 |
 |
OS9 v OSX CLI
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Norman OK USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Does anyone have good data on crunch-rates between the OS9 and the OSX CLI? I'm thinking of going to OSX soon (next 3 months). It seems reasonable that the CLI client would be significantly faster (no graphics being drawn), but how much faster?
Also, does any have BeOS for PPC? Just curious.
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Tigerabbit ]
|
|
If you put a bullseye on yourself, don't be surprised when someone takes a shot at you.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
My 466 in OS9 did 4.14 Mkeys, whereas in OSX it does 4.21 Mkeys.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: College Park, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm going to assume you are talking about SETI.
In the future, say which you are talking about 
The times are actually about the same, with the OSX one usually being a little faster.
Nothing big though.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: May 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you are handy with a RAM disk, and willing to quit all other processess in 9, the OS 9 client is a little bit faster. I have not benched it recently, but it feels like 5-10 percent. That includes all the tricks, including quitting the Finder, the Control Strip, and other background processess overnight.
Note that using a RAM disk is a good way to lose hours of work, so you would have to be in the backup habit, and have a stable system. Also, having a unit complete during the daytime is just asking for Berkeley to stall your client for several hours. The Team Proxy may have solved that.
I do run my OS 9 client, usually overnight with a unit that will not finish during a "bad" time. Most of my crunching is happening in X now, with 2 cli clients. If one finishes up, the other will keep on crunching. Overall, you lose less crunch time that way.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Norman OK USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, SETI.
I'm setting up RAM disks in the two 601 machines (7100/80 and 8100/100), who do nothing but crunch SETI. The other two (Bondi and Pismo/400) are in almost constant use, but with SETI always in the background, ready to leap forward in a seconds notice.
I was checking into XPostFacto to pry in OSX and run only CLI, but it doesn't work in 601s, just 604s. I'm still looking into other ways to speed up the 601s (BeOS/Linux, G3 upgrades, etc).
|
|
If you put a bullseye on yourself, don't be surprised when someone takes a shot at you.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator Join Date: May 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
On systems that are in constant use, try to use the CLI versions with OS X. In OS 9, Seti does not crunch worth a darn when it is in the background. That's the other reason so much of my crunching is in X now, so I can work and still have decent crunching going on.
Seriously, background SETI in OS 9 slows to about 5%, even on an otherwise idle system. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
