View Single Post
Old 2008-03-06, 04:35   #10
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

101001000110002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-Geek View Post
I think them being two separate drives is okay, but I think that the LLRnet servers shouldn't have a distinction (i.e. servers testing high ranges should reserve from both, as necessary to keep them at about the same n-level, not just from one or the other).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Unfortunately ,that might be a bit of a hassle for the people involved in administrating the LLRnet servers; thus, I'm thinking that we should still have separate servers for the 300<k<400 and 400<k<1001 range.

I think what you're both saying here is leading to close to the same thing. Anon, it WOULD be easy to administer if they were at the same n-level. It'd be no more difficult than k=400-1001; only with a few more candidates in each n-range. That was my original thinking but I started this thread to propose a different idea that I thought would be more fun.

I can conclude from this thread 3 things:

1. It's a virtual consensus to keep the drives separate for the time being so that's what we'll do. We can revisit the issue again later.

2. We're almost split on having separate severs for them, with Anon and I in favor of it and Carlos, Mini-geek, and henryzz against with some variations.


Let me throw out what we're looking at regarding servers as it relates to keeping the project fun:

Choice 1; one server:

If we only had one server but the drives were at different n-ranges, it would not be fun for the admins to manage, namely Karsten and Anon, and somewhat me on the back end. In the future, you'd have k=400-1001 candidates at n=400K mixed in with k=300-400 candiates at n=500K or higher. They would have to all be sorted out on the back end and it would be much more error prone. Also, you would not know what n-range your searching at any one time. I think it would be messy.

Choice 2; one server:

If we only had one server but the drives were at the same n-range, this would be very easy for the admins. but would have limited options for searches. We would have:
a. k=300-1001 somewhere around n=425K or so when the drives were able to merge.
b. k=300-400 for n>600K available for ~5-6 k's only that have been previously searched to n=600K. Since we only have the one server, this would have to be a manual-LLR range.


Choice 3; 2 servers:

a. One server for k=300-400 to LLR as quickly as possible to n=600K.
b. One server for k=400-1001 to continue as we are currently.
c. The server from a. changes over to k=300-400 n>600K for a full 50 k's when we reach that limit.

Choice 3 is easy to administer and gives more choices for everyone.

There's one more factor in all of this. The lower k-range of k=300-400 will LLR quite a bit faster at certain n-levels. This is virtually insificant now but will be much more so for n>600K.


My questions to all of you:

Which choice above causes the most people collectively to have fun on the project?

Do you have a better choice than any of the above?


Gary
gd_barnes is online now   Reply With Quote