LLRnet servers needed

[AES]

Sure, I'll send what I did. However, I'm not going to say it's the correct way.

The question is: Can llrserver be configured to serve pairs from a text file, write the results text file and insert the results into a remote SQL table as well?

This would give the llrserver operators maximum flexibility as to which pairs are served and place the results in a central location as well. We could even use a trigger to append the users team name and the llrserver name the results came from.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by AES

Sure, I'll send what I did. However, I'm not going to say it's the correct way.

The question is: Can llrserver be configured to serve pairs from a text file, write the results text file and insert the results into a remote SQL table as well?

This would give the llrserver operators maximum flexibility as to which pairs are served and place the results in a central location as well. We could even use a trigger to append the users team name and the llrserver name the results came from.

So you're saying that when it's set to use MySQL, it doesn't write out the standard results.txt file?

[AES]

no, I did not say that.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by AES

no, I did not say that.

Okay, good, I was a little worried there for a moment that we might have a pile of results stuck in a MySQL table where my scripts that are designed to work with standard results.txt files couldn't do anything with them!

[IronBits]

Some one send me some 5000 work and I'll start up a new server for finding primes.

llrnet.no-ip.info = server name
port = 400 <-400 range
port = 500 <-300 range mess we are cleaning up and is running flawlessly. (I know, this port is off from the range <sigh>)
port = 5000 ->5000 stuff for finding primes for those that want to work it. ;)

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by IronBits

Some one send me some 5000 work and I'll start up a new server for finding primes.

llrnet.no-ip.info = server name
port = 400 <-400 range
port = 500 <-300 range mess we are cleaning up and is running flawlessly. (I know, this port is off from the range <sigh>)
port = 5000 ->5000 stuff for finding primes for those that want to work it. ;)

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "400 range"?

[IronBits]

You said it. ;)

Quote:
NPLB:
2 for 400<k<=1001 for n=333.3K-600K
Got one so far, still need one more.... (see below)
Quote:
1 for 400<k<=1001 for n=260K-320K
We've got two here right now; maybe after this range is done (looks like it won't be too long yet), IronBits's port 500 server that's currently on this range can be moved to the 333.3K-600K range for 400<k<1001?
Quote:
2 for 300<k<400 for n=333.3K-600K in early March (I would like to do the next rally on this one; after the rally 1 server may be sufficient)
Hey Gary, maybe you could do one of the ones for this range with the new server you're working on getting set up right now?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=260K-333.3K in early March (smaller # of k's and n-range; shouldn't take too long)
Maybe either Gary or IronBits would be interested in doing this one?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=600K-1M in late March (will only be the few k's that have already been searched to n=600K)
Hmm...maybe Carlos will want to do this one, since the tests are bigger and thus it won't use as much RAM and bandwidth?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=100K-260K double check
If and when I can get my server up and running, I'd be glad to do this one...since I've sort of spearheaded this doublecheck effort anyway.
-------------------------------------
Give me something to run on port 400 for you guys.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by IronBits

You said it. ;)

Quote:
NPLB:
2 for 400<k<=1001 for n=333.3K-600K
Got one so far, still need one more.... (see below)
Quote:
1 for 400<k<=1001 for n=260K-320K
We've got two here right now; maybe after this range is done (looks like it won't be too long yet), IronBits's port 500 server that's currently on this range can be moved to the 333.3K-600K range for 400<k<1001?
Quote:
2 for 300<k<400 for n=333.3K-600K in early March (I would like to do the next rally on this one; after the rally 1 server may be sufficient)
Hey Gary, maybe you could do one of the ones for this range with the new server you're working on getting set up right now?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=260K-333.3K in early March (smaller # of k's and n-range; shouldn't take too long)
Maybe either Gary or IronBits would be interested in doing this one?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=600K-1M in late March (will only be the few k's that have already been searched to n=600K)
Hmm...maybe Carlos will want to do this one, since the tests are bigger and thus it won't use as much RAM and bandwidth?
Quote:
1 for 300<k<400 for n=100K-260K double check
If and when I can get my server up and running, I'd be glad to do this one...since I've sort of spearheaded this doublecheck effort anyway.
-------------------------------------
Give me something to run on port 400 for you guys.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Hey Gary, would it by any chance be easy for you to grab a big chunk of the top-5000 range for IronBits' new server? (I imagine it would be easier for you than me or anyone else because you've got access to the big master sieve file.)

[AES]

I believe nplb.rieselprime.org port 300 can now safely serve any work deemed appropriate.

We can also test feeding an llrserver remotely from the database at nplb.rieselprime.org if anyone is interested. It worked on my test over a satellite internet link with 1000+ ms latency. However, there were only 5 cores demanding work.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Ah, I see what you mean now.

Hey Gary, would it by any chance be easy for you to grab a big chunk of the top-5000 range for IronBits' new server? (I imagine it would be easier for you than me or anyone else because you've got access to the big master sieve file.)

Karsten also has the big master sieve file. Here is what I would suggest: Tell me how much you think would be done on your new server in 3 days and Karsten or I can get that range for you.

I'm suggesting 3 days because in 2 days, sieving will be complete for 300<k<400 for n=260K-600K and there will be a boat load of new work. The next day, I'd like to get the top-5000 portion of the range loaded on someone's server in preparation for the next rally, perhaps in 1-1/2 weeks?! Note that it doesn't have to be perfectly 3 days. Just ball park something >= 3 days so that we get 300<k<400 loaded up sometime early next week.

Iron Bit's server would be ideal for the new range. Then when Anon or I get our server set up, we could load the lower range of n=260K-333.3K on our server for 300<k<400.

What does everyone think? My thinking now is that at some point when 300<k<400 catches up with 400<=1001, we merge the two. That will make it easier for accounting and perhaps we can have less servers. Correction: don't reduce # of servers, just put them to better use, perhaps on n>600K when the sieving on that is done or for some difficult bases over at CRUS.


Gary

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by AES

I believe nplb.rieselprime.org port 300 can now safely serve any work deemed appropriate.

We can also test feeding an llrserver remotely from the database at nplb.rieselprime.org if anyone is interested. It worked on my test over a satellite internet link with 1000+ ms latency. However, there were only 5 cores demanding work.

Maybe we can use this server for 300<k<400 for n>333.3K in 3 days after I'm done sieving and have the files ready. Adam, do you feel that your server could handle a big rally?

This would allow us to use IronBit's server as a second server (in addition to Carlos's server) on port 300 for 400<k<=1001 for n>370K and for him to now reserve however much he wants of that range.

The question that I'll ask everyone is: Whose server is the best to use on 300<k<400 for n>333.3K for the next rally? That will dictate how we distribute current reservations.



Gary