At 14:16 05/18/2000 -0700, Russel Brooks wrote:
>
>Peter Owen wrote:
>> Is there a problem with the PrimeNet Server? I keep getting the following
>> message when prime95 tries to contact the server.
>>
>> Contacting PrimeNet Server.
>> ERROR 2250: Server unavailable
>> The FAQ at http://www.entro
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, John R Pierce wrote:
> John R Pierce wrote:
> >whoops, no they haven't. If I launch X-windows or something while two
> >mersenne instances are running, it gets ILLEGAL SUMOUT on both instances
> >within a few seconds. Uh oh. sounds like something wrong with the system
>
Hi,
I'll likely be moving to a cable modem soon and intend to install a
machine to act as a firewall, likely a Linux box. Since it will be
sitting there all day doing nothing other than screening stuff between my
LAN and the 'Net, I thought I'd run mprime (if Linux) on it. Of course,
all of the
Hi,
I'm running Prime95 on a machine with a PII-400 doing LL tests. The
machine finished up an exponent in the 9,000,000 range (512K) and started
doing an LL test on an exponent around 828. I expected the iteration
times to speed up (384K or 448K, not sure which for the lower exponent),
but
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Dennis Peter wrote:
> Hi there, I've experienced a problem. I'm wondering if anyone else has had
> this problem:
>
> GIMPS freezes my system after it runs for about 24 hours or so.
>
> I have Windows NT 4.0 (SP5)
> Dual Intel Celeron 433Mhz (BP6 motherboard)
> 128MB RAM
At 15:14 01/22/2000 -0500, George Woltman wrote:
>
>Finding new factors isn't hard. Over half of the candidates are eliminated
>by finding a factor rather than the expensive LL test. GIMPS by default
>assigns slower machines to do the factoring work. Thus, it is not
>uncommon for powerful machi
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> >Secondly, I used to feed the output to a virtual terminal, but decided that
> >having a hard copy that I could periodically check was better. I've been
> >piping all the output to a file, such as mprime -d
> >>>/home/GIMPS/tracking.txt. When it finis
At 16:46 10/21/1999 -0700, poke wrote:
>
>So you want the output of mprime to display on a virtual terminal? Unless
>you are displaying to a virtual terminal your data won't go anywhere, or
>worse someone who connects will see this extraneous data hit their screen
>every once in a while.
>
>You sh
At 23:03 10/14/1999 GMT, Michael Oates wrote:
>I have a dual PII 560Mhz with NT and get similar results to you, with both
>running an exponent M8332549 ish I get times of .220 for each processor,
>with just one running it goes to .196
>
>Also, if one is doing an LL test and the other factoring th
Hi,
I'm running mprime (v19) on a dual-processor box (RH 6.0, very basic, no
graphical interface at installed) and am curious about the hit others take
when moving from using one to two processors. (People running duals under
NT are also welcomed to respond!)
If I run a single instance of mprim
Hi,
I just updated several Linux machines to mprime V19. I have all of my
machines set to get 45 days worth of work. Two of the machines, which
were nearly down to having only 45 days worth of work remaining,
immediately contacted PrimeNet, got an additional exponent each, and
factored that exp
At 01:42 AM 9/26/1999 -0400, Lucas Wiman wrote:
>> not, but, what would it show? A progress bar, maybe... anything else? There
>> isn't really anything else to show. Intermediate results of the LL test
>> don't themselves have a lot of meaning (even the final result, if non-zero,
>> is devoid of m
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Brian J. Beesley wrote:
> On 16 Sep 99, at 18:35, Lucas Wiman wrote:
> >
> > This brings us to an interesting point. Should the primenet server start
> > default assigning celeron's <384K FFT mersennes, and save the larger ones
> > for PII's/PIII's?
>
> No. Whatever the pro
At 11:28 AM 9/16/1999 -0400, St. Dee wrote:
>Does anyone else notice that their Celeron based machines seem to take a
>relatively bigger performance hit when moving from testing exponents in the
>384K FFT size to the 448K FFT size (under V18.1, at least)?
>
>I have a couple of
Does anyone else notice that their Celeron based machines seem to take a
relatively bigger performance hit when moving from testing exponents in the
384K FFT size to the 448K FFT size (under V18.1, at least)?
I have a couple of non-overclocked Celeron 400 machines and, at the 384K
FFT size, they
At 18:34 7/26/99 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
><>
>
>Absolutely not! I joined before this money kookiness, and do it for the
fame.
>:->
I too joined well before any "moneybusiness"...I'm in it as a justification
to keep building bigger and faster computers to add to the little "silicon
farm" I
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Ken Kriesel wrote:
> Make my guess for M38, p~=6,740,000
I'll guess p~=6,740,001 :-)
Kel
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Colin Percival wrote:
>
> So we are about 7.5*10^10 P90 years away from our first billion digit prime.
> Following conservative estimates of cpu power and number of participants
> doubling every two years, I'd guess that we will have a our first billion
> digit prime in 20
At 08:23 6/5/99 MDT, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data.
19 matches
Mail list logo
