|
LLRnet server rally 400<k<1001 August 8-10
Hi all,
It's time for another LLRnet rally! :fusion: This one will run for 48 hours, from 7 PM GMT on Friday, August 8, to 7 PM GMT on Sunday, August 10, on our 400<k<1001 servers (though results from 300<k<400 servers will also be counted, as before). Here's a list of all currently running 400<k<=1001 servers: ------------------------------------------- server = "nplb.rieselprime.org" port = 300 ------------- server = "nplb.ironbits.net" port = 400 ------------- server = "nplb.dynip.telepac.pt" port = 443 ------------- server = "samband.mine.nu" port = 6 [COLOR=blue](somewhat full)[/COLOR] ------------------------------------------- [B]Edit (8/10): This rally is now concluded. Thanks to all who particpated! :smile:[/B] General info. on setting up a connection to an LLRnet server can be found [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=9959"][COLOR=#22229c]here[/COLOR][/URL]. The above info. should be put in the llr-clientconfig.txt file. :smile: Last rally we kept track ahead of time of who was bringing how many machines to which servers, and that turned out to be quite helpful in terms of knowing which servers were close to their limit (and thus avoiding any painful server freezes). I'd like to request that all you do this again, if possible. Please simply state how many machines you're bringing, and to which servers, and I'll mark it down in the following table as we go. [code]User Cores Range preference Server ----------------------------------------------------------- Anonymous 2 fast 400<k<=1001 C443 (1) IB400 (1) gd_barnes 24 fast, 4 slower 400<k<=1001 IB400 Flatlander 4 fast 400<k<=1001 AES300 Lennart 68 fast 400<k<=1001 L6 Mini-Geek 2 slower 400<k<=1001 AES300 (misc) 3-4 fast 400<k<=1001 AES300 (misc) 1-2 fast 300<k<400 IB5000 ---------------------- Total on AES300: 7-8 fast, 2 slower Total on C443: 1 fast Total on IB400: 25 fast, 4 slower Total on L6: 68 fast Total on IB5000: 1-2 fast [/code]As for goals...how about we aim to get all servers up to at least n=530K? Ambitious, I know, but hey, better to aim too high than too low in a thing like this. :wink: Have fun and bring on that firepower! :grin: Anon :smile: [SIZE=2](@Gary: How about I send an n=2.5K range to each of the C400 and L6 servers? I'm thinking that should be good enough to hold both servers for the duration of the rally, yet without making too much mess for us to clean up after the rally.)[/SIZE] |
Put me down for two slow cores on nplb.rieselprime.org, unless I need to go to another to help balance it.
I guess my cores are slow...I have 2.5 GHz Athlon and I take about 700 seconds (11 min 40 s) on my numbers at n=530K, 40K FFT (~1.345 ms/iteration). Maybe I should just say two fast Athlons...:grin: |
[quote=Mini-Geek;138782]Put me down for two slow cores on nplb.rieselprime.org, unless I need to go to another to help balance it.
I guess my cores are slow...I have 2.5 GHz Athlon and I take about 700 seconds (11 min 40 s) on my numbers at n=530K, 40K FFT (~1.345 ms/iteration). Maybe I should just say two fast Athlons...:grin:[/quote] I put your cores down as two "slower" cores since though they may not be Core 2's, they aren't too terribly bad. :smile: |
Right now, I'm planning on bringing 5 quads plus 2 slower cores.
I'm not sure what ports I'll put them on. I was planning on splitting them between ports 300 and 400 but will determine that what I see what others are bringing. Gary |
i can't bring any core this time for this ralley now. sorry!
but i'll follow the race if i can and will make the stats after finishing. hope not to let all of you wait so long for the results. good luck then to all! Karsten |
Would it be too much trouble to count my manual reservation as part of the rally?
I could copy the lresults at the starting time of the rally, then again at the ending time of the rally. I could use scheduled tasks to make it do it precisely at the times. I can send you the difference of the beginning and end files. My reservation is 530.0-530.6, 400<k<1001. If I could keep doing my manual reservations instead of switching to LLRnet for the rally, it could speed up my reservation by 2 days, plus I won't lose the few % that LLR gets over LLRnet, or have to worry about server or internet problems. |
[quote=Mini-Geek;138849]Would it be too much trouble to count my manual reservation as part of the rally?
