mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Prime Search Projects > No Prime Left Behind

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-09-18, 06:40   #78
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5×13×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Oh, duh! I just remembered, we already have a G7000. Never mind, looks like my grand plan for lining up port 7000 with Drive #7 won't work.

We'll do G3000 instead, which really is empty.
You've got me baffled now. We'll do G3000 for what? The non-top-5000 work for IB7000 on the 12th drive? If so, that's fine. The idea is to minimize the # of changes while still making everything as clear as possible for what we will eventually end up with.

Max, you're driving the server changes but I'll still offer my thoughts: Because this drive server is already on my machine, I'm assuming that we don't want to change it.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-18, 13:48   #79
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3·2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
You've got me baffled now. We'll do G3000 for what? The non-top-5000 work for IB7000 on the 12th drive? If so, that's fine. The idea is to minimize the # of changes while still making everything as clear as possible for what we will eventually end up with.

Max, you're driving the server changes but I'll still offer my thoughts: Because this drive server is already on my machine, I'm assuming that we don't want to change it.


Gary
Okay, to clarify: the current G4000 will soon be moved to G3000. That is so that when we move IB4000 to your server eventually, its port # doesn't clash with an eisting server.

As I said above, it's somewhat of an arbitrary decision whether to move IB4000 or G4000 to make room for the other. In this case I chose G4000 since there's less middlemen to deal with in just switching over a port that I have direct access to.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-19, 03:47   #80
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

100111110111012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Okay, to clarify: the current G4000 will soon be moved to G3000. That is so that when we move IB4000 to your server eventually, its port # doesn't clash with an eisting server.

As I said above, it's somewhat of an arbitrary decision whether to move IB4000 or G4000 to make room for the other. In this case I chose G4000 since there's less middlemen to deal with in just switching over a port that I have direct access to.
It's arbitrary but why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Why not just leave G4000 as it is with this drive? Then later on change IB4000 to G3000 (or whatever).

That's only 1 change instead of 2 changes. Shouldn't we be doing less changes? Why force people on this drive (namely Ian) to change all of their machines unless it is really needed. The people on the 5th drive (mostly me) will have to change all of their machines regardless of whatever is done.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind changing both instead of only changing one.


Gary
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-19, 10:40   #81
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

186916 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
It's arbitrary but why make it more difficult than it needs to be? Why not just leave G4000 as it is with this drive? Then later on change IB4000 to G3000 (or whatever).

That's only 1 change instead of 2 changes. Shouldn't we be doing less changes? Why force people on this drive (namely Ian) to change all of their machines unless it is really needed. The people on the 5th drive (mostly me) will have to change all of their machines regardless of whatever is done.

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind changing both instead of only changing one.


Gary
Aha, I see what you're confused about now. The way we're going to be switching things over, everyone currently on an IB port won't have to do anything at all during the switchover. The key to all of this is the domain name, noprimeleftbehind.net. Right now, that points to David's servers. But when we switch things over, we'll change it so it points to your servers instead. Thus, aside from a hopefully brief downtime during the changeover (which can be mitigated by using large caches on clients), there should be essentially no ill effect on the IB clients other than that of a normal IP address change.

Now you see why it's somewhat arbitrary? None of the clients will need to move at all (and at the very least might need to have their DNS cache flushed to account for the IP change), except for the ones on clashing port numbers, which we're moving ahead of time so that we don't have to deal with it later when we're doing a million things related to the switchover.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-20, 17:16   #82
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5×13×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdettweiler View Post
Aha, I see what you're confused about now. The way we're going to be switching things over, everyone currently on an IB port won't have to do anything at all during the switchover. The key to all of this is the domain name, noprimeleftbehind.net. Right now, that points to David's servers. But when we switch things over, we'll change it so it points to your servers instead. Thus, aside from a hopefully brief downtime during the changeover (which can be mitigated by using large caches on clients), there should be essentially no ill effect on the IB clients other than that of a normal IP address change.

Now you see why it's somewhat arbitrary? None of the clients will need to move at all (and at the very least might need to have their DNS cache flushed to account for the IP change), except for the ones on clashing port numbers, which we're moving ahead of time so that we don't have to deal with it later when we're doing a million things related to the switchover.

That's way too confusing to me. If you can make it where people have to change little or nothing on their machines, that sounds good to me.

