I heard you were looking for a comparision of CPU time and WU times.

PIII 700 @ 933, BX chipset, SDRAM @ 133 MHz cas2 settings running Cli. 3 on w98se.


Did you said you had some first hand experience with DDR? What kinda WU time do they average to be? I thought the i760 got delayed. I was under the impression RAM performance didn't affect WU time much with the 3.x clients for x86 CPU's. So any big difference with DDR? Or is it the chipset?

[try]

Trying to stir up?

Hey man, get off my back. You are a bit too jumpy. You think just because I am a "OCN'er" that I am evil and bad and am here to cause trouble???? My only issue was with wlonh, and I too didn't want to see the end results that came about. I have on issues with the rest of your folks.

My post was in respond to these two post.

Originally posted by DiskMan:
Hmmmm, NOT bad. I was sitting checking out the Cube clone server and stumbled across the Seti page and wanted to compare stats...
I'm running a:

AMD 900mhz
Windows 200 pro
128meg ram
RivaTNT2
Seti Units 101
Average Seti Time:5hr 16m

Those 15hr posts aren't bad, for a Mac. DiskMan

Originally posted by seanyepez:
Too bad that was an old account you found. I run under "seanyepez." Look, I think you need an attitude adjustment - "little fibber?"

My PC does average 5 hours and change on a work unit. My new AMD DDR-based system does the packets in 3 hours, but I'm not going to run SETI@home on that computer. The fans make it too noisy to comfortably sleep with.

Also, what did I ever do to you?

I was only curious as I thought the i760 chipset's released was delayed along with support for DDR RAM, and I really wanted some first hand info on DDR and SETI. I didn't post my question in the same thread in respect of Danometer's request.

Originally posted by Danometer:
Diskman and seanyepez, please take your "discussion" elsewhere; the backyard, the gym, the titty-bar, your own forum, it doesn't matter, just not here. Okay?

2000 - Dewguy
500 - ptboat
100 - toomuchcaffeine

If you look throught this forum and look up my post as of late you will see that I am either defending OCN, helping your members with questions on PC and SETI, or trying to ease the tension between your team members. I am not trying to stir things up. In fact I am even biting my tongue so as to not stir things up.

A) Defending OCN.

Originally posted by NiteOwl:
Hey guys, TN was just joking around. No harm intended. He is always joking around. Go easy on the dude.

And yes, TN does stand for Tennessee. That's why we often refer to him affectionately as "hillbillie".

Oh yeah, 46 post ... so when is the OCN gullitine coming for me?

[This message has been edited by NiteOwl (edited 11-23-2000).]

Originally posted by NiteOwl:
not that it is personal nor my passion, but tit for tat.

http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/Foru...ML/000665.html

I am not saying these tiresome war are cool, and really I don't care much nor participate much in them. But just trying to hold up a mirror for you to maybe reflect the image you are giving out yourself. Yes, we are all just people here. No angels, no devil ... on either side.

B) trying to ease the tension between your team members

Originally posted by NiteOwl:
Hey guys, you are both on the same team. I think it's just a little misunderstanding, that's all. Often it's easy to step on each other's toes on forums due to a tiny little misunderstanding that gets blown way out of proportion. Sometimes the meaning that we intended gets lost somewhere between the way it sounded in our heads and the text we type up on the screen, eh?

C) helping your members with questions on PC and SETI

Originally posted by NiteOwl:
if you are using the newer 3.0 clients, see if you can lower the L2 latency. That might help. With respect to PC's, the newer 3.0 clients cares jack about L2 cache size or FSB or RAM performances. It's all about internal CPU and L2 cache speed, baby! Try this proggie to lower the L2 latency if your BIOS has no support for it.
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA002.../download.html

Look up a proggie named WCPUL2

In fact I am even trying to bite my tongue so as to not stir things up.

Originally posted by NiteOwl:
bah! forget about it.

Hey man. You read me all wrong. I am not trying to flame you in this reply either. I am just trying to defend myself from your accusation, that's all. I can see my attempts to be a contributing member on this forum has fallen on deaf ears and have not changed you folk's preception of OCN at all. That's too bad. I try hard myself to be unbias when it's just so easy to just make fun of the Mac and such but I see in the end you just chose to bunch me in with the rest of the Pee Cee users that you so eagerly and blindly demonize.