I could copy the lresults at the starting time of the rally, then again at the ending time of the rally. I could use scheduled tasks to make it do it precisely at the times. I can send you the difference of the beginning and end files. My reservation is 530.0-530.6, 400<k<1001. If I could keep doing my manual reservations instead of switching to LLRnet for the rally, it could speed up my reservation by 2 days, plus I won't lose the few % that LLR gets over LLRnet, or have to worry about server or internet problems.[/quote] Hmm...well, it might work. After the rally, you could then just send the rally part of your lresults to me, and I could code up a quick Perl script to add lines that say "user=Mini-Geek" and "date=[I]something during the rally[/I]" (it wouldn't matter exactly what dates they were, as long as they're somewhere in the rally timeframe, and preferably somewhere closer to the middle so as to not mess up start/end stats). Then I could send the results file (now in LLRnet format) to Karsten, and he can mix it in the bag with all the other rally results. Gary and Karsten, what are your opinions on this? |
Here's my opinion: that's ridiculous :loco:.
|
only my opinion:
to make a range/pairs manually and count them for the ralley is against the 'spirit' of the ralley itself! the purpose of a ralley is to compete against under the same conditions for all: so originally there should a workspace=1 (no bigger reservations before/while/after ralley), same llrnetclient for all, no personal server for one, etc... perhaps there're other opinions. Karsten |
[quote=em99010pepe;138857]Here's my opinion: that's ridiculous :loco:.[/quote]
Yeah, I know, I agree that it is a bit convoluted. However, based on some shaky experiences I've had lately with my own internet connection, I fully understand Mini-Geek's desire to have an offline solution. :smile: So, if Gary and Karsten are OK with it, we may as well go ahead with it, though I should probably warn everybody that we won't necessarily do this for everybody, or else it will get really hairy. |
[quote=kar_bon;138859]only my opinion:
to make a range/pairs manually and count them for the ralley is against the 'spirit' of the ralley itself! the purpose of a ralley is to compete against under the same conditions for all: so originally there should a workspace=1 (no bigger reservations before/while/after ralley), same llrnetclient for all, no personal server for one, etc... perhaps there're other opinions. Karsten[/quote] Ah, Karsten beat me to the punch. :smile: One thing, though: could you please clarify that you mean by "workspace=1"? |
[QUOTE=Anonymous;138861]Ah, Karsten beat me to the punch. :smile: One thing, though: could you please clarify that you mean by "workspace=1"?[/QUOTE]
oh, sorry, wrong term. should be "WUCacheSize = 1", so only one pair per core at once reserved! |
[quote=kar_bon;138859]only my opinion:
to make a range/pairs manually and count them for the ralley is against the 'spirit' of the ralley itself! the purpose of a ralley is to compete against under the same conditions for all: so originally there should a workspace=1 (no bigger reservations before/while/after ralley), same llrnetclient for all, no personal server for one, etc... perhaps there're other opinions. Karsten[/quote] Is the spirit of the rally to 1 get people that might otherwise be putting resources on other projects (or even, :surprised, having them idle) in those 24/48 hours to crunch with NPLB as a fun community project thing, or 2 a counting of how much we can do in 24/48 hours, or is it 3 a competition to see who can crunch the most in 24/48 hours? I've always thought of it as the first. The second doesn't make too much sense. You apparently think it's the third. I don't think the competition interpretation makes much sense, since it's basically just saying who has the most cores. If it makes you feel better, feel free to take out 5%, or whatever the manual LLR gain gives me when you rank the stats. :smile: It probably won't move me anyway, and I'll probably be near the bottom of the list anyway, with my 2 "slower" cores. Maybe it's some combination of the three...a fun competition that counts how much we can do in 24/48 hours. All that aside, if people are against this, or if it would be too much work, I'll crunch on LLRnet instead. How does having more than one number reserved give any sort of advantage, other than that your computer won't have to pause up to a few seconds between numbers? |
[quote=kar_bon;138862]oh, sorry, wrong term.
should be "WUCacheSize = 1", so only one pair per core at once reserved![/quote] Ooh...I'm not so sure about that. Considering the way LLRnet [i]returns[/i] results, the size of the cache should be irrelevant, since results are still returned right after they're finished crunching anyway. Not to mention that if we limited users to a cache size of 1, there are numerous disadvantages of that: first and foremost, the fact that even the slightest network problem will cause a client to be idle or even freeze up; secondly, if you only have a cache size of 1, there is a slight idle delay between k/n pairs since the client has to wait until it can fetch a new one before starting the next. Long story short, I recommend that everyone, no matter how reliable or fast their connection, use a cache size of 2 as a minimum, possibly more if they've got a shak connection. (Especially considering that, if you think about it, it causes no detrimental effects on rallies.) The only possible problem I can think of would be the PrimeGrid batching client, which stores up [i]results[/i] and then sends them in at once--that would run the risk of getting some k/n pairs that were actually crunched right before the rally counted as in-rally. However, IMO the effects of this are small enough, and the potential for decreasing server load (not to mention alleviating connection instability) are large enough, that use of the batching client should still be tolerated. |
[quote=Mini-Geek;138863]All that aside, if people are against this, or if it would be too much work, I'll crunch on LLRnet instead.
