View Single Post
Old 2008-02-29, 01:01   #3
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17·251 Posts
Default

I like the plan. Few servers, kept nice and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Sounds good to me. One thing, though: as was discussed in the "follow up on llrnet servers needed" thread, the doublechecking for n=100K-260K shouldn't have any LLRnet server until it gets to at least about n=200K or so.
Yeah, he put that in.
Quote:
(5) Double checking is ready for n=100K-260K after initial manual LLRing at lower ranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
Until then, all the overhead will probably be too much for any server to handle--and remember, we want to be careful with which computers we have doing doublechecking for n=100K-260K, because all the results have to be completely accurate--i.e. no machines with stability that's at all questionable. (When we get above n=260K for 300<k<1001, of course, since we'll have first-pass residuals to compare with, any machines can be used on the doublechecking; however, for anything below n=260K for 300<k<1001, and all of k<300, we have to be completely sure of our doublecheck results.)

Anon
Perhaps it's best not to have that low range DCing on LLRnet then, because we want people to be involved enough that they shouldn't put questionable machines on it. I think we should only have DCing on LLRnet for ones where residues are ready.
Mini-Geek is offline