PS. Of course, you can flame me in retribution if you want. I wouldn't care. You would only convince me to give up and just quite on this forum/you guys.

Hey, NiteOwl!
I�m thinking of using a couple of PC:s for crunching. Have to find a way to get past FireWire... Can you perhaps tell me a basic setup of the 2.04 client for Win98? When I run it on a 866MHz IBM it seems to need about 10 hours to crunch a unit. A bit much, isn�t it? Of course I respect if you won�t tell me since we are on different teams, but most of us here don�t use PC:s anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by firewire as I have no experience with firewire myself. But I don't think SETI accepts WU's from the 2.x clients no more, so you will have to run the 3.x GUI or cli clients.

Can you elaborate more on what kinda problems you are having?

FireWire is the signature of one of our Team members, who seems to increase WU production every time I do.
Berkely still accept 2.x results since they cannot offer any 3.x Win client right now. I have no problem getting the client to run, but I think it is too slow. My fastest Macs get a WU done in just over 5 hours, but the twice as high clocked PC seems to need 10 hours, which seems wrong to me. In the Mac client you can set the screen to go black after a minute, which speed things up a lot. I cannot find this setting in the Win client. Perhaps I can find it in the screensaver setting in Windows? Perhaps I should not use the screensaver option at all, but let the client run in the background instead? Perhaps the 3.0 client is faster than 2.04 and still availiable elswhere?
Thank you for your time and interest.

[Todd Madson]

Actually, I find this interesting because I am using a mixture of Macs and
PCs to do my crunching. Every little bit helps.

The PIII 500 mhz machines here do a great job, consistently 6-8 hours
with 133 megs of ram. This is with the 2.4 client. With the 3.0
client, the lower times actually stay about the same and the top end
gets raised into the ten to twelve hour range. Wish I could overclock
those machines but they're not mine to do that with. These machines
have 100 mhz bus, nothing fancy. I was hoping the lower end would go
down somewhat but I guess it's not in the cards with these machines.
If I souped 'em up that would be a different story.

The G4 400 mhz machine is all over the map with 2.4 client, but if the
system is stable (it's not now for some reason) I was getting very
routine 4-6 hour block times. With the 3.x client, the thing took a
big dump and was doing 12-14 hour times. I think I have a fix for that
though. I have a cache utility that lets me literally chop my L2 cache
in half and since the smaller L2 cache performs better on the Mac side
with 3.x this may have better results for my crunching with 3.x.

[tonymac]

Where can I find the Seti Watch utility? I checked download.com, but it didn't show up. Thanks.

[Update]
I found it at: http://members.home.net/mloukko/SETI.html

[This message has been edited by tonymac (edited 11-27-2000).]

Originally posted by Daniel Hazard:
FireWire is the signature of one of our Team members, who seems to increase WU production every time I do.
Berkely still accept 2.x results since they cannot offer any 3.x Win client right now. I have no problem getting the client to run, but I think it is too slow. My fastest Macs get a WU done in just over 5 hours, but the twice as high clocked PC seems to need 10 hours, which seems wrong to me. In the Mac client you can set the screen to go black after a minute, which speed things up a lot. I cannot find this setting in the Win client. Perhaps I can find it in the screensaver setting in Windows? Perhaps I should not use the screensaver option at all, but let the client run in the background instead? Perhaps the 3.0 client is faster than 2.04 and still availiable elswhere?
Thank you for your time and interest.

