posted July 08, 1999 23:41         

Average time per unit is around 37 hours under Windows 98, didn't complete one yet under Linux.

IP: Logged

posted July 09, 1999 12:31         

For SETI and RC5 I use a cheap-ass Compaq that I won at Radio Shack. It has a K6-2 350 MHz, 128 MB Ram, MVP3 chipset. My average time for SETI is a little over 28 hours in Win98. I have it set to always run and leave it on overnight when I wake up in the morning and turn on the monitor I see the BLUE_SCREEN_OF_DEATH.

[This message has been edited by MeenMunky (edited July 09, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 09, 1999 11:56         

IP: Logged

posted July 09, 1999 17:04         

You can get it at: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/unix.html

It is the one that says: i386-winnt-cmdline

Sure it says WindowsNT but, its DOS, trust me
Download that, when you get it, it will be an .exe by itself, thats ok put it in a folder somewhere and open up your Seti@home directory and copy all of the text files (you don't need to copy the readme) and paste them in the folder with the .exe you just downloaded. Now start er up and you should be where you left off with the gui version. I put a shortcut in the startmenu\programs\startup folder so it starts up atomatically and made it minimize so I don't have to see that ugly black and gray DOS box. Also I kept that icon that was in the Seti@home folder and used it for the shortcut cuz I don't like to see those white boxes

[This message has been edited by MeenMunky (edited July 09, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 19, 1999 02:06         

Linux does the job in some 18 hours. For comparison, my i166MMX clocked to 200 takes 20 hours to process a unit (Linux).

[This message has been edited by Akma (edited July 19, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Akma (edited July 19, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 19, 1999 12:26         

I think I need it (and the 3dnow! optimised version) - Im up to 125 hours for my first unit still. Thats on a K6-2 400.

IP: Logged

posted July 20, 1999 06:04         

Adrian, what you need is a life!

Seriously speaking, it seems that you are using V1.00 and a lousy (?) graphics card... If so, you should upgrade to V1.06. There is no other way a K6-2 400 would need hundreds of hours to work on a unit (unless the computer runs a zillion other CPU intensive tasks as well). When I ran V1.00 on an Intel Pentium 133 it took some 100 hours to process a unit. Sadly, the command line version only works in 98 and NT.

The bit referring to a lousy gfx card, is that I (and my martian friends ) have a theory that V1.00 renders the graphics all
the time, even if the graphics are not shown. How else could V1.05 be twice as fast? This leads into a (false?) conclusion that the slower the gfx card, the slower the calculation.

Also, you should run the program in the background, ie. prevent it from drawing the gfx. That should speed it up.

[This message has been edited by Akma (edited July 20, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 20, 1999 12:14         

I had to run SETI only as a screensaver because it was chewing up processor time, but it was counting the hours my compter had been on .

Ive upgraded to 1.06, and can now have it running all of the time. Yes its a lot quicker too (nearly 20% today after nearly 5 hours). It looks like im gonna try and install 98 again ... or wait for the 3dnow! optimised version.

IP: Logged

posted July 20, 1999 20:57         

[This message has been edited by Ragnarok_Gold (edited July 20, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 21, 1999 02:47         

CommandLine-client(1.20) for winNT run as same-speed as
ScreenSaver-client(1.05) on my PC.

So now I set as below.
SETI@home-ScreenSaver-Client 1.05.
'Data Analysis always runs...' mode
no screensaver registered in Display Propaties.

------------------
Fumiaki Toguchi
AMD-K6-III/420Mhz user

IP: Logged

posted July 21, 1999 13:34         

I entered the SETI-Team-3Now! using my three Home K6-2 350 machines, beginning with 5 work units.

To push the stats (and the fame of this team ;-) I am running the SETI-Textmode clients on all machines within my reach:

my three K6-2 350 MHz Home PCs

two Silicon Graphics O2 Workstations - during weekends only :-(

a *hot* Dual-P-III machine (0,5 GIG RAM, 50 GIGs HD, ...)

5 - 7 other PII/PIII machines

btw... AMD Athlon Rulez ;-)

cu
Bjoern Lieske

IP: Logged

posted July 21, 1999 15:56         

IP: Logged

posted July 21, 1999 22:00         

I just wanted to say hello and tell you about my strange experiences with SETI@home. I run SETI@home(GUI) under Win98 on 4 different hardwares. A K6-2 300 MHz (Rage Pro), a P2 266MHz (Riva128), a P2 400 MHz (G200) and a Celeron 300A @ 450 MHz (G200) all with 128 MB RAM. The strange things happened with the 300 K6-2 and 266 P2 while running SETI v1.00. They both started by using 30-40 hours per WU, that was ok. I didn't run Seti when I was using them for daily work so they worked nights only (So the stats wouldn't be ruined) Then suddenly one day I notice that the P2 266 takes only 17 hours per WU and the K6-2 takes 40-50 hours. I was puzzled by this since I hadn't made any changes to either machine. The a week later K6-2 decides to join the P2 266 and does the WU's in 17-18 hours, still without me having changed anything. At this time they had proccessed approx. 60 WU's with the help of the P2 400 which had taken 24-25 hours per WU. A few days ago I the got the Celeron which does a WU in 27-28 hours. I never got to try v1.05 or 1.06, because I got the NT version after reading about it here. Now all machines do WU's in 9-12 hours.

