When did PrimeNet begin rubberstamping results?
 

When did PrimeNet begin to display the date in its history records?

[QUOTE=Chuck;363267]When did PrimeNet begin to display the date in its history records?[/QUOTE]

I believe that was when V5 of the server came online.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363268]I believe that was when V5 of the server came online.[/QUOTE]

Correct.....early 2008.

[QUOTE=petrw1;363280]Correct.....early 2008.[/QUOTE]

October 2008 if my memory serves me.

[QUOTE=garo;363282]October 2008 if my memory serves me.[/QUOTE]

Precisely.

[QUOTE=garo;363282]October 2008 if my memory serves me.[/QUOTE]

This actually brings up an interesting tangential question in my mind. In relation to [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=362778&postcount=23"]this post[/URL]:

[QUOTE=flashjh;362778]Either way, there has to be some common-sense here. I can run all my old systems and 'contribute' to the effort as 'any' work done can't be replaced. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But, how much 'energy and time' is spent running these old systems when newer ones can do the same assignment in a few days with much less energy usage?[/QUOTE]

George et al: might it be time for Primenet V5 to stop assigning candidates to clients which are still running the V4 software?

After all, if someone hasn't updated their client in over five years, they've probably forgotten about it, and are using more of their (or someone else's) energy than is optimal. And I really doubt it will have any meaningful negative impact on our throughput.

Considering it an attempt for GIMPS to "go green"! :smile:

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=chalsall;363319]Considering it an attempt for GIMPS to "go green"!

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]If you push that to the extreme then primenet should not issue any assignments, to anyone, ever. Can't get greener than that. In terms of helping human society further itself GIMPS is a net negative for energy usage vs productive output.

[QUOTE=retina;363321]If you push that to the extreme then primenet should not issue any assignments, to anyone, ever.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But by the same argument, taken to the extreme, none of us would drive cars nor light our homes.

I'm suggesting, for discussion, a non-extreme (and relatively simple) measure.

Let's face the truth: a five (or more) year old computer should not be working for GIMPS (unless, of course, it's also acting as a "space heater").

I have a 5 year old computer, an Athlon 64 X2 5050e. It's used for displaying stuff on some monitors, so it would be on anyway. It uses an extra 44 watts at the wall running mprime, or 22 watts per core. Each core has about 1/8th the processing power of a Haswell 4770 core running mprime. Pinning 3 cores on the 4770 burns an extra 90 watts or so, or 30 watts per core.

So the 5050e is about 1/4th as efficient. But is it really that bad? It's only using $3 of electricity per month. Given how minimal maintenance running mprime is, configured to start in a screen at boot, I basically forget about it, but it keeps working, and I like that.

In the days of rapidly increasing CPU power, 5 year old hardware was ancient. Now, not so much, especially not when it's serving a dual purpose.

[QUOTE=chalsall;363319]
George et al: might it be time for Primenet V5 to stop assigning candidates to clients which are still running the V4 software?[/QUOTE]

A year or two ago I changed the server to only assign double-checks. My other options were TF (GPUs are much better at that), and P-1 (the v4 client may not have much memory assigned).

To my mind, there aren't very good options available.

P.S. There is one more option and it is untested. The server can send a code to tell the client to stop requesting work, i.e. shut down.

[QUOTE=Prime95;363330]A year or two ago I changed the server to only assign double-checks. My other options were TF (GPUs are much better at that), and P-1 (the v4 client may not have much memory assigned).

To my mind, there aren't very good options available.

P.S. There is one more option and it is untested. The server can send a code to tell the client to stop requesting work, i.e. shut down.[/QUOTE]

I guess my vote would be every little bit helps ... so if they are still requesting but more importantly "completing" work I'd say let them play.