Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > Team MacNN > Enhanced Optimized

Enhanced Optimized (Page 26)
Thread Tools
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2009, 08:43 PM
 
I am still there, just not posting and not on the team.

I still hold a RAC over 900 on MW.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2009, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by arkayn View Post
And they are released to the public.

http://www.arkayn.us/seti/
Just had the first two finish on my C2D - gave me about 85 cpusec/credit, which is slightly better than the standard MB app on the 41 credit WU... I suspect it'll affect my RAC in the short run, but after a month or so, it should help out...

Thanks for the work putting it all together!
beadman
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2009, 09:17 PM
 
Just got back the first two WU from my MBP CD T2600 2.16 GHz machine. Here's the results for comparison:

C2D T7700 2.4GHz MBP, BOINC 6.2.18, latest combined app you posted above
AP
104290 cpusec 1216.71 cred 85.71 sec/cred
102379 cpusec 1216.71 cred 84.14 sec/cred
MB
3780 cpusec 41.81 cred 90.41 sec/cred

CD T2600 2.17GHz MBP, BOINC 6.2.18, latest combined app you posted above
AP
130077 cpusec 1216.71 cred 106.91 sec/cred
129251 cpusec 1216.71 cred 106.23 sec/cred
MB
7675 cpusec 41.81 cred 183.57 sec/cred

The AP results are all pending on a wingman, but the only time I don't receive my claimed credit is when my wingman is running the 4.x.x apps.

Interesting results...looks to my uneducated eye as either the newest C2D isn't optimized quite as well for the AP app, or the newest CD isn't optimized quite as well for the MB app. In both cases, the AP provides more credit per cpusec (for the AR shown). I picked the 41.81 cred WU because I get a LOT of them, so they're probably fairly representative of what my computer sees.

Hope this helps those who are doing the optimized compilations...

beadman

<edit> just noticed...the CD results say both AP and MB are using SSE3; the C2D results say AP is using SSE3, and MB is using SSSE3. Here's what the start-up says for both:
C2D: Thu Mar 5 17:02:48 2009||Processor features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 APIC SEP MTRR PGE MCA CMOV PAT PSE36 CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS HTT TM SSE3 MON DSCPL VMX EST TM2 MNI CX16 TPR PDCM

CD: Fri Mar 6 20:31:35 2009||Processor features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 APIC SEP MTRR PGE MCA CMOV PAT CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS HTT TM SSE3 MON VMX EST TM2 TPR PDCM

Also, FWIW, the results for both computers indicate it's running 32 bit app. "AstroPulse v. 5.03
OSX 32 bit" ... I thought the C2D machine was a 64 bit machine...am I mistaken?
( Last edited by beadman; Mar 8, 2009 at 09:53 PM. Reason: added info)
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2009, 10:20 PM
 
Crunch3r is the one who ported the current optimized AP apps over to Linux and OSX. He only made a 64-bit app for Linux from what I can tell. Windows does not have a 64-bit build of v5 yet either.

SSE3 is as far as any build of AP has gotten from what I have seen so far.

I have heard from the grapevine that there is a lot more work to be done on the optimized builds and hopefully Crunch3r might hit all those little flags on the next build.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2009, 10:36 AM
 
Ok - thanks for the info... Crunch3r does good work, so if he's working it, I'm sure it'll be even better.

beadman
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 08:39 PM
 
What's the difference between 5 and 5.3?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 09:43 PM
 
5.00 was the old Astropulse version

Astropulse v5 5.03 is the newer version and takes a more detailed look at the unit.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2009, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by arkayn View Post
5.00 was the old Astropulse version

Astropulse v5 5.03 is the newer version and takes a more detailed look at the unit.
Which is the better one to run on a Core Duo iMac?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2009, 09:24 PM
 
v5 503 is the only one with new work now so that is what you would need to install.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2009, 09:02 AM
 
Anyone else notice a 15 percent increase in the length of time it takes to compute a SETI MB for the same credit? For the last day or so, all MB WU computed by my G4 and my MBP CD have increased in time to compute, but still get same credit (~41) - the AR is .4477xxxx on all these.

beadman
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2009, 02:19 PM
 
Beabman, your lucky you could get some work, I haven't received any units in a while, just about given up on the project.
Mac Pro 2.8GHz x 8, 10GB, 320HDD etc.........
Saving for 32 core Mac Pro. Only £1376.93 to go.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2009, 09:36 PM
 
I have gotten plenty of work for all 3 machines.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2009, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by beadman View Post
Anyone else notice a 15 percent increase in the length of time it takes to compute a SETI MB for the same credit? For the last day or so, all MB WU computed by my G4 and my MBP CD have increased in time to compute, but still get same credit (~41) - the AR is .4477xxxx on all these.

beadman
On my iMac CD, I am getting less credit for the same amount of work, by about 5% on MB. Mine is 40 credits now versus 42 credits previously. The time to process is about the same for me.
I am getting slightly better credits on the AP units but may have to wait for a lot longer to get the credits. AP are about 15% better than MB on my CD.

