is this cheating?

[beyoku]

if you have multiple profiles on win xp and they are all logged in running seti?
Win xp will let you run multiple instances of a program under a profile if you dont log out.
you cna just choose to "switch user."

 

[Confused]

If you are running the same instance of the exe and working on the same work unit, then it won't be productive at all, you will hardly get any work done.

If you are working on separate work units, then you will divide your CPU power between however many instances you open, which will only be as productive as running one instance.


So nope, not really cheating 🙂


Confused

 

[YellowRose]

So could I use this function as a way to store F@H units and then sneakernet them, keeping in mind the due dates.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
So could I use this function as a way to store F@H units and then sneakernet them, keeping in mind the due dates.

Moving F@H WUs between machines is a recipe for nothing but trouble, sