Forums | MacLife

Ooooo!! I'm running the GUI version, so I guess I should switch ASAP. Thanks for the hint. Now where do I find out how to run two SETI packets at a time?

My Athlon (Single CPU, 32-bit, 2.16 GHz) crunches a single WU in 2.5 hours flat, so it's probably not a 64/32 bit issue.

Holy Hannah! Why is my Athlon 1.73 GHz so slow then?  It takes like 16 hours to do a single WU.

My Athlon (Single CPU, 32-bit, 2.16 GHz) crunches a single WU in 2.5 hours flat, so it's probably not a 64/32 bit issue.

Holy Hannah! Why is my Athlon 1.73 GHz so slow then?  It takes like 16 hours to do a single WU.

No clue. I use Win2k and the CLI client. I run Ad-Aware and NAV to keep the system clean. Howzabout you?

Did a clean XP install and use the GUI client. I run Ad-Aware and AVG though I haven't even used the net other than Seti@home for it since I set it up.  I'll see what happens when I install the CLI client.  Time for me to give the machine the entire once-over, me thinks.

I've found that setting the priority for seti higher helps also. OS X being pre emptive decides what any app gets, and it seems on average to allocate a max of %80 or so CPU time on my eMac.

Hi

was hoping that I could see sub-one-hour packet performance, but was greatly disappointed to find my mac does them in 3-4 hours.

That sounds about right for current versions.  Well, that is if we are talking the GUI version.

CLI usually is 30% faster than the GUI version.

Actually, I've gotten 40-50% gains.

Holy Hannah! Why is my Athlon 1.73 GHz so slow then? It takes like 16 hours to do a single WU.

Ouch!

Don't forget that Seti@home has so many users they don't bother to optimise the clients at all. If you want to take advantage of your G5 fully run Folding@Home, it utilises Altivec and is continually being optimised for all platform

Maybe Soon.

What platforms will be supported?


Initially, Windows/X86, Linux/X86, Solaris/SPARC, and Mac OS X will be supported (these are the platforms to which we have access). We will continue our current source code distribution policy, and eventually we will hopefully support all platforms on which SETI@home currently runs.

Initially, the Windows version will have a graphical interface and the others will have a command-line interface. Eventually most platforms will have both interfaces available.

As with the current SETI@home, versions will be produced by compiling the SETI@home C++ source code with the the latest commercially-available compiler. Whether this produces code that exploits particular CPU features (Altivec, SSE, 3DNow, etc.) depends on the compiler.

Can I run multiple instances on a multiprocessor?


Yes, but it's not necessary; BOINC automatically uses all the host's processors (unless you ask it not to).

Taken from Moving SETI@home to BOINC

My Ti running 10.3.x and whatever version version of the darwin-unix CLI version completes a workunit in about 6-8.  Pretty much double that with the GUI version.

My Sawtooth running 10.3.x and whatever version of the darwin-unix CLI version completes a workunit in about 13-15.  Pretty much double with the GUI version.

My Dell Dimension 4100 1.1GHz P3, 512MB, 40GB, CD-RW, XP Pro does it in about 9-11 hours with the Windows GUI version.

I'll have to try this on my g3/350 >> is there a way to run this on a networked cluster?

durn.

Hi, I'm one of the developers for an optimised Mac version of SETI@home. I suggest you check out this thread:
    http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=266339

Currently, for the reference work unit (which is included with the source code), we've got the run time down to 2½ hours for the optimised client (compared to 8½ for the standard version) on a 1 GHz PowerBook. I'm confident that we should be able to eventually get down to the 2 hour mark.

There is still a fair bit to be done to squeeze out every last bit of performance (cache streaming is not properly implemented yet) and we don't have a G5 system to work with so optimisations will primarily be for G4 before anything else. Also, we use features that are only included in Mac OS X 10.4 but have included some backwards compatible routines for 10.3.9 which have not yet been optimised.

I think you'll still be pleasantly suprised though, to completely underexaggerate.