The older 2.x clients didn't fit neatly in the 512 or 256 kb of L2 cache that Katmai PIII or Coppermine or AMD Athlon had, so in order to increase SETI performance you have to increase RAM performance. To increase RAM performance your options are:
[list=1][*]Increase the speed the RAM opperates at. If you own a mobo with the BX chipset, the RAM and FSB are synchronous. So the only way to increase RAM speed is to increase FSB speed too, thus overclocking your CPU and PCI bus and HD and AGP bus in the process. If you have the VIA Apollo Pro 133/133A chipset, you can run the RAM and FSB asychronous. When your FSB is @ 66 MHz you can run your RAM @ 100 MHz. When your RAM is @ 100 Mhz you can run your RAM @ 133 MHz. However, if your FSB is @ 133 MHz you cannot run your RAM @ a higher speed than your FSB. I believe the i815 chipset offers similar options.[*]Some chipsets have better RAM performance than other chipsets. BX seems to be the fastest, follow by the i815, then the Apollo Pro 133A and lastly Apollo Pro 133. On the Apollo Pro 133/133A and i815 you can also enable 4 way memory interleaving to increase memory performance, but this only applies if your RAM uses both bank of a DIMM slot (ie DIMM slot 0, bank 0 and bank 1). Also try to increase indept order queue. I have notice some Apollo Pro 133A mobo has it set to 1 by default, and that's just damn slow. On bx chispet set it to 8, and on Apollo Pro set it to 4 (if you can find it in the BIOS, cuz it's not there sometimes).[*]set RAM settings to cas 2, and ras to cas and other such settings to 2 also. But your RAM might not be able to operate at such lower latency. Enable Precharge. That seems to help a bit too.[/list=a]

I was able to do 4.5 hrs WU with a PIII 550e @ 825 MHz with a FSB of 150 MHz and RAM @ cas 2 settings @ 150 MHz on a bx mobo with the 2.x clients. The newer 3.x clients doesn't seem to care much about RAM performance, so what I said above doesn't apply much to the new clients. The newer clients seems to care more about CPU speed.

PS. With the 2.x client the Athlon platform didn't do so well. I think it was due to the poorer VIA chipset/memory performance. But with the newer 3.x clients they are kicking butts. Raw CPU power, anyone?

PSS. With the GUI you can set it to run in the background and set your screen to blank out in 1 minute. Just make sure you set your screen saver to nothing.

[This message has been edited by NiteOwl (edited 11-27-2000).]

Originally posted by Daniel Hazard:
FireWire is the signature of one of our Team members, who seems to increase WU production every time I do.
Berkely still accept 2.x results since they cannot offer any 3.x Win client right now. I have no problem getting the client to run, but I think it is too slow. My fastest Macs get a WU done in just over 5 hours, but the twice as high clocked PC seems to need 10 hours, which seems wrong to me. In the Mac client you can set the screen to go black after a minute, which speed things up a lot. I cannot find this setting in the Win client. Perhaps I can find it in the screensaver setting in Windows? Perhaps I should not use the screensaver option at all, but let the client run in the background instead? Perhaps the 3.0 client is faster than 2.04 and still availiable elswhere?
Thank you for your time and interest.

I can't help but . I have been wondering what kind of setup you're running. How many machines do you have seti running on? I' only have seti on 5 machines at the moment.

I watch you closely and you're right I keep increasing my production to keep you off my back. I will do my best to keep the top five status I have earned.

Happy Crunching,
FireWire


[This message has been edited by dbarton (edited 11-28-2000).]

I guess you will keep your top five position, since you will surely pass ddiokno before I might be able to catch you.
The machines I use for SETI range from G3/233 to G4/450. Usually about 20 to 25 machines are crunching, but they average only just below 8 hours so the daily througput is something like 60-80 WUs.
Our little struggle to be in the top five is at least benefitting the team.
Keep up the good work!
/Daniel

Wow you have a lot of machines. I'm crunching seti with two G4's at home and about six quad processor Xeon servers at work. The Xeon's are running NT and 4 instances of seti. I am working on getting the seti screen saver put on the client network. That network consist of about 350 computers. It would be really cool to do 300+ units a day But don't worry, the sys engineering team does not like the client load idea

At least the crunching war we're in is good for the team

Cheers,
FireWire


[This message has been edited by dbarton (edited 11-29-2000).]

I put the client on a few more machines (just for a couple of days, I�m afraid), and hope to increase output further. At this very moment 30 machines are crunching away.
I also got about 450 client Macs which I would like to bring along, but I cannot find any good reason why they should have a new screensaver, so I will have to let them rest.
/Daniel

[try]

I just react allergic to windows screenshots. Gets me all fuzzy.

