• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Almost doubled my WU speed!

B

beemsg

Member
Uhhh, just disregard those two "Almost halved" posts. That's one of the dangers of leaning on the return key.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that the command line version of Seti@Home is definitely faster. I was originally using the GUI running continuously in the background, and I usually took 6~7 hours to complete a WU. The CLI brought that number down to around 4 (!). Then, found out that my BIOS wasn't set to the right FSB speed for my AMD Athlon 1800+, and I brought my CPU from 1.14GHz to 1.53GHz (mechBgon helped me with this - look here). This chopped off another half hour. So, all told, I'm now at about 3.5 hours per WU and lovin' it. I tried setting the priority level of the CLI higher in Task Manager (running WinXP Pro), but this didn't really seem to affect anything.

Now I want to feed the need and get an Athlon XP 3000+, the highest my chipset supports (MUST HAVE MORE POWER!!!!!!)

Oh, if a mod reads this, please delete those two empty "Almost halved" posts.

-Grant 😀
 
Cool🙂

Yep ,if the GUI version is run with the graphics showing then the CLI is about 75% faster!:Q ,if the GUI is run with minimised window or 'blank screen' for the SS then the CLI is still 25% faster!.
Btw v3.03 is about 15% faster than v3.08 (at most WUs) if you interested😉
And there's a simple fix for its security flaw🙂
 
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Cool🙂

Yep ,if the GUI version is run with the graphics showing then the CLI is about 75% faster!:Q ,if the GUI is run with minimised window or 'blank screen' for the SS then the CLI is still 25% faster!.
Btw v3.03 is about 15% faster than v3.08 (at most WUs) if you interested😉
And there's a simple fix for its security flaw🙂
Click to expand...

Which is? If I can prove there's a fix to the company, I can go back to running 3.03.
 
Thanks guys!

I'm gonna upgrade my CPU to either a 2800+ T-bred, a 2800+ Barton, or a 3000+ Barton. Everyone head over to the CPU Forum to vote!

-Grant 😀
 
Originally posted by: RoninCS
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Cool🙂

Yep ,if the GUI version is run with the graphics showing then the CLI is about 75% faster!:Q ,if the GUI is run with minimised window or 'blank screen' for the SS then the CLI is still 25% faster!.
Btw v3.03 is about 15% faster than v3.08 (at most WUs) if you interested😉
And there's a simple fix for its security flaw🙂
Click to expand...

Which is? If I can prove there's a fix to the company, I can go back to running 3.03.
Click to expand...

The security hole is in the connection between the 3.03 client and Berkeley server.
So to get rid of it...
1) Just connect to Berkeley through your own queue (SETIQueue, JSETIdoor....) and the queue will make the connections without security problem.
2) And/Or add the line below in each machine hosts file (/etc/hosts if using linux or unix) (c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts if using W2K or XP)
(The second line is usefull if you still want to use the old command line version of SETIQ. 😉 )
128.32.18.166 shserver2.ssl.berkeley.edu
128.32.18.166 shserver.ssl.berkeley.edu
 
I don't think using SETIQ alone will fix the flaw ,but putting in the IP & url of SETI in the host file will fix it🙂
Hey Polo I didn't know you were still using the old Text SETIQ!:Q😉

Btw Ronin ,I did tell you about this in an earlier thread of yours😉😛

Here's the link again 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
I don't think using SETIQ alone will fix the flaw ,but putting in the IP & url of SETI in the host file will fix it🙂
Hey Polo I didn't know you were still using the old Text SETIQ!:Q😉

Btw Ronin ,I did tell you about this in an earlier thread of yours😉😛

Here's the link again 🙂
Click to expand...


If the clients are talking to the internal queue then there is no more prob because it's the queue which is connecting to Berkeley. I'm not aware of security problem for SETIQueue or JSETIDoor... 😕 😉
The old version of SETIQ is still usefull to download WUs for my work queue. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
I don't think using SETIQ alone will fix the flaw ,but putting in the IP & url of SETI in the host file will fix it🙂
Hey Polo I didn't know you were still using the old Text SETIQ!:Q😉

Btw Ronin ,I did tell you about this in an earlier thread of yours😉😛

Here's the link again 🙂
Click to expand...

You told me in that thread, or somewhere on these boards? Cuz I don't post over there 😛
 
Originally posted by: Polo

If the clients are talking to the internal queue then there is no more prob because it's the queue which is connecting to Berkeley. I'm not aware of security problem for SETIQueue or JSETIDoor... 😕 😉
Click to expand...
If that were the case then using any add-on(Driver, Monitor, Hide, etc.) would fix the problem.
The thing is your computer can get fooled into connecting to a server other than SETI's so you need to keep you computer from being able to do that.
If you don't "fix" your computer, the v3.08 client keeps you from processing the bogus WU's. The v3.03 client will not.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Originally posted by: RoninCS
Originally posted by: Assimilator1
I don't think using SETIQ alone will fix the flaw ,but putting in the IP & url of SETI in the host file will fix it🙂
Hey Polo I didn't know you were still using the old Text SETIQ!:Q😉

Btw Ronin ,I did tell you about this in an earlier thread of yours😉😛

Here's the link again 🙂
Click to expand...

You told me in that thread, or somewhere on these boards? Cuz I don't post over there 😛
Click to expand...

No, in 1 of your threads here😛😉😛 😀

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top