View Single Post
Old 2009-01-06, 00:10   #8
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

792 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
I know this is long but I'd appreciate it if people could read it all the way through because it goes "one way" and then the "other".

We need to think this through. You remember the discussion we had before? Karsten is not going to like us because he'll constantly have to be entering primes all over the place on his pages. That is why I had suggested sorting by k-value to begin with on the low n-range, i.e. n=50K-200K. People had initially agreed searching manually by k-value was the way to go so we now have 2 schools of thought.

Let's look at what we have here:

1. There will be 10's of primes coming in very rapidly and David, it will stretch your primes listing to a very long length on your web page as they come in.
2. If people post them all in our primes thread as they come in, it will quickly innundate our primes thread.
3. It will be extremely easy to miss a prime or two because we won't be associating primes with specific k-values, only n-ranges, and there will be so many of them.

I know it sounds like I'm trying to talk everyone out of it but not really. I just want to make sure everyone knows the facts of doing it that way. If people think it would be more fun to search by n-value, here is what I would suggest:

1. Load n=5K or (10K or whatever we think is best) ranges into the server sorted by n-value. The range can be decreased as we move higher.
2. No one report any primes anywhere until the entire n=5K range is done.
3. When we have determined that the n-range is complete, Max or I check the results files, sort the primes in them by k-value, and post them in our primes thread, showing who found them, all in one post for each n-range. In addition, as usual, they will be put in the 1st post of the drive thread in decesending n-value order, also showing who found them.

This creates a little more admin work for us but I personally don't mind if Max doesn't. IMHO, it's the only way we'll avoid missing primes. It's just too easy for otherwise "passive" searchers to accidently miss reporting non-top-5000 primes. It will also make it relatively easy for Karsten to post the primes on his k=300-2000 page.

Karsten, if you're around, you can give your opinion here too.


Gary
Okay, you're right, that does sound like a better idea. I officially change my vote to #3 (that is, to sort by k and, by extension, load files into the server by k).

Oh, and by the way: sorting by k should still be just as much of a stress test for the server. Maybe not quite as prolonged of a stress test, but that shouldn't make a difference--it will still tell us unequivocally whether the server can handle n=50K tests.
mdettweiler is offline