) ?
Did you write the modpow routine, or was it included with some math header?
How much room for improvment in speed would you say is there in the source?
I have limited computational resources, a PII233, a P100, but because of my
work, I have practically unlimited resources in the 486 department they could
finish a 2^40 section in about a day or so.
I hope this 10,000,000 digit thing will go somewhere. It would be keen to
have this range checked in maybe 2 years, attracting many new members to
GIMPS in the process.
- -Lucas Wiman
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
------------------------------
End of Mersenne Digest V1 #578
******************************
