RC5-72?

[SnO]

Just curious, why hasn't there been any particular news, or well... any talk whatsoever about RC5?
That's the project I continue to contributed to, but I feel like i'm a loner =P. Possibly because the dnet stats have been down so much recently?

 

[NicColt]

>why hasn't there been any particular news, or well... any talk whatsoever about RC5

I used to do RC-64 but this project is not for the weak of heart.

(This also means that (rc-72) we'll hit 100% in 556,776 days at yesterday's rate.) or 1,525 years.

Yesterday RC-72 had a sustained rate of 23 Blocks/sec comapred to RC-64 which on it's last day had 450 Blocks/sec

For RC-72 10,677 of them were active yesterday comparared to 25,000+ on RC-64's last day.

rc64 completed 86,950,894 workunits on our it's best day compared to 1,974,043 workunits rc72 yesterday. Even at RC-64's best day's rate it would take some 35 years to complete RC-72.

All this to look for a hidden Key. I think people want to have more of a 'worthwile' DC project such as gnome or protein folding projects and so on. At least with one of these projects I'm hoping that one day even if it's in the far future that it will have some sort of impact on the human race.

I'm not putting the project down, I'm just explaining why it doesn't attrack crunchers as it once did.

 

[Polo]

You're not alone... 😉
I'm doing it on one or two computers...

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: NicColt
>why hasn't there been any particular news, or well... any talk whatsoever about RC5
rc64 completed 86,950,894 workunits on our it's best day compared to 1,974,043 workunits rc72 yesterday. Even at RC-64's best day's rate it would take some 35 years to complete RC-72.

The RC5-72 workunits are 16 times larger than the RC5-64 ones so the difference in rate isnt that large

 

[zinger]

I'm running RC5-72 on my iMac 1Ghz, churning out 10.45 million keys per sec. RC5 rocks on a G4 processor. I'm currently researching what DC project I should run on my P4-3.0 Ghz and two P3-933 Mhz PCs. SETI seems saturated.

I like RC5 cause it's the only DC client where I can configure it to use RAM only, with no disk-writes. I don't like the idea of my disk spinning 100% of the time. I believe they'll wear lot's quicker if they are. Plus, RC5 is NOT memory intensive at all, so it's not soaking up valuable front-side bus bandwidth.

 

[aberant]

I think it may have something to do with the big bust up that happened between TA and Dnet. Needless to say a lot of members walked then.