[wlonh]

CLICK HERE to download

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL VERSION FROM A LEGITIMATE SITE regardless of what a poster implies further down this thread!

sheesh.

[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 10-04-2000).]

[wlonh]

repost: yeah druber beat me by a couple of minutes...

druber
Member
Posts: 31
From:BL, IN
Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-03-2000 08:31 PM ��� � ��

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was tickin' at versiontracker.com tonight, and much to my surprise, there was seti3 just sitting there, like it was no big deal. Yea, I have posted that crunching might increase!

[cwasko]

Any faster? Any people out there willing to try b4 i buy?

[wlonh]

si, como no... porque no...

but it will take some time... i am in the middle of one WU using 2.04 and have to wait for it to finish b4 i install 3.0, then it will be another 6.5 hours or so...

save the 2.04 installer (or download it again) and just go for it with 3.0... what have you got to lose? nothing.

[LeeG]

What about an OS X Version? Please carbonize SETI - or is it already??

Lee

[beverson]

I was gone all summer, then moved, so I haven't worked any units in a while. Then along came the cable modem, then version 3, and I realized I couldn't afford NOT to rejoin the SETI effort! Till I noticed that it now uses over 20 megs of RAM!! Can this be right? Did the previous version eat that much? Yikes. Definitly gonna cut into my unit-crunching time as I can hardly run anyting else but the finder and SETI on my seemingly geriatric Rev B. iMac.

[djohnson]

I will be testing version 3.0 with SETIlogger starting in oh 5 minutes. I will also be releasing SETIlogger tomorrow. It will work with version 2.0.4 and maybe 3.0. I will also be testing this. I will post my times in the tomorrow afternoon around 5pm CST. I will *hopefully* have completed a few workunits and will know if SETIlogger works with 3.0.

[Misha]

Originally posted by beverson:
Definitly gonna cut into my unit-crunching time as I can hardly run anyting else but the finder and SETI on my seemingly geriatric Rev B. iMac.

Dunno about the RAM issue, but I wouldn't dream of running SETI@home except as a screensaver (when I'm not using my Mac)... it cuts performance to a crawl when running in the background, not to mention your SETI times drop of signficantly!

I noticed with 3.0, they added new detection stuff. Does this make the times increase?

[wlonh]

time will tell, heh... who can say whether this 3.0 seti client is 'slower'...

and yes, seti should be run as screensaver only and it does eat a good amount of RAM, always has, even in screensaver mode... about 18M

so what, life is tough. this is news?

Is AltiVec enabled with this release?

[iPad]

Just some news:

I have so far tested the new 3.0 client and suffice to say..it is faster. My machine is a Yosemite G3/300 overclocked to 400 and previously i was getting around 11 hour workunits...however, i am seeing quite some changes including the new detection pulsing and time differencials. Right now, i have been processing for around 40 minutes, i have completed 8 percent...let's do a little math here, shall we?

100/8=12.5
40*12.5=500
500/60=8.3 hours

This is an improvement of
8.3/11=.7545
100-.7545=around 25 percent or 1/4

Note, i am using this on a G3..therefore it is not due to whether or not the client is enabled for Altivec. I can't wait though to try to run the new client on my other G4 Cube/500...i will post results possibly on Thursday.

------------------
People aren't as dumb as you think. Wait, what was I thinking, 90% of the world uses WINDOWS!
You don't like Macs? Good, more for me.

[OoklaTheMok]

Grab your Mac OS X 3.0 (GUI) client here... ftp://serendip.ssl.berkeley.edu/pub/...cOSXPB_3_0.hqx

I will be testing both clients with the Ars Technica bench unit to see how they compare with the 2.(0)4 clients under both OSs on this machine (iMac 500).

[This message has been edited by OoklaTheMok (edited 10-04-2000).]

For the record, I just checked the official SETI download page and the version 3.0 software is NOT avialable there yet. The following disclaimer IS however:

"This is the only official SETI@home download page for Macintosh. Do not redistribute the SETI@home software. We do not support SETI@home software obtained elsewhere."

Just FYI. BTW, the official download page is:
<http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/mac.html>

[OoklaTheMok]

What the heck... [quote]The SETI@home OS X client has full multi-processor support. If the Mac running OS X has dual processors, it will take advantage of that. If your Macintosh has multiple processors, the CPU time shown is the total for all processors, and so may be greater than the elapsed (clock) time.

[wlonh]

ahem... for the record: all the links at MacNN, including here in this forum, that link to the download of the 3.0 client are from the Berkeley site...

this is an official client, and the so-called official download page has not been updated yet... it is common for 'official' download pages of whatever software to NOT reflect the availability of the newest version of whatever software...

for example: when i used to use Netscape some years ago, i can recall having to go to the Netscape ftp site to get the latest version of Netscape before it was posted to the 'official' download page...


[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 10-04-2000).]

[druber]

All right, so I've done my little victory dance for beating wlonh to the drop. i've started a new wu on my ol' 604/120 at home, and it looks to be running a good bit slower, though it wasn't in screensaver mode at the time. Needless to say, I have few hopes of any kind of 25% speed increase on that old bugger.

I now return to my regularly scheduled ego.

Why this obsession with the time is takes for a work unit ?? After all, you could strip out all the processing and your client would do a work unit in 0 seconds !

Let's not forget the reason we are doing this - it's science. The Seti people have clearly stated that as processors get more powerfull they will use this power to do more detailed analysis, not the same analysis more quickly !! And the benefit of running MacOS X and a command line client is that you can have it constantly running at a 'nice' value of 20 and it will NOT interfere with anything else you are doing.