EDIT: Now up to 20% over MB with the increase in credits on AP units!
( Last edited by Billy; Apr 6, 2009 at 08:16 PM. Reason: Increase in AP credits)
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mile High
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2009, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by arkayn View Post
v5 503 is the only one with new work now so that is what you would need to install.
My last AP wu ran for 440 hours on a 2.0 G5 DP and returned late, this with Dotsch's v5.03. I don't know how much, if any, credit I got for it so I've stopped running AP wus.

Any wu over 100 hours makes me nervous anyway, so much more to lose due to the tiniest of glitches.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2009, 08:19 PM
 
You got around 1250 or so most likely.

Most of the optimization is now on the Intel machines since Crunch3r is porting his Linux apps.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2009, 05:29 PM
 
Looks like new optimized applications for SETI AP

Optimized Applications and Other Binaries - Read Only
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2009, 05:42 PM
 
Not optimized, stock for V5.05, built by Dotsch.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2009, 02:29 PM
 
I managed to get an AP 505. It is at 3.3% and 3 hours. That is going to take about 90 hours. The previous optimized app took about 55 hours. It looks to be a lot slower. Will have to see how it goes.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2009, 10:07 AM
 
How do you tell if it's a 503 or a 505?

beadman
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2009, 12:18 PM
 
In the manager it will say Astropulse v5 5.03 or 5.05.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2009, 04:53 PM
 
Ah! Thanks; I had that column too narrow to read the whole thing...

beadman
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 01:15 PM
 
Just noticed the fact that my G5 had been throwing errors for....well, for
quite a long time it appears with the previous Alex Kan version and now I
see there's a new, new astropulse version.

I gotta get on the stick, probably the last time I update that version as it
was dropping below 1000 rac these days easily. I remember when it was
in the two and a half bills area. Oh well.

My little core2duo laptop is still kicking butt, still about 1200 rac.

With my three machine (all with 2 cores or 2 processors) I'm running
around 3000 rac mostly.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2009, 08:14 PM
 
I think that in Boinc Manager, the advanced view, the task window should show it as running with the 503 or 505 application.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2009, 12:48 AM
 
Anybody here got an estimated runtime for optimised Astropulse 5.05 on OS X...?

Mine seems to project a runtime of 62 hours... far worse than a PC counterpart of only 16 - 17 hours...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2009, 04:13 AM
 
5.05 is not an optimized app, it is stock made by Dotsch.

We are still waiting on Crunch3r for an optimized 5.05 app for Linux and OS X.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2009, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Elphidieus View Post
Anybody here got an estimated runtime for optimised Astropulse 5.05 on OS X...?

Mine seems to project a runtime of 62 hours... far worse than a PC counterpart of only 16 - 17 hours...
Really? I'm running Astropulse v505 on my PC at work (shhh!) and it looks like 175 hours completion! Its a Pentium 4 @ 3ghz (2 cores). Is that a reasonable time for this machine? One of the CPU does regular Seti in about 11 hours.
2011 iMac 2.7 i5, 16gb RAM, 1TB HD
Previous Macs: Apple IIc+, iMac 350 G3, iBook 700 G3, G4 Powerbooks 12" 1ghz & 15" 1.67ghz
Join Team MacNN.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2009, 02:33 PM
 
That is about right for a P4 using hyperthreading.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2009, 03:04 PM
 
One thing to note about SETI@home on HT-enabled Nehalems Xeons, they performed badly on short-deadlined WUs. My 2.66GHz Octo-core averages 4300 secs compared to 2.8GHz Penryn Xeons at 1750 secs.

Wish there's a way to selectively get rid of these short WUs...
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2009, 04:33 PM
 
Have you taken into account that SETI has doubled the required crunching time by increasing the chirping?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2009, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by arkayn View Post
Have you taken into account that SETI has doubled the required crunching time by increasing the chirping?
Yes, and I've compared both Mac Pros with the same deadlined WUs (particularly now having deadlines of early to mid August), it's just that the short ones performed badly.... the long ones as you have mentioned (which have longer deadlines till September can sometimes be twice as fast on the Nehalem.

