View Single Post
Old 2009-01-03, 15:28   #45
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

2·36·7 Posts
Default

I just wanted to apologize to everyone for the confusion regarding the range in the server for this drive.

This preliminary very undersieved n=2K range was an extremely unusual situation that only came about as a result of the rapidly rising 5000th place prime.

It is my hope that not too much inconvience nor lost CPU time was had by all involved.

If there is one thing that we found out by accident here, it is certainly how robust David's servers are, and in more than one way:

1. It can handle 100's of cached results dumped all at once on it (as long as it is not from a Proxy server).

2. It can handle the fast testing times of a lower n-range.

Had we not tried the n=200K-210K range for a while, we would not have known #2 so some good has come out of it.

This makes me wonder if his servers couldn't handle candidates as low as n=50K with testing times as low as a few secs. We'll be setting up the 9th drive for n=50K-350K in a couple of days. If David or others think that may be worth a try, perhaps we can set up some sort of testing for that; perhaps with one low-weight k to start with. We'd probably set up a completely different server for it. I'm thinking we'll use port 8000 for n=352K-500K after sieving is complete in < 3 weeks, although that can be discussed.


Gary

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-01-03 at 15:29
gd_barnes is online now