[wlonh]

well put, Gee4orce

[druber]

ease up, Gee4orce. it's no fun being shallow if people call you out on it.
and i'm kidding, but people don't get to really participate in the scientific process of seti, unless someone knows how to interpret all the data that's flying across the screen. I've never been able to 'view the results of your last 10 work units.' maybe setilogger changes this a bit, but the only success most end-users find comes in completing wu's. and it's fun to compete, and helps continue interest in the project. as far as the scientific process is concerned, no one's allowed to alter the client, and that's as it should be. as it is, our computers may be in the loop, but i can't do much more than leave my computer on at night. i may be a little obsessive, but given the circumstances, i don't find it harmful..

But the Seti people have stated that they are not* optimizing the clients. The PC version is not MMX (or whatever the latest version of Intel's addon is) and the Mac version is not AltiVec'd. Why? Apparently people were chewing through units too quickly.

I wish they would, tho- it'd be nice to have a DP G4 churning through units that* much faster than PIII's... :-)

[SkiBikeSki]

Is SETI 3 like people said it would be. I know that it does add new methods of scanning the work unit. But does it also run faster on the G4 but slower on G3's? Does it add MP support in OS 9 or OS X? Does it have any Alti-Vec enablements? Does the PC version also have speeed improovements? (Let's hope not!) Please let's try to get some definitive answers. Thanx.

[Todd Madson]

Can anyone who is running a G4 400 or better report on performance?

I've got the clients ftp'ed over to my incoming directory but I'm here at work unable to do any testing. Incredibly frustrating.

I'll post back later to let you know my results. I'll be able to check the performance at one hour with 2.04 vs. the new one in both OS 9.04 and OS X.

[Joe Cool]

SETI 3.0 for os x is MP aware!

Stats are coming

OHHH AHHH
yes 3.0 does take advantage of both processors and quite well... i have been running it in the background on my g4 500MP an i havent noticed a slowdown in any other app yet. Though i haven been running anything all that intensive.
as of now, im 19.3% done and have been working for 2 hrs 31 min. rember, this is in the background!
now if only it was altivec enabled...

[DocWest]

Okay, I ran a SETI unit with version 3.0 of the client last night. Normally a unit finishes on my iMac DV (400 MHz) in about 10:30 give or take half an hour.

When I checked it, 70% complete and 9 hours so far. Looked like it was going to be a long one. It finished in 11:37 which is not so bad. A little slower though.

I was gonna change back to 2.04 if the times were a lot slower. But who cares? It's doing more processing in about the same time as 2.04.

And when peecee users get a client with this extra processing, it'll affect their times as well.

[Todd Madson]

Ick. I'm running Seti @ Home hidden on a Sawtooth G4/400 with 128 megs of ram running OS X Public Beta and here's the stats:

19.337% @ 3 hrs and 6 minutes.

Math as above:
100/19.337 = 5.1714
180 x 5.1714 = 930.8520
930/60 = 15.5 hrs

Yecch. I'm going to try 9.04 shortly. This is an unpleasant development.

[OoklaTheMok]

Yeah, it looks like the OS Xb version blows chunks compared to the 9 version or the old OS X version.

[Todd Madson]

Even the OS 9.04 version is not that wonderful. Here's the stats for that
one:

69.363% at 7 hrs 5 mins

100 / 69.363 = 1.4416
420 x 1.4416 = 605.472
605.472 / 60 = 10.0912 hrs

I have a G3 400 and 9.0.4

With Seti 2.04: ~7hrs, 5 mins
With Seti 3.0: ~8.5 hrs - 11.5 hrs (if in background)

[Misha]

I just realized... Berkeley must have done something to mess up the code in 3.0 because this makes absolutely NO sense:

G3/500/1MB:
2.0.4 - 7-8 hours
3.0 - 11-13 hours

iMac DV (G3/400/512KB)
2.0.4 - 10-12 hours
3.0 - 10-12 hours

Ok, so how is it possible that the G3/400/512 KB is just a fast as it used to be, but the faster G3/500/1 MB is (much) slower than it used to be? The 500 is 25% faster, has a 100% larger cache, and the cache runs at 25% faster than the 400... so how can it be that 500 is now the same speed (if not slower) than the 400...

Hello, Berkeley?

[iPad]

SETI@Home version 3 is particulary mean to machines with more than 512K of L2 Cache. It has made quite an improvement though to the Celeron machine i am running it on, previously, it was doing 21 hour WU's (Celeron 333), now it's doing around 15-16 hours.

------------------
People aren't as dumb as you think. Wait, what was I thinking, 90% of the world uses WINDOWS!
You don't like Macs? Good, more for me.

[elzinat]

It seems like not many people have completely read the Release Notes with the new version. It is to be expected that some WU times are half what they were, while others are much higher. The new version scans the data for interesting Gaussians, and if the data is interesting only then does it perform the large numbers of FFTs. So a boring WU will be completed more quickly, and an interesting one will take longer. In other words, the WU times with the new version 3.0 will be much more inconsistent, and depend far more on the interestingness of the particular WU than on the speed of the computer.

These are my SUM stats for my first 3.0 WU.
_____________________________________________
Date: Thursday, October 5, 2000 10:10:20 AM
<SUM 260>: UNiT "10jn00aa.18214.26337.861064.226" finished. total time: 0:11:44
crunch time: 0:11:42
CPU time: 0:11:32
CPU usage total: 98.2%
CPU usage while crunching: 98.5%
Gaussian Score: 0.283784
Peak Score: 0.648367
_____________________________________________
My G4 350's average over it's first 99 WUs was 7:33. This clearly was a rather interesting WU that I happened to get. So 3.0 took 4 more hours than my average with 2. On the other hand, many WUs will see much lower times. In order to evalute the actual overall change in processing time with the new version 3.0 of the SETI software, we will need to analyze a Large number of WU's, and look at the new averages balancing long interesting and brief uninteresting datasets.