I've also noticed the Nehalem does not crunch on full power when it comes to short WUs, takes about 20W lesser in overall power consumption, and the processors run cooler, not really efficient in terms of credit/sec.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2009, 12:09 PM
 
Haven't there been significant difference in WUs with various angle ranges for some time now?

VHAR & VLAR units are not necessarily in the "sweet spot" for every CPU. Some CPUs are decidedly better at one end of the range vs. the other. And the credit pay-outs have had substantial differences since Berkeley switched over to the BOINC method of calculating credit.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nutley, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2009, 12:41 AM
 
It's been 1 month since I've gotten a download on my Mac pro. I have no problem getting downloads on my other computers.

If I reset the project, I start getting downloads, but they stop.

Fri Jul 31 23:34:25 2009 SETI@home [error] File setiathome_6.03_i686-apple-darwin has wrong size: expected 1941400, got 0

Then it registers as Retry.
Then the WU:
Fri Jul 31 23:27:06 2009 SETI@home Started download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 SETI@home Temporarily failed download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122: connect() failed
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 SETI@home Backing off 1 min 0 sec on download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122

Please help.
thanks
Bill
( Last edited by njmaugbill; Aug 1, 2009 at 12:42 AM. Reason: not all the message was sent.)
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by QSilver View Post
Haven't there been significant difference in WUs with various angle ranges for some time now?

VHAR & VLAR units are not necessarily in the "sweet spot" for every CPU. Some CPUs are decidedly better at one end of the range vs. the other. And the credit pay-outs have had substantial differences since Berkeley switched over to the BOINC method of calculating credit.
And I can assume there's no way to just download and crunch only VLAR units...?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 09:15 AM
 
I don't know of one, but I'd be happy to take all those VLAR and VHAR WUs. They're better on my MBP than any of the 0.43xxx WUs.

beadman
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2009, 09:51 AM
 
On a contrary my MP performs better on 0.43xxx or lower. Anything higher than 2.7xxx, it really slows. Mine's with HT on default. I wonder if the situation will reverse if I have HT turned off.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nutley, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2009, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by njmaugbill View Post
It's been 1 month since I've gotten a download on my Mac pro. I have no problem getting downloads on my other computers.

If I reset the project, I start getting downloads, but they stop.

Fri Jul 31 23:34:25 2009 SETI@home [error] File setiathome_6.03_i686-apple-darwin has wrong size: expected 1941400, got 0

Then it registers as Retry.
Then the WU:
Fri Jul 31 23:27:06 2009 SETI@home Started download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 SETI@home Temporarily failed download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122: connect() failed
Fri Jul 31 23:27:07 2009 SETI@home Backing off 1 min 0 sec on download of 29mr08aa.19881.8248.12.10.122

Please help.
thanks
Bill
I ended up reinstalling the System OSX and now I've received one download.

Bill
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2009, 04:44 PM
 
Anyone out there get their clients set up for Cuda?

It uses the graphics card to crunch data 2-10% faster than the CPU.

I'd LOVE to find a compatible nVidia card for my G5, it might break 1000 rac again if that's the case.

I've got it going on my little windows laptop and it's screaming along at 1200 rac most of the time.

I take it there are no current AGP Nvidia cards that are capable though that also work on a Mac G5 unless
flashed. Ideas?
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2009, 03:22 AM
 
I just got a new 2x Quad MacPro and loaded the optimized code. I've got 8 processes running at 100% utilization, but Activity Monitor shows I have 50% idle processor time. SETI says I have 16 processors, and I set the max processor preference to 32. Is there any way to get BOINC to run 16 tasks instead of 8?

-- bob
MacPro 2x 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Power Mac 4x 2.5GHz G5 (SETI #1 RAC May 4, 2006)
Power Mac 2x 1GHz G4
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2009, 12:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by bobpalmer View Post
I just got a new 2x Quad MacPro and loaded the optimized code. I've got 8 processes running at 100% utilization, but Activity Monitor shows I have 50% idle processor time. SETI says I have 16 processors, and I set the max processor preference to 32. Is there any way to get BOINC to run 16 tasks instead of 8?

-- bob
Am I to understand that you've got yourself into a "Waiting for shared memory" problem...?

If you do, you might wanna read the following:

BOINC FAQ Service
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2009, 03:03 PM
 
The script they have there take it from the default of 4MB of shared memory to 16MB. If you have a lot of RAM on your machine you could easily take it to 32MB by changing the line "kern.sysv.shmmax=16777216" to "kern.sysv.shmmax=33554432".