How does having more than one number reserved give any sort of advantage, other than that your computer won't have to pause up to a few seconds between numbers?[/quote] None that I can think of, as detailed in my previous post. |
[quote=Anonymous;138860]Yeah, I know, I agree that it is a bit convoluted. However, based on some shaky experiences I've had lately with my own internet connection, I fully understand Mini-Geek's desire to have an offline solution. :smile: So, if Gary and Karsten are OK with it, we may as well go ahead with it, though I should probably warn everybody that we won't necessarily do this for everybody, or else it will get really hairy.[/quote]
I disagree completely with this and as Karsten says, it's against the spirit of the rally. I almost lean as strong against it as Carlos does. I won't call it ridiculous but I will say that it is well out of line with what a rally is supposed to be. IMHO, if your internet connection is poor, then you need a better provider or a better connection or something. I'm sorry to seem unsympathetic to people's circumstances but steps can be taken to improve internet connections albeit at some cost. Mine rarely drops...perhaps once every 2-3 months. My issues have been small intermittent power outages in the neighborhood that I live in that shut my machines down while I'm out of town. Unfortunately they can't turn themselves back on. lol Another time, it was the server itself being brought down and back up 2-3 times that put all of my LLRnet machines in sleep mode. Gary |
Does anyone know if Lennart will participate in the rally?
I'd like to let him know he could stop sieving to participate in the rally. We need a good boost on drive 1 REALLY bad right now! Gary |
[quote=Anonymous;138865]Ooh...I'm not so sure about that. Considering the way LLRnet [I]returns[/I] results, the size of the cache should be irrelevant, since results are still returned right after they're finished crunching anyway. Not to mention that if we limited users to a cache size of 1, there are numerous disadvantages of that: first and foremost, the fact that even the slightest network problem will cause a client to be idle or even freeze up; secondly, if you only have a cache size of 1, there is a slight idle delay between k/n pairs since the client has to wait until it can fetch a new one before starting the next. Long story short, I recommend that everyone, no matter how reliable or fast their connection, use a cache size of 2 as a minimum, possibly more if they've got a shak connection. (Especially considering that, if you think about it, it causes no detrimental effects on rallies.)
The only possible problem I can think of would be the PrimeGrid batching client, which stores up [I]results[/I] and then sends them in at once--that would run the risk of getting some k/n pairs that were actually crunched right before the rally counted as in-rally. However, IMO the effects of this are small enough, and the potential for decreasing server load (not to mention alleviating connection instability) are large enough, that use of the batching client should still be tolerated.[/quote] I always use a cache size of 2 on all of my machines. I don't like to use larger because I don't want to have to wait a long time to clear them out when I'm ready to move the machine to something different. Not clearing them out is a problem for us admin folks, causing us to have to wait until the pairs get returned to the server and then handed out to someone else for processing. |
[quote=kar_bon;138847]i can't bring any core this time for this ralley now. sorry!
but i'll follow the race if i can and will make the stats after finishing. hope not to let all of you wait so long for the results. good luck then to all! Karsten[/quote] Where are your cores at? Did you lose them? lol :smile: |
[quote=gd_barnes;138910]I disagree completely with this and as Karsten says, it's against the spirit of the rally. I almost lean as strong against it as Carlos does. I won't call it ridiculous but I will say that it is well out of line with what a rally is supposed to be.
IMHO, if your internet connection is poor, then you need a better provider or a better connection or something. I'm sorry to seem unsympathetic to people's circumstances but steps can be taken to improve internet connections albeit at some cost. Mine rarely drops...perhaps once every 2-3 months. My issues have been small intermittent power outages in the neighborhood that I live in that shut my machines down while I'm out of town. Unfortunately they can't turn themselves back on. lol Another time, it was the server itself being brought down and back up 2-3 times that put all of my LLRnet machines in sleep mode. Gary[/quote] Okay, I'll use LLRnet for the rally. It's not that my internet connection is terrible, just that I hate the idea that I could stop crunching (especially for something timed like the rally) while my computer is still on (there's many more points of failure with LLRnet that LLR, and one of them is especially vulnerable during a rally, i.e. the server). I'll run LLR in the background just in case LLRnet stops so at least my computer won't idle. BTW, you know you can edit and/or quote multiple posts in one large post instead of posting four times, right Gary? |
I'll bring four fast cores to AES300. (The server with all the primes. :wink:)
|
I am not sure if I will be here on August 8 at 7 pm GMT but I can start my server at 7 am GMT. Just let me know. Please change the port to 443 instead of 400. Thanks.
|
[quote=gd_barnes;138910]I disagree completely with this and as Karsten says, it's against the spirit of the rally. I almost lean as strong against it as Carlos does. I won't call it ridiculous but I will say that it is well out of line with what a rally is supposed to be.
IMHO, if your internet connection is poor, then you need a better provider or a better connection or something. I'm sorry to seem unsympathetic to people's circumstances but steps can be taken to improve internet connections albeit at some cost. Mine rarely drops...perhaps once every 2-3 months. My issues have been small intermittent power outages in the neighborhood that I live in that shut my machines down while I'm out of town. Unfortunately they can't turn themselves back on. lol Another time, it was the server itself being brought down and back up 2-3 times that put all of my LLRnet machines in sleep mode. Gary[/quote] I see where you're coming from--however, I beg to differ in regard to the internet connections. :smile: I, for instance, only have two broadband choices where I live: DSL or satellite. (My road doesn't have cable TV lines, so no cable internet.) Satellite is the pits, both in speed and reliability, not to mention in price, so that's ruled out. Thus, DSL is the only option--and unfortunately, within the last few months, my DSL has started to cut in and out quite a lot. The only solution is either to wait for it to come back online, or to manually reboot the router (rebooting the router will usually get it on a bit quicker, but it requires me to be actually at the computer and browsing the internet to even notice that the connection has dropped out). For me, the problem is mostly alleviated by using the batching LLRnet client, and setting it to a WUCacheSize of 20 and a refill of 5 (essentially, talk to the server after every 15 k/n pairs processed). This keeps the times when it actually does have to connect down to a mininum, which hopefully misses the "bad" times when the router is down. :smile: It still hits the bad times occasionally, though, sometimes causing a freeze-up of the LLRnet client. Long story short: okay, I agree, it probably isn't such a good idea to include any manual results whatsoever in the rally, since as Gary said, that's not in keeping with the "spirit" of the rally. However, for users with shaky connections like me, I recommend using the PrimeGrid batching version of LLRnet with a WUCacheSize of 20 and a refill of 5 (not so little that it hits all the downtimes, but not so much that it waits too long between sending in results--though if you have a slower computer than my Core 2 Duo, you may wish to choose slightly smaller values). IMO, using this client is still in keeping with the spirit of the rally, since it's still dealing with the server normally, and the worst that can happen is a few results that may come in near the beginning of the rally that were crunched right before the rally, or some results crunched near the end of the rally being sent in right after it. However, that would probably even out pretty well overall. :smile: (Just to clarify: I'm not insinuating that anyone said or implied anything about the batching LLRnet client being against the "spirit" of the rally, but I figured I'd mention that aspect of it in case it came up. :smile:) |
[quote=Flatlander;138921]I'll bring four fast cores to AES300. (The server with all the primes. :wink:)[/quote]
LOL--actually, most of that is probably due to the fact that it's the only 400<k<1001 server that's received much of any "business" lately. :rolleyes: But, yeah, you're right, the range it's currently working in (and is almost done with) has had a lot of primes. |
LLR
About 40 core on L6 :big grin:
/Lennart |
[quote=Anonymous;138925]LOL--actually, most of that is probably due to the fact that it's the only 400<k<1001 server that's received much of any "business" lately. :rolleyes: But, yeah, you're right, the range it's currently working in (and is almost done with) has had a lot of primes.[/quote]
I've had 4 quads plus 2 cores on port 300 for the last 10-12 days because that's where the lowest gap was. That's why all the primes are there. But Anon is right that it has been a prolific range. By the end of today when it has reached n=516K, I'll switch them all off to port 400 since that is where the next lowest gap is. I will run them all on port 400 for the rally if my cores combined with others cores won't overload that one server. Otherwise I'll divide them up between port 300 and 400 and/or Carlos port 400 if needed. Gary |
[quote=Anonymous;138924]I see where you're coming from--however, I beg to differ in regard to the internet connections. :smile: I, for instance, only have two broadband choices where I live: DSL or satellite. (My road doesn't have cable TV lines, so no cable internet.) Satellite is the pits, both in speed and reliability, not to mention in price, so that's ruled out. Thus, DSL is the only option--and unfortunately, within the last few months, my DSL has started to cut in and out quite a lot. The only solution is either to wait for it to come back online, or to manually reboot the router (rebooting the router will usually get it on a bit quicker, but it requires me to be actually at the computer and browsing the internet to even notice that the connection has dropped out).