Can anyone explain the sudden changes in time to proccess a WU using the v1.00 Win98 SETI? My personal theory is Graphics Card drivers. That is the only thing that I may have changed, though I'm not sure I did.

I hope someone can use this for something and that someone may have an answer to my question. Best regards

MrHeat.

[This message has been edited by MrHeat (edited July 21, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 22, 1999 02:06         

I'm currently running the latest cmdline version on NT4.0 SP5 with a K6-2 350MHz/128Mb of RAM and I'm crunching about 10% of the WU every 1.4hrs. So if you do the math that's 14hrs/WU if I'm not using the machine

Cheers,
Brandon
PGR

IP: Logged

posted July 22, 1999 02:08         

Cheers,
Brandon
PGR

IP: Logged

posted July 22, 1999 14:33         

4 x PII -400's cmd-line installed as service
1 k6-2 300 afr 66 (I know.. but it's an IBM) (constant windows client)
1 k6-2 350 cmd line
1 k6-2 333 (95mhzfsb) screen saver ONLY
1 pmmx 233 cmd-line constant
1 p200 graphics client, minimized/screen saver
1 celeron 300a oc to 83mhz fsb, cmd-line constant
1 pa-risc 8200 cmdline constant
1 sparc10 crawling along command line

Steve

------------------
It will go faster!

IP: Logged

posted July 22, 1999 22:47         

System includes 96MB SDRAM, and 10.2GB HDD.

------------------
Dave

IP: Logged

posted July 23, 1999 13:55         

IP: Logged

posted July 24, 1999 12:57         

average WU=22 h & some change.

Toshiba Satalite 205 Cds
P100
16Mb
Still on first work unit for 20 hours and is at 8.49.

Anyone in the states got a "cheap" 300Mb+ IDE drive they would like to part with so I can get another number cruncher up and running for Team 3DNow?

[This message has been edited by dethrai (edited July 24, 1999).]

IP: Logged

posted July 24, 1999 14:40         

Well (bracing for a slam now) i'm using a celeron 366 @ 415 and that is doing around 28 hours to finish a unit too. So in perspective the K6-2 350's out there overclocked or not seem very capable of keeping up with my peice of crap. I mean my machine runs like a freakin snail and i've optimized it as best i know (although there is probably some more tweaking i can do).

Well once my student loan comes through i'll be an AMD man again so i'll post u some comparabile results.

Coyote

IP: Logged

posted July 24, 1999 19:27         

was downloading Netscape4.61 and installed it, and I had the BSOD once (what windows, heh).

14 hours 44 minutes using cli client.

Is there a way I can really check my average time with this cpu using the command line? (and I am often not home when it decided to update/flush).

IP: Logged

posted July 25, 1999 09:45         

I use 15-16 hours with the Win98-version.

Aslak Heggland

IP: Logged

posted July 26, 1999 05:07         

Get a copy of SetiView to check your stats - the New version (To be placed on the website in a day or so and called SetiWatch) will have a complete logging function... See http://zap.to/clubteam for the site address..

Dave

IP: Logged

posted July 26, 1999 19:35         

Win95

14-18 hours / unit running minimized.

40+ hours running as Screensaver.

------------------
-fyodor

IP: Logged

posted July 27, 1999 06:57         

About 28 hours / unit, running minimised.

Ian

------------------
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK

IP: Logged

posted July 27, 1999 08:34         

2nd System is an AMD K6 II 350 (3Dnow)Custom made on a 5mvp3 Version 5 board with 192 MB ram, 1MB cache

Packet 1 on system 1 Total time 26hr 12min 14.8 sec (I first ran with all apps iun back then closed all apps except Explorer and SETI)

Packet 2 System 2 Currently at 89.550% Time 20hr 5min 4 sec (will have it continue later.

now it seems that 3dnow has no impact on time, nor the ammount of memory or cache. I asked an expert I knwo that understands the seti program. It doesn't utilize Floating points high enough to make an impact on either system. It is a simple mathimatical program that scans line codes of the frequency and starts elemenating specific ones, bit by bit. He did say that making adjustments in back ground apps and such can make a difference on systems with lower ram. Adjsuting BIOS can effect memory to CPU tranfer rates. So PC 100 Ram can be better but by a very small margine. Processor speed can have the highest impact.

A friend ran it on a celeron 400 and got a packet done in 24 hrs (aprox same size packet.) some packets will take longer some a shorter time.

If you find a way to tweak things that really effect the performance let me know. i will continue using both systems, giving them rests tiem to time. The k6-II I will use for normal work during day and it will run SETI all night. The k6 300 will run all day. Hope I can help our scores.

P.S. if you can tell me if the linux version is faster and works on Windows 98 SE, tell me how to move files and get it working. If it is much faster..

Thanks all and have fun.... GO 3D NOW!!!!

IP: Logged