First thing is to see if that is your problem.

Also, remember that even though you have hype-threading it just means you will get twice as many units running, but each at 1/2 the processor speed. So basically about the same throughput as non-hyper-threaded machine.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 03:30 AM
 
Thanks, that was the problem. I now have 16 tasks running.
I didn't realize what the "shmat: Too many open files" message meant.
The % Idle time in Activity Monitor has gone from 50 down to 0, and % User is up from 50 to 100, so the processor is now fully utilized.
MacPro 2x 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Power Mac 4x 2.5GHz G5 (SETI #1 RAC May 4, 2006)
Power Mac 2x 1GHz G4
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 03:44 AM
 
You might bench it again with 8-10 threads, to see if you get the same (or better) work units completed per day. To expand on what BTBlomberg was remembering:

Hyperthreading runs two code streams through each core as though it were two separate cores. It does it by dividing up the execution units in the core, this works well if the two code streams need different execution units. ie - thread #1 needs FPU problems solved, while thread #2 needs integer math. However, if both code streams need the same execution resources (ie - SETI really likes floating point) then both streams bottleneck waiting on the FPU.

The end result can be each thread running a bit below 50% speed - you lose a bit of overhead to the core jumping between the two streams. This is why turning on HT can sometimes produce a slowdown instead of a speedup.

Activity Monitor may claim half your virtual cores are running idle with 8 threads, but in this case, it may produce a tad more finished units. The only way to be sure is to bench the results.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 11:04 AM
 
Unfortunately you can't manage how BOINC recognizes Cores so I suspect you would only get 1/2 the performance running just 8 threads. They may all be one just one processor of the two. If it was Grand Central optimized you may be able to pick and choose which core got what and if you put one task per real Core it may work as reader suggests. BOINC may only acknowledge your system as 16 "Processors" and not be able to differentiate it. Also, hyper-threading is likely on by default unlike PC BIOS where you can turn it off.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 11:35 AM
 
Anyone have any problems with the new version (6.10.6) of BOINC for Macs?

beadman
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Golden Valley, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 07:45 PM
 
I only ran 6.10.6 on my 2 PC's and went back to 6.10.3 because of the start every GPU WU bug.

The iMac is running 6.10.2 as it seems stable for it's 2 projects.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2009, 09:58 PM
 
I installed 6.10.6 on my Spring 2009 iMac (MacOSX 10.6.1) and have seen no issues with it today.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2009, 12:41 PM
 
Say I just noticed something regarding my G5's operating of the AK client.

See text below:

<core_client_version>6.6.36</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
MacOS Error -5000 occured in /Users/alexkan/seti/boinc/api/mac_icon.C line 107
MacOS Error -5000 occured in /Users/alexkan/seti/boinc/api/mac_icon.C line 107
OS X optimized S@H Enhanced application by Alex Kan
Version info: OS X Altivec (G4/G5, G5-optimized v8-nographics) V5.13 by Alex Kan

Work Unit Info:
...............
Credit multiplier is : 2.85
WU true angle range is : 1.478754

Flopcounter: 11704891385172.285156

Spike count: 0
Pulse count: 0
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 0
</stderr_txt>

Does anyone know what the fix for error -5000 is?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2009, 01:27 PM
 
Todd, I thought I saw something about this somewhere before. I would expect that it may be simply an issue linking to an icon file in the compile of the app. Looks like it's tied into a hard link to Alex's files on his machine. Since it's an icon it likely is not a app stopper. Are the results validating? If so I would ignore.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2009, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BTBlomberg View Post
Todd, I thought I saw something about this somewhere before. I would expect that it may be simply an issue linking to an icon file in the compile of the app. Looks like it's tied into a hard link to Alex's files on his machine. Since it's an icon it likely is not a app stopper. Are the results validating? If so I would ignore.
It's not an app stopper and things are validating. Nothing to worry about then.

But I did read something earlier that might be a reason why my machine has lessened in performance, there was a dashboard app taking >30% of cpu over many weeks, possibly months. I couldn't believe it. I've now discontinued some of those more processor intensive dashboard apps in the hopes I get a little more "oomph" out of this box.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 3, 2009, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by bobpalmer View Post
I just got a new 2x Quad MacPro and loaded the optimized code.
Bob, I have to say I have been watching your machine as you have started to creep back up and it's scary. Makes me jealous.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2