Was using the PrimeNet manual entry page.
It responded as expected to my input,
but the response included the line
- rate regulated at 0.50 Hz -
What is that line telling me ???
mikus
_
Unsubscribe list info --
Will the 64-bit residue be the SAME when a given exponent
was originally Lucas-Lehmer tested with a 384K FFT, but
the double-check is performed using a 448K FFT ?
mikus
_
Unsubscribe list info --
!!) ]
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 07:51:10 + Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 25 January 2003 00:39, Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
[... snip ...]
My suggestion is that in order to receive credit for their work,
everybody MUST register what they are doing.
Sure. But does this address
It's good that OS/2 has not been forgotten. Please,
I'd like to correspond with the person who ported this.
Thanks, mikus
_
Unsubscribe list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ --
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 21:31:12 + Brian J. Beesley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2% is the sort of change which can occur when a program is stopped
restarted without changing anything else. Probably the cause is a change in
the page table mapping (of physical to virtual memory addresses).
Interesting to compare the performance numbers given for the Itanium
running Glucas v2.8c against my Thunderbird running mprime v21.4 :
- At the smallest FFT length, the Itanium is WAY faster.
this performance difference decreases until
- At FFTs 640K-2048K, the Itanium is a little
Tried the new V21 Linux version (p95v21x.zip). My original (35 um)
Athlon got the same percentage speed increases that others have been
reporting (did *not* have to explicity put in CpuSupportsPrefetch=1).
One minor V21 difference: I was using the Advanced/Time option,
and V20 would show each
One more possibility to keep in mind for Athlons: BIOS level
(and perhaps also which motherboard).
Don't have windows, so can't try the optimized prime95, but
have noticed on timing runs with the V20 mprime that my new
(ASUS A7M266) Athlon is now 2% slower than when I first got it.
The only
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:11:33 - "Daran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all. I'm new to the list, but I've been GIMPING for just over two years.
I'd been thinking about possible security risks myself just before I joined
the list, so it's a bit of a coincidence that this was the first thread I
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:12:43 -0500 Jeff Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 17:27:42 -0500 Jeff Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point is that we could crank through these laggards if the Primenet
server would have simply ensured they were assigned to a "top 1000"
producer, or to a machine of sufficient calibre and reliability
(historically,
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:29:24 +0100 gordon spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking the data from the status page on mersenne.org where it gives timings
per fft size per iteration, taking the mid-point exponent for each fft size
and then multiplying by the 5.5 conversion factor that George
On 20 Jul 2000 00:09:20 -0400 "Robert Deininger" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have saved some of the hourly status and cleared reports, and I think
I see what happened.
On 13-May-2000:
8277083 64 4126527 105.0 -12.1 42.9
16-Apr-00 19:40 29-Jan-00 22:24 floris Vincent
On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:04:35 +0200 "Steinar H. Gunderson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 22:18 29.06.00 +0100, Michael Bell wrote:
Soory to be a little off topic, can somebody tell me how hot a motherboard
should be running? I have a Celeron 466 and an ASUS P2B-B. It claims to be
42 degrees
There is a user, "___", who has almost 100 single-checkingassignments
out on a single machine ID. These would take a state-of-the-art box well
over two years to finish. Additionally, these assignments have almost
identical figures for time to complete etc. The first exponent in this
I've mothballed a middling-speed non-Intel machine. That machine
could have been participating in GIMPS, but I chose not to have
it do so any more. The reason - I resent feeling "pressured" by
expiration requirements and contact-every-xx-days requirements.
That machine is not normally
On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 11:12:09 -0500 Jeff Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many of us want to see results -- we want milestones, we want to
see "All exponents less than 3,000,000 have been double checked." We want
to see "Double checking proves 3021377 is the 37th Mersenne Prime".
We
I agree with everything that Lucas said.
For the project to benefit, the participants would have to AGREE
to restructure the work. Savings would result from stopping the
diverging work earlier. (And if "passing around" intermediate
files was accepted, by starting any triple-check work later.)
This really bothers me. Who appointed us to be our brother's keepers?
What RIGHT do the people on this list have to keep asking questions
of those who do not meet the expectations of the questioners?
To those on this list who are pursuing why certain exponents are not
being completed "sooner"
Will the Millenium Deities smite all GIMPS participants unless each
and every exponent under 500 has been processed by 12/31/99 ?
Assume uncompleted exponents were reserved in good faith. How does
it make the world a better place to have others come along and say:
"I see that splinter in
First order of business is a plan of action - formulating the QA test suite.
Something that is already built-in to 'mprime' is the self-test.
Could the QA people please investigate adding another test-suite
(or updating the old one) so that people on other platforms (i.e.,
people who are
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Vincent J. Mooney Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we could argue this for a long time. I vote for discarding the
results and asking GIMPS to warn its participants to never do this again.
GIMPS should not credit Aaron for the work.
I second this proposal.
22 matches
Mail list logo
