[RC5] 2 machines...

gindrup at okway.okstate.edu gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Wed Jun 3 18:40:49 EDT 1998


     Strictly, yes.  However a machine that is not disk only, 
     specifically the central keyserver, might have a hard time coping 
     with the data structures necessary to do this.
     
     It might make a bit more sense to start issuing new blocks from 
     previously random subspaces however...  Admittedly, random work 
     would then be much more likely to be redundant, but this avoids the 
     problem of ultimately having *all* random work be redundant.
            -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at okway.okstate.edu


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [RC5] 2 machines...  
Author:  <rc5 at llamas.net> at SMTP
Date:    6/3/98 11:23 AM


That sucks ;) the distributed.net coders 
should just makes the central computer give 
out completely new keys until all keys are 
given out. Then the oldest block requested but 
not processed is given out. Isn't that a more 
efficient idea for machines that are 
disk-only? ;)
     
Regards,
James "Binary" Colton
     
     
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rc5 at llamas.net
> [mailto:owner-rc5 at llamas.net]On Behalf Of 
> gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 1:13 AM 
> To: rc5 at llamas.net
> Subject: Re[2]: [RC5] 2 machines... 
>
>
>
>      And be sure that the buffers
> aren't so large that the time between 
>      refills is > ~ 6 weeks as that
> seems to be the stated time to start 
>      reissuing from previously
> opened subspaces.
>             -- Eric Gindrup !
> gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
>
>
> ______________________________
> Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: [RC5] 2 machines...
> Author:  <rc5 at llamas.net> at SMTP
> Date:    5/31/98 8:36 PM
>
>
> At 02:26 PM 31/05/98 , you wrote:
> >I have two machines, or rather,
> will have in about 1/2 hour :). Each of 
> >these will be running a Win32 rc5
> client. Only one has a modem/inet
> >connection, they are *not*
> networked/connected.
> >
> >Any suggestions as to the best way 
> to upload the completed blocks from 
> >the second, non-connected machine? 
>
> Barring any better ideas that may
> come along, there is sneakernet. Take a 
> floppy disk and swap the buffer
> files that way. (of course you should use 
> large
> buffers for this so you only have
> to do it peridocially, as really it is kind 
> of annoying to do every day).
> --
> "A gentile kind of wonderful,
> the sweetest days are always full, 
> of ordinary miracles.
> Each time I hold you near,
> it's an ordinary miracle."
>
> - Amy Sky: "Ordinary Miracles"
>
> Chris
>
http://home.inforamp.net/~tridus/
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to 
majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with 
rc5-digest
     
     
     
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to 
majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with 
rc5-digest
--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net 
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
     
     

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list