Jim C. Nasby
nasbjim at charlie.cns.iit.edu
Sun Jul 19 21:20:14 EDT 1998
The reason for having the block size setting is for slower computers. My 486-16 does a
2^31 block in 24 hours. Were it networked, I would have it doing 2^29 blocks instead,
so that it's reporting at least every 6 hours.
As far as changing the clients to retrieve a specific amount of work (rather than
block count), it would be a bit of an issue since the buffer headers would have to
change. We're looking into it, but it probably wouldn't be released until there was
another reason to change the buffer file format as well.
David Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> > >I believe the real fix is to express buffer sizes in equivalent numbers
> > >of 2^28 blocks, so that the total workload for a buffer of size N is
> > >constant, regardless of whether the blocks are 2^31 or 2^28 or
> > >something inbetween. That way, if I say "buffer 200 blocks, preferring
> > >2^31 blocks", I could either get 200 2^28 blocks or 25 2^31 blocks or
> > >some combination in between. You will still keep the block-size
> > >preference setting so that you could place an upper bound on the
> > >granularity of work attempted at any given time.
> > I second this. It would make life easier to be able to exactly know how many
> > keys I've gotten, rather than just knowing how many variably-sized blocks.
> > It might be further useful to have the client be able to split large blocks into
> > smaller blocks. This way, a client computer can put the least load on the
> > distributed network while still performing a unit of work appropriate to its
> > processing power.
> I agree with the buffer exactly n 2^x blocks, but it doesnt matter if
> there are n 2^x blocks, or n*2 2^(x-1) blocks, but I don't really see
> the purpose of the preferedblocksize setting at all. Why not just
> ignore it and use 31, and download whatever blocks are available.
> I just don't see what the purpose of doing a 'unit of work appropriate
> to its computing power' is, if you are going to download the same
> amount of blocks. It makes no difference how the computer breaks them
> up, it does exactly the same amount of work (except, maybe if there are
> more smaller sized blocks, there is a bit more overhead processing the
> I may be missing something here, but I honestly don't get the point of
> having a preferedblocksize entry...
> David Taylor
> dtaylor at nildram.co.uk
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
Jim C. Nasby (aka Decibel!) /^\
nasbjim at charlie.cns.iit.edu /___\
Freelance lighting designer and database developer / | \
Member: Triangle Fraternity, Sports Car Club of America /___|___\
Give your computer some brain-candy! http://www.distributed.net Team #1828
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
More information about the rc5