| Forum: | Team 3DNow! SETI |
| Topic: | SETI@home version 3.00 |
|
|
|
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.
| Name | Post |
| DanBall |
 posted 08-14-2000 11:35 ET (US)
When will SETI@home version 3 come out? I understand it is more cache friendly than the other GUI's and doesn't have the overhead of the previous GUI's overhead. |
| DanBall |
posted 09-06-2000 22:31 ET (US)
Hello, when will SETI@home 3.00 be out, I need to know. |
| DanBall |
posted 10-01-2000 15:42 ET (US)
I waiting |
| fredro |
posted 10-01-2000 16:38 ET (US)
i`m guessing within the next month or two. many have said beta version 2.76 appears to have the bugs worked out, and version 3.0 has already been released for a couple of platforms. i beleive (but dont quote me) unix is one of them. with my experience with the beta`s, theres only 2 cpu`s that will benifit in terms of speed, and thats the celeron and duron. the athlons and coppermines will take a performance hit for sure. [This message has been edited by fredro (edited October 01, 2000).] |
| DanBall |
posted 10-01-2000 18:49 ET (US)
The three SETI@home version 3.00 are for: ftp://alien.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome-3.0.i386-sco-sysv5.unixware7.tar ftp://alien.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome-3.0.i686-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1.tar ftp://alien.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome-3.0.sparc-sun-solaris2.6.tar |
| SubZero |
posted 10-01-2000 19:12 ET (US)
I have been using the Beta 2.76 to do some testing and for my pentiums there wasn't much change. My K62 took a huge improvement, then slowed down to almost nothing??? Still havn't figured that one out. Duron times almost cut in half!! Celeron showed some improvement too. Just hope they get the cmd-line 3.0 out quick. I don't like messing with the GUI. |
| fredro |
posted 10-01-2000 21:14 ET (US)
SubZero i too dislike the gui, my isp isnt very reliable, and i lose an average of 1 to 4 units a day do to disconnects. (beta 2.70) as for the performance between beta 2.73 and version 2.0 my coppermine 600@840 went from 4hrs 45min to 6hrs, 7 hrs, 4hrs.....it just varried to much. the same with my athlon 650@850. 6hrs 21min to 8, 9 10, and sometimes 5.5hrs. i havent tried ver 2.76 yet as i have read its very slow.SubZero can you give us your experiences with ver 2.76? |
| DanBall |
posted 10-03-2000 21:20 ET (US)
Seti at Home version 3.0 for Windows is available at these places: ftp://alien.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome_win_3_0.exe ftp://serendip.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome_win_3_0.exe ftp://setidata.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/setiathome_win_3_0.exe |
| DanBall |
posted 10-03-2000 21:29 ET (US)
In fact I'm running it on my AMD K6-2 500 computer right now. When searching for pulses/triplets it doesn't add CPU time or percentage, but it does only when it adds 2% to the search. [This message has been edited by DanBall (edited October 03, 2000).] |
| DanBall |
posted 10-04-2000 01:18 ET (US)
I installed it but I didn't like the time it was giving me (Estimated total time by SETISpy to approx 22+ hours, compared to 17 or 18 hours with version 2.0 of the commandline) So I uninstalled v3.00 and put the version 2.0 cmdline back in. |
| Masoch |
posted 10-04-2000 08:28 ET (US)
Well ... word from the seti newsgroups is that *some* WU's take longer b/c of the increased number of frequencies being searched. More frequencies = more spikes 'n' gaussians to calculate. More often though, especially if you have a CPU with on-chip l2 cache, WU's are dramatically sped up -- on typical WU's, as much as 40%. The routines and data sets fit *much* better into 256k l2 caches now. v.2 and v.1 releases of Seti were comfy in 1 meg caches -- hence, Xeons and other server type processors were wickedly fast at Seti. On my lowly k6-3 450 with 512k mobo cache, I'm seeing 11 hour WU's compared to 14, give or take. The other thing to remember, however, is that S@H is a science experiment, not a benchmark ... there's a need to examine a broader range of frequencies 'cause nothing's been found in the current range. The S@H folks should be commended for releasing a client that does much more in, generally, less time. Just my take ... Masoch |
| DanBall |
posted 10-04-2000 09:50 ET (US)
So S@H v3 is slower on my K6-2 500MHz chip because it has no ondie L2 cache, but if I installed in on my computer with the 600MHz Duron it will be faster than it would be with the 2.xx cmdline/GUI clients because of the L2 cache? I am getting 8.5 to 10hr WU on the Duron with the 2.0 cmdline client. |
| Masoch |
posted 10-04-2000 14:21 ET (US)
Hiya, Seemingly, most WU's on CPU's without on-chip cache are a bit faster unless the client finds a lot of "triplets and pulses". In that case, WU's will be slower. The slow WU's are rarer than the fast ones; most folks are reporting a net gain in speed. And, for folks with on-chip cache ... BTW, 16.5 hours for a k6-2 500 is a bit whacky. My 400 chugs 'em out in no more than 15, and sometimes under 14. Granted, it has almost no load on it ... but still. You might want to take a look at your mobo settings. If your mobo has less than a meg of L2, in the long run v.3 might be better for you. Masoch |
| SubZero |
posted 10-04-2000 23:47 ET (US)
The times seem to be all over the place. Faster on my Duron and Celeron, but killing me on my older Pentium and K6-400. Anyone heard anything about a 3.0 CLI? I would rather run that, then this GUI. |
| sandorski |
posted 10-07-2000 12:47 ET (US)
I'm using version 3.0 GUI on my Duron and am getting 7-8 hour/WU. So far I'm very pleased. |
| sNo |
posted 10-07-2000 12:52 ET (US)
anyone know when the i386 winnt text version is gonna be developed.. i'm waiting, and i'd like to check it out.. maybe with a strike of god's hand it will run faster then what i'm getting right now.. normally i get about.. 6 to 7 hours.. but hey ... even faster is better.. i want a computer that can pump out WU's in like 10 minutes... anyone got any money they can lend me to build the best supercomputer in the world.. some government research might help too.. SnO |
| DanBall |
posted 10-07-2000 02:02 ET (US)
I ran version 3.0 GUI on my Duron until it got to 49%, I was getting a time of 16 hours!!! Normally with the version 2.0 of the setiathome-20i486-nonintel-winnt-cmdline I get 8.5 to nearly 10 hours a WU. The S@H websites says that users will get fast and slow WU's, and that it will average out, and shouldn't matter. It matters to me, I like fast WU's. |
All submissions are copyrighted by their respective authors and are not for re-use in any form without their explicit written consent.
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.37
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998-1999.
Membaca review slot online bisa menjadi panduan yang sangat berguna. Review sering kali memberikan informasi tentang RTP slot tertinggi dan pengalaman pemain sebelumnya. Dengan memilih slot gacor yang telah direkomendasikan, peluang untuk menang dapat meningkat. Jadi, jangan lewatkan untuk memeriksa ulasan sebelum mulai bermain.