[seanyepez]

Whether you're from MacNN or OCN, it doesn't matter to me. Come on, guys. Sure, we're rival teams, but we don't have to be poor sports.

To answer the question, I've run SETI@home on a few DDR-enabled Athlons two weeks ago. They crunch mighty fast. I only got a chance to get one work unit done, because the systems needed to be shipped back to AMD.

I can't remember exactly, but I believe my 1.2-gigahertz AMD Athlon Thunderbird with one gigabyte of PC266 SDRAM crunched a work unit in four hours flat. I think it was a little bit less than that. I didn't tweak the system at all, either (save the blank screen option). I'm sure I could cut that time down by about an eighth if I had spent more time on the machine.

When I recieve my Athlon (same setup, except 512 megabytes of DDR-SDRAM), I will crunch some work units. It should be faster than the time stated above.

(My test was with the SETI@home 3.0 client. Since then, they have taken the client off their website. Remember that work unit times in version 3.0 vary a whole lot, thus the time stated could be misleading. I think I got one of the packets that compete mighty fast, because I can't believe the time of four hours myself. )

I hope I was helpful. I'll send a few updates in.

[elzinat]

be nice to niteowl.
consider everybody nice until proven otherwise. niteowl has not only not proven himself un-nice, but has shown himself nice. so be nice to him.


niteowl, thanks for your positive contributions to our forums and manifest goodwill towards our team. After all, SETI is a combined effort by all of us! Let us wish no harm on others! I hope OCN performs happily, just as I hope MacNN performs happily. I do hope MacNN performs a little *more* happily. But I don't want OCN unhappy.
I'll shut up now because it sounds like I'm high. but everybody, be nice!


------------------
be happy!
-mac freak

[This message has been edited by elzinat (edited 12-01-2000).]

[tonymac]

Regarding the 3.0 client for Windows. I upgraded my Windows machine to the 3.0 client at the same time I upgraded my G4. Is there any reason I would need to downgrade? Specifically, are there any major bugs in the 3.0 client that could cause system instability or failure to count completed work units? I haven't experienced any problems so far, but you never know.

PS I'd just like to second the thought that Seti is a global team effort and any competition should be of a friendly sort.

[try]

I am not unnice to NiteOwl (I think). I like him being around, giving his point of view. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut on any windows related thing posted on a Mac forum (SIC!!! [not a typemismatch]). But it seems to me 'we' are more catholic than the Pope now. Men, do I make myself impopular now hahahahahaha.

Greetings, Paul

[seanyepez]

I believe they will count your results. There are some "minor problems" which the SETI@home team will correct in their next point release.

Check the website. By the way, do you still have the 3.0 installer for the Windows machine? I lost my client (version 3.0) when I reinitialized my hard drive. Now, my regular 800-megahertz Athlon cranks out work units every eight or so hours. It used to get work units done in 4:50-5:30 intervals.

sean, YGM.

[OoklaTheMok]

sean, use the CLI version instead of the GUI version. You should be able to cut your time by more than 1/8.

[tonymac]

I just installed the cli version on my PC today. I left it running, so hopefully it will have completed the first workunit by the time I get home tonight. In order to get it to run automatically, do I just need to add a shortcut to the startup programs and let it run all the time?

[keyser_soze]

so can u run the CLI client on win 98? I thought u had to have NT or win2k to run that, but i'm prolly wrong

yup. add a short cut to your start up. It works fine in w98. But it's harder to shut down than NT or w2k. try clt-c.

[OoklaTheMok]

Also, if you're in 9x, surf to the windows directory and find something called conagent.exe. Go to its properties, Misc tab, and uncheck "warn if still active." This will make it so your computer won't hiccup when you try to shut it down if the cli seti is still running.,

ookla, you missed one subdirectory. It is in the system directory.

[keyser_soze]

thanks niteowl, u've been a huge help, that prog to decrease the latency helped for 1 wu, but unfortunately, it froze up my comp half-way thru the next
but thanx for the cli info

Oh yeah, and i found conagent.exe but it wouldn't open. It would try to open a lil dos-like window, and then close right away. And what would the other subdirectory be?

Thanx for all your help