For me, the problem is mostly alleviated by using the batching LLRnet client, and setting it to a WUCacheSize of 20 and a refill of 5 (essentially, talk to the server after every 15 k/n pairs processed). This keeps the times when it actually does have to connect down to a mininum, which hopefully misses the "bad" times when the router is down. :smile: It still hits the bad times occasionally, though, sometimes causing a freeze-up of the LLRnet client. Long story short: okay, I agree, it probably isn't such a good idea to include any manual results whatsoever in the rally, since as Gary said, that's not in keeping with the "spirit" of the rally. However, for users with shaky connections like me, I recommend using the PrimeGrid batching version of LLRnet with a WUCacheSize of 20 and a refill of 5 (not so little that it hits all the downtimes, but not so much that it waits too long between sending in results--though if you have a slower computer than my Core 2 Duo, you may wish to choose slightly smaller values). IMO, using this client is still in keeping with the spirit of the rally, since it's still dealing with the server normally, and the worst that can happen is a few results that may come in near the beginning of the rally that were crunched right before the rally, or some results crunched near the end of the rally being sent in right after it. However, that would probably even out pretty well overall. :smile: (Just to clarify: I'm not insinuating that anyone said or implied anything about the batching LLRnet client being against the "spirit" of the rally, but I figured I'd mention that aspect of it in case it came up. :smile:)[/quote] Wow; no cable. You must live out in the boonies! lol :smile: I see your issue and it sounds like you've done a good job of coming up with the best way around it. Using the batching process is still in the spirit of the rally. The only way it wouldn't be is if someone abused it and did a bunch of pairs before the rally started and then "submitted" them shortly after it started. That's clearly not a problem here so it's all good! :smile: Gary |
[quote=Anonymous;138780]
[SIZE=2](@Gary: How about I send an n=2.5K range to each of the C400 and L6 servers? I'm thinking that should be good enough to hold both servers for the duration of the rally, yet without making too much mess for us to clean up after the rally.)[/SIZE][/quote] As suggested in a PM, go ahead and send n=2K to those two servers. That should be sufficient. We'll monitor it after the first day of the rally. |
[quote=gd_barnes;138940]Wow; no cable. You must live out in the boonies! lol :smile:
I see your issue and it sounds like you've done a good job of coming up with the best way around it.[/quote] Now you see why I always do manual work whenever I'm out of town. :wink: [quote]Using the batching process is still in the spirit of the rally. The only way it wouldn't be is if someone abused it and did a bunch of pairs before the rally started and then "submitted" them shortly after it started. That's clearly not a problem here so it's all good! :smile: Gary[/quote] Another benefit of the batching clients: they reduce load on the servers by quite a reasonable amount. That's because instead of connecting to the server every 5 minutes or so (for my computer, at least), like the regular client, they connect only after every x workunits, so for my setup, that means once every 75 minutes. :smile: Anyone who's interested in the batching clients can go [url=http://www.primegrid.com/forum_thread.php?id=872&nowrap=true#8425]here[/url] to see the PrimeGrid forum thread containing both the links to the clients for both Windows and Linux, as well as documentation on how the batching clients differ from the stock ones. (Also available are just the standalone LUA files that you can replace in a stock LLRnet setup to turn it into a batching client.) :smile: |
With no one committed specifically to IB400 for the rally, I'll put all 22 cores on that one late tonight after port 300 is complete to n=516K. If a heavy-hitter comes along and wants to put a lot of cores on it, I'll divide mine up or move them as needed.
|
Based on the discussion here, I thought I'd comment on the intent of having NPLB rallies here.
First and most important is FUN FUN FUN!! Just to challenge yourself to see how much you can crunch with most of your resources dedicated to one effort is fun. :smile: Second is to accomplish project goals. This is close to #1 in importance but without #1, we couldn't have #2. That's why it's #2. Third and IMHO, the least important is the overall k/n pairs processed competition aspect. But it can add to the fun aspect a little bit if you have someone you're close to in # of cores. On the 3rd reason for me, Carlos was a good incentive for me in the early rallies as for # of pairs processed. He had more firepower on the rallies than me but not a tremendous amount more. For the first rally, I had 4-5 connected work machines (out of 20 available) and 3-4 home cores for rallies. I upped it to 7 connected work machines (my max comfort level to stay under the radar at work) and was still a bit behind. I think after that he didn't bring quite as much firepower to the rallies and then later I bought the personal quads so it wasn't a reasonable comparison after that. The point of this is that having little mini-competitions amongst various searcher's of close to equal means is part of the fun. Perhaps Anon, Flatlander, and Mini-Geek could compete in this rally. Do any of you have some old crappy slower machines you could add? Or is there a friend's machine you could use on it for a day or two? See who can do the most since all of you are bringing a 'base' of 2 cores. :smile: |