Based on that, I'm assuming that anyone currently connecting to my current servers with the no-IP address will not necessarily have to change to the noprimeleftbehind address.

If that is the case, it will be a good idea to inform everyone to eventually make that change so that we can get rid of all of these port forwarding (or whatever they would be called) things that are internally in the servers.
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-21, 00:04   #83
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
That's way too confusing to me. If you can make it where people have to change little or nothing on their machines, that sounds good to me.

Based on that, I'm assuming that anyone currently connecting to my current servers with the no-IP address will not necessarily have to change to the noprimeleftbehind address.

If that is the case, it will be a good idea to inform everyone to eventually make that change so that we can get rid of all of these port forwarding (or whatever they would be called) things that are internally in the servers.
First of all, no, nobody on nplb-gb1.no-ip.org will have to change (except for G4000 which we'll be moving as previously discussed). After we've completed the move, nplb-gb1.no-ip.org will be synonymous with noprimeleftbehind.net.

As for port forwarding, I think you're a little confused; port forwarding is always necessary in order to put a port number online from a machine behind a router. Perhaps you're thinking of a port # redirect? We don't have any of those right now on the GB servers, and don't have any particular plans or needs to use any.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-21, 04:24   #84
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5×13×157 Posts
Default

Yeah, port redirect is what I meant.

What I was attempting to imply was this: Isn't there some sort of "quasi redirect" that is needed to "tell" the server that nplb-gb1.no-ip.org will be synonymous with noprimeleftbehind.net? If not, how does the server "know" that they are synonymous?
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-21, 13:20   #85
mdettweiler
A Sunny Moo
 
mdettweiler's Avatar
 
Aug 2007
USA (GMT-5)

3×2,083 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Yeah, port redirect is what I meant.

What I was attempting to imply was this: Isn't there some sort of "quasi redirect" that is needed to "tell" the server that nplb-gb1.no-ip.org will be synonymous with noprimeleftbehind.net? If not, how does the server "know" that they are synonymous?
The server won't need to "know" that they're synonymous. It will simply be that nplb-gb1.no-ip.org will point to the same IP address as noprimeleftbehind.net.

Similarly, IronBits' various domains all point to his IP address, which is why you can (say) point an LLRnet client to ironbits.net port 5000 or free-dc.org port 5000 and still get our IB5000 server. However, the reason why he has different websites on those addresses is because he put a "quasi redirect" of sorts in to tell his web server which page to answer with depending on which domain a browser is going to. Essentially, things like this with multiple domains pointing to the same IP address are considered synonymous unless otherwise noted.
mdettweiler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-09-21, 19:08   #86
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5×13×157 Posts
Default

All I can say is: Wow, that's cool that no one will have to change their LLRnet clients!

Personally I would recommend that everyone point to noprimeleftbehind.net for the future gb servers but if they don't have to change them from the no-IP address, then I guess it really doesn't matter.

Thanks for clarifying.

Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2009-09-21 at 19:09
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-19, 12:57   #87
MyDogBuster
 
MyDogBuster's Avatar
 
May 2008
Wilmington, DE

B2416 Posts
Default

I'm going to need some pairs loaded on GB4000. Down to < a weeks worth.
Max only loaded n=10K worth the last time and it went fast. Maybe 20k would be better.
MyDogBuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-10-20, 12:44   #88
gd_barnes
 
gd_barnes's Avatar
 
May 2007
Kansas; USA

5×13×157 Posts
Default

Reserving n=730K-740K for port G4000. I'll round it out and we'll load an n=20K range next go around.
gd_barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Team drive #14: k=600-1001 n=1M-2M mdettweiler No Prime Left Behind 9 2014-09-02 01:21
Team drive #6 k=600-800 n=600K-1M gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 89 2011-03-10 12:34
Team drive #5: k=400-600 n=600K-1M gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 135 2010-11-23 14:27
Team drive #1: k=400-1001 n=333.2K-600K gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 675 2009-02-24 16:37
Team drive #4, 15 k's < 300 for n=600K-1M gd_barnes No Prime Left Behind 38 2008-10-22 16:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:04.

Fri Sep 25 17:04:00 UTC 2020 up 15 days, 14:14, 0 users, load averages: 1.60, 1.55, 1.46

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.