llr 3.8 questions

[Jean Penné]

Hi,

As I announced in the thread "Software" :

This bug is now fixed on the development version.
You can download it from :
http://jpenne.free.fr/Development/

It occured on some candidates having a small factor...
For example : 100542584*3^346-1 is divisible by 5
This bug then caused a fatal error at setup!

I took advantage of this issue to improve all the error recovery code!
Please, let me know if any problem remains.

Best Regards,
Jean

[Joe O]

When will LLRnet be updated to use llr 3.8 ?

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Joe O

When will LLRnet be updated to use llr 3.8 ?

Nobody is maintaining LLRNet, so that is unlikely to happen.

[runesk]

Originally Posted by rogue

Nobody is maintaining LLRNet, so that is unlikely to happen.

I gave it a try some time ago, but llr has evolved and most of the integration is seriously broken.

I think llrnet has done what was expected of it, and it should now be left alone, to have a nice and calm retirement

.R

[kar_bon]

see here for some news!

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by runesk

I gave it a try some time ago, but llr has evolved and most of the integration is seriously broken.

I think llrnet has done what was expected of it, and it should now be left alone, to have a nice and calm retirement

.R

See here--just yesterday myself and a few others from the NPLB project released some scripts that work around the integration issues with the old LLRnet to allow it to work with the latest LLR. While PRPnet is still better for things like conjecture efforts and other such comparatively exotic jobs, it's still not quite ready for huge loads (of the type NPLB deals with, for example), so this updated LLRnet client should be useful to hold over people in such situations until an appropriate PRPnet version is ready. And at any rate, it should prove quite handy for non-heavy-load projects that are still stuck on LLRnet. (Sierpinski/Riesel base 5 comes to mind here--they got a PRPnet server going for a little while but that kind of fizzled out. Seems the primary admin has gone AWOL...)

Note that PRPnet 2.4.7 is quite stable for relatively smaller numbers of clients (or, for that matter, lots of clients on large tests), so unless someone has a particular preference/need for LLRnet (say, they're already all set up for it and it would be hard to change over), I'd recommend that they use PRPnet for personal servers. Nonetheless, it's good to have options, hence why when we discovered a way to get around LLRnet's limitations, we jumped on it.

Edit: ah, I see Karsten beat me to the punch as I was writing this post.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by rogue

Nobody is maintaining LLRNet, so that is unlikely to happen.

Then again...

(see above)

I would now recommend this new version of LLRnet for base 2, especially for high loads.