[quote=Mini-Geek;138917]
BTW, you know you can edit and/or quote multiple posts in one large post instead of posting four times, right Gary?[/quote] Yep, I knew that. It's faster to post multiple times instead of multi-quote. Someday we'll clean these threads up. |
[quote=gd_barnes;138961]Perhaps Anon, Flatlander, and Mini-Geek could compete in this rally. Do any of you have some old crappy slower machines you could add? Or is there a friend's machine you could use on it for a day or two? See who can do the most since all of you are bringing a 'base' of 2 cores. :smile:[/quote]
Hmm...interesting idea. Of course, both Flatlander and I have 2 fast cores, whereas Mini-Geek has 2 somewhat slower cores, so that might make for a bit of an "unfair" advantage for Flatlander and I. I guess that might be somewhat compensated for, though, by the fact that my two primary cores are the full extent of what I can bring to the rally this time around. I don't know what Flatlander or Mini-Geek's situations are in regard to this. Anon :smile: |
[quote=Flatlander;138921]I'll bring [B]four [/B]fast cores to AES300. (The server with all the primes. :wink:)[/quote]
:smile: |
[quote=Flatlander;138988]:smile:[/quote]
Oh! I don't know how we missed that the first time around! :rolleyes: |
The C443 and L6 servers are up and running! Feel free to shift machines to C443 (L6 is pretty full with Lennart's machines) to further help the load-balancing (though, actually, we're doing pretty well with the loads so far, assuming the numbers shown in the table above are truly representative of the actual load). :smile:
Also, if you have any machines that are behind restrictive firewalls that LLRnet normally doesn't work through, give C443 a try--since it's on port 443 (usually used by HTTPS), it's allowed on most firewalls. :smile: |
Judging from the "last 25 results" page on the AES300 server, it would seem that there is significantly more cores on that server than has been reported in this thread. Does anyone know how many cores Helix-Von-Smelix, glennpat, and MrOzzy have on the server? They seem to be the primary contributors right now.
|
22 minutes until start of rally... :grin:
|
[quote=Anonymous;139013]22 minutes until start of rally... :grin:[/quote]
Yep, I already put my cores on and they've almost finished their first two (>90%). |
[quote=Anonymous;139009]Judging from the "last 25 results" page on the AES300 server, it would seem that there is significantly more cores on that server than has been reported in this thread. Does anyone know how many cores Helix-Von-Smelix, glennpat, and MrOzzy have on the server? They seem to be the primary contributors right now.[/quote]
They've been permanently on there for a long time...not too many cores. I'd guess a total of 3-4 cores among them as of late yesterday. It's nothing significant unless they added a bunch just today for the rally. |
[quote=Anonymous;138780]
As for goals...how about we aim to get all servers up to at least n=530K? Ambitious, I know, but hey, better to aim too high than too low in a thing like this. :wink: [/quote] It would take several hundred cores to accomplish this in 48 hours. I anticipate that we'll complete about an n=900-1000 range of the n=516K-520K range that I am on. Alone with 5 quads, I can do slightly over n=400 per day. Right now, it looks like we'll get close to n=~517.1K by the end of the rally with 23 cores on it. Very agressive but semi-realistic goals: 525.5K on port 300 (n=500 range) 517.5K on port 400 (n=1500 range) 530K on port L6 (n=2000 range, i.e. complete the whole 528-530 range) (?) on port 443 (I'm not sure if Carlos is working on the rally) We'd have to get some more people in the rally to accomplish some of these. Anyone have some friends they can bring along? :smile: Gary |
I borged two slower Athlons (XP 2.2 GHz and XP 1.6 GHz) under my name and on AES300. They'll be offline overnight and maybe after about 9-10 Sunday, but I'll restart them in the morning. I hope my family doesn't mind. :smile:
Edit: 700th post! |
[quote=Mini-Geek;139024]I borged two slower Athlons (XP 2.2 GHz and XP 1.6 GHz) under my name and on AES300. They'll be offline overnight and maybe after about 9-10 Sunday, but I'll restart them in the morning. I hope my family doesn't mind. :smile:
Edit: 700th post![/quote] lol, good job! :devil: I just remembered that I'll pick my kids up in an hour or so. I'll borg their dual-core Athlon 1.6 Ghz laptop for 2 slower cores on IB400 within an hour after that. They can't complain. I bought it for them last year. :smile: That's what I usually do anyway if I happen to have them the weekend of a rally. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;139025]lol, good job! :devil:
I just remembered that I'll pick my kids up in an hour or so. I'll borg their dual-core Athlon 1.6 Ghz laptop for 2 slower cores on IB400 within an hour after that. They can't complain. I bought it for them last year. :smile: That's what I usually do anyway if I happen to have them the weekend of a rally. Gary[/quote] Speaking of borging, I will most probably be able to borg a brand-new Intel Q6600 quad-core sometime within the next month or so. :grin: I know I've had various false alarms in the past as to potential borging prospects, but I think this one's for real. (I know, probably now that I said that it will fall through... :wink:) I know, not in time for this rally, but hopefully for the next. :smile: |
Speaking of borging...I just borged MYSELF. lol
By that I mean, I knew I had to spend several hours trying to figure out why one of my Linux quads would not connect to the internet. I finally found the time tonight and got it fixed and yes it took 2+ hours to figure it out. Unfortunately it wasn't a simple connection issue. So the borging was of my personal time. Therefore, I've now officially stopped all other efforts and have almost everything I own on IB400 for the rally: 6 quads plus 2 desktop cores plus 2 of my kid's laptop cores...24 fast and 4 slower cores. (post 1 here updated) :smile: The exception is my stupid Athlon laptop that at the end of my last business trip started refusing to come on. I'm having a friend come over Monday or Tuesday to look at it. It seems like its always something with these machines! :mad: Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;139022]
(?) on port 443 (I'm not sure if Carlos is working on the rally) [/quote] Sorry but I'm off the rally. |
[quote=Anonymous;139030]Speaking of borging, I will most probably be able to borg a brand-new Intel Q6600 quad-core sometime within the next month or so. :grin: I know I've had various false alarms in the past as to potential borging prospects, but I think this one's for real. (I know, probably now that I said that it will fall through... :wink:)
I know, not in time for this rally, but hopefully for the next. :smile:[/quote] I hope that goes well. :smile: I took the two I borged offline, my family doesn't like prime searching. Oh well, together they probably only equaled about one core at my main CPU's speed... |
Just to tell that C443 has lots of activity, 195 results returned in 24 hours!!!! lol
|
knpairs
I think i need some more pairs ! 528k-529432 done !
/Lennart |
[quote=em99010pepe;139055]Just to tell that C443 has lots of activity, 195 results returned in 24 hours!!!! lol[/quote]
That would be me, I've got one core on C443. 195 results sounds like roughly what one of my cores would produce in 24 hours. :smile: |
[quote=Lennart;139056]I think i need some more pairs ! 528k-529432 done !
/Lennart[/quote] Holy cow! :shock: I'll get another n=2K range sent your way pronto. :smile: Edit: I've sent you the range 532K-534K. :smile: |
[quote=Lennart;139056]I think i need some more pairs ! 528k-529432 done !
/Lennart[/quote] Weeeeeeee! Those must be some speedy machines if you have only 40 cores on it. With 24 fast cores, I'm only able to push n=~450/day or n=~1K total for the rally including a few slower cores and a couple of others on the same port. |
[quote=gd_barnes;139067]Weeeeeeee! Those must be some speedy machines if you have only 40 cores on it. With 24 fast cores, I'm only able to push n=~450/day or n=~1K total for the rally including a few slower cores and a couple of others on the same port.[/quote]
Hmm...Gary, I think you might possibly have an issue with the CPU incorrectly staying in power-saving mode on your machines. As far as I know, both Ubuntu versions 7.04 (which you have) and 8.04 (which I have) are affected with this "bug" of sorts--so, with the obvious comparison of performance between Lennart's and your machines just now, I couldn't help but wonder if your machines are running at half clock. :shock: You see, while 7.04 and 8.04 were affected by this issue, 7.10 was not, and since that's the first version of Ubuntu I've used, I hadn't noticed any issue on my computer. But when I upgraded to 8.04, suddenly my prime-searching apps were running at half power until I found a workaround. I'll send you a PM with instructions on how to check and see if you're not running at full speed, and if you're not, how to remedy it. |
[quote=Anonymous;139070]Hmm...Gary, I think you might possibly have an issue with the CPU incorrectly staying in power-saving mode on your machines. As far as I know, both Ubuntu versions 7.04 (which you have) and 8.04 (which I have) are affected with this "bug" of sorts--so, with the obvious comparison of performance between Lennart's and your machines just now, I couldn't help but wonder if your machines are running at half clock. :shock:
You see, while 7.04 and 8.04 were affected by this issue, 7.10 was not, and since that's the first version of Ubuntu I've used, I hadn't noticed any issue on my computer. But when I upgraded to 8.04, suddenly my prime-searching apps were running at half power until I found a workaround. I'll send you a PM with instructions on how to check and see if you're not running at full speed, and if you're not, how to remedy it.[/quote] I suppose it is possible but keep in mind that I was comparing 24 cores to 40 cores. n=900 on 24 cores translates to n=1600 on 40 cores. But it looks like Lennart will do over n=2K for the rally but he may have started before the rally. I'll be curious to check that out. I'd certainly like more firepower! :smile: |
[quote=gd_barnes;139072]I suppose it is possible but keep in mind that I was comparing 24 cores to 40 cores. n=900 on 24 cores translates to n=1600 on 40 cores. But it looks like Lennart will do over n=2K for the rally but he may have started before the rally.[/quote]
Yeah, I know--but the reason why I still suspected a possible problem is because I've read in a number of places that 7.04, the version you use, [i]is[/i] affected by this issue--and thus, if no action is taken, you will almost definitely be running at half-power. Anyway, I've sent you a PM regarding what you need to do to check if you're affected, and how to remedy the problem if necessary. :smile: |
Speed
[quote=gd_barnes;139067]Weeeeeeee! Those must be some speedy machines if you have only 40 cores on it. With 24 fast cores, I'm only able to push n=~450/day or n=~1K total for the rally including a few slower cores and a couple of others on the same port.[/quote]
I have 68 core on it now :missingteeth: And i have 23 800 in resultfile. /Lennart |
LOL ! :D
|
Goal
[quote]As for goals...how about we aim to get all servers up to at least n=530K? Ambitious, I know, but hey, better to aim too high than too low in a thing like this. :wink:
[/quote] 528K-530K is complete :smile: currently processing at n= [COLOR=blue]~532.2K[/COLOR] /Lennart |
[quote=Lennart;139088]528K-530K is complete :smile: currently processing at n= [COLOR=blue]~532.2K[/COLOR]
/Lennart[/quote] Woo hoo! I've just processed that range and sent the results to Gary. :smile: |
As of 6 minutes ago, the rally is officially over. Thanks to all who participated for your help! :smile:
|
Rally
It was fun Have done about 29k pairs.
I have done 528k-530k and becuse other work i have to stop now. I will do 532k-532.8k ( i am on 532,6 now) I think at 9 - 9:30 PM it will be ready. UTC Thank's all for a nice rally. :smile: /Lennart |
[quote=Lennart;139109]It was fun Have done about 29k pairs.
I have done 528k-530k and becuse other work i have to stop now. I will do 532k-532.8k ( i am on 532,6 now) I think at 9 - 9:30 PM it will be ready. UTC Thank's all for a nice rally. :smile: /Lennart[/quote] Okay, I see now on the web access page for your server that 532.8K-534K has been removed from your server. I'll shrink your server's reservation to end at 532.8K shortly. :smile: Thanks a bunch for the amazing amount of work you contributed! :grin: |
[quote=Lennart;139109]It was fun Have done about 29k pairs.
I have done 528k-530k and becuse other work i have to stop now. I will do 532k-532.8k ( i am on 532,6 now) I think at 9 - 9:30 PM it will be ready. UTC Thank's all for a nice rally. :smile: /Lennart[/quote] Thanks for the huge contribution Lennart. I'm sorry you didn't get some new primes out of it. It appears that we hit 2 of the 4 unofficial targets (goals) that I set after the rally. We hit n=525.5K on port 300 and n=530K on port L6. These were very aggressive goals based on the resources that we had initially allocated for the rally. I'm quite exstatic that we were able to accomplish any of the 4! :banana: Edit: Anon, I was waiting to see where we'd end up on some of the servers for the rally before reposting manual files. I'll post n=532.8K-533.5K for manual reservations shortly. Gary |
[quote=gd_barnes;139116]Thanks for the huge contribution Lennart. I'm sorry you didn't get some new primes out of it.
It appears that we hit 2 of the 4 unofficial targets (goals) that I set after the rally. We hit n=525.5K on port 300 and n=530K on port L6. These were very aggressive goals based on the resources that we had initially allocated for the rally. I'm quite exstatic that we were able to accomplish any of the 4! :banana: [/quote] No problem I am no credithunter :smile: I do it for fun. Offcourse it is fun to find primes ! But there is much job todo before LLR and i do most sievework. Good Luck /Lennart |
[quote=Anonymous;139110]Okay, I see now on the web access page for your server that 532.8K-534K has been removed from your server. I'll shrink your server's reservation to end at 532.8K shortly. :smile:
Thanks a bunch for the amazing amount of work you contributed! :grin:[/quote] You can DL. resultfile now all is done to 532.8 /Lennart |
[quote=gd_barnes;139116] Edit: Anon, I was waiting to see where we'd end up on some of the servers for the rally before reposting manual files. I'll post n=532.8K-533.5K for manual reservations shortly.[/quote]
Yep, I saw that on the Drive #1 status post--that's a good idea, considering how volatile the server ranges usually are during rallies. :smile: |
[quote=Lennart;139119]You can DL. resultfile now all is done to 532.8
/Lennart[/quote] Okay, thanks--I'll see about getting it all processed tomorrow. :smile: |
| All times are UTC. The time now is 20:59. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.