[RC5] RC5-72 Clarity?
Danie van Heerden
danievh at csnet.co.za
Mon Jun 4 17:20:38 EDT 2007
>>On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:48:44AM +0200, Danie van Heerden wrote:
>>Should rc5-72 be stopped, and OGR-P2 be completed, most of our installed
>>clients will no longer be serviceable.
> This is a side issue, but in fact D.Net rules state that you shouldn't
> run the client on computers without authorisation. For example, say
> you've been working at a university, when you leave the job, the clients
> should have been uninstalled.
> I know this is sometimes difficult to perform, technically, but frankly
> speaking you are boosting your stats with computers you no longer
> manage. Thus you shouldn't complain about old clients stopping crunching
> when RC5 is withdrawn from the project.
Obviously you have no idea of how many machines we are running with
permission. But administrating 2000+ on just one site is not possible, nor
feasible, so don't get on your high horse and make accusations you can't
If you read my message carefully, it was seeking the attention of the
distribution.net administrators and not you.
We deal with 10 000 plus members and replies like yours distract my original
questions without me getting an answer.
>> Could I perhaps suggest an automatic
>> core update on new dnetc clients?
> This could open a potential hole for malware, and this is probably one
> of the reasons D.Net never created the autoupdate feature. Also, if you
> still have authority over the machines, you can employ some easy, third
> party solution to update the clients. For instance I've used shared
> Samba folders for my Windows clients and autologon script, which would
> download the newer version if found.
In addition to your question regarding malware, you obviously have no idea
what is involved and what md5 checksums are. You also have no idea what it
takes to admin 2000+ machines on a single site, your 20 machines on samba
certainly is great, big we think big scale
> About the main topic -- if keeping up the RC5-72 infrastructure is not
> too expensive, then IMO it can stay up to leave some place for
> hardcore fans. If it's too expensive -- withdraw it altogether.
> Seriously, there is no point at all in RC5-72. The prize was never a
> factor for me; I crunched for RC5-64 and earlier projects because they
> were relatively short and fun. When RC5-72 was announced it was clear
> that >256 times more work is not going to be done quickly, even with
> Moore's law. So I switched everything to OGR.
I never said a single word regarding costs. Yes, it cost us money to
maintain and host our infrastructure, but we don't complain. You obviously
have no idea, once again, what you are talking about.
> With today's huge power draw of the CPUs, we should first think
> about the environment. Having spare cycles is not as valuable, as having
> spare energy. Few people have the latter and I vote that if energy is
> spent for crunching, then it must have a useful purpose. OGR is such a
> project, so it should be made the default in d.net, if possible also for
> existing older clients (I remember RC5 was the preferred one in default
> install if work units were available for both projects).
Regarding you energy "issue", what ever project we pursue, it will use
energy. If you want to complain about it, you shouldn't be on this mailing
I think my questions are valid and doesn't need flaming from somebody like
Not so kind regards
More information about the rc5