 |
 |
Just got the Ok from Berkeley!!
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just recieved an email today from Berkeley to try out their new 3.0 beta preview version of S@H. I downloaded it and just installed it. Tonight will be my first run with it. The version is 2.6.6, but will end up being version 3.0.
I'll post my times as I go.
For reference, version 2.0x ran about 6h45m to 7h20min average on my G3.
brock
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: toronto, canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
???!
Brock, I thought that you'd said that it would take longer to process units with that beta? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? � errr� I mean, woohoo! Better chance at finding ET!
(hmmm� better wait to see what da boss says 'bout this. Where's that wlonh?)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Your absolutely right. 
Im just running it on one of my 35 machines like they told me to do. So my totals really won't suffer that much.
brock
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not to mention your totals already suck. hehe.
I heard Berkley has no plans for creating an AltiVec client....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
hey run what you want, what skin is it off anyone?
and Misha, you might be wrong about the altivec bit, i and others have read of altivec-enhanced seti client as a possibility if not already being developed... personally i do not care one way or the other, so shoot me.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Not Bad!
All this mumble jumble from all the PC users about the new version being so much slower is not applying to my first W/U under 3.0 beta.
So far:
74.393% @ 6h11m40.5s
It's a little off my pace for this machine.
brock
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: athens jawjer
Status:
Offline
|
|
My first unit under 2.66 took about 10% longer (7.5 hours), but no where near the length teamlambchop was reporting.
2.66 is more fun to watch.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've just talked to 3 other ppl using the v3.0 beta on G4's. All three have dropped times by 1hour to 1.5 hours. All three think that 3.0 "could" be Altivec enhansed. No one knows for sure though.
brock
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
If SETI@home gets AltiVec-enabled, I'll buy a few G4's to run it. It'll be worth it, I tell you!
My lab consists of about twenty Sun Ultra 80's and a few Enterprise Servers. I'm convincing the lab management to let me run SETI@home on these beautiful boxes.
Has anyone had experience running SETI@home on one of Apple's Workgroup Server 750's? I have one of them sitting around, and it hasn't been used in ages. When I say ages, I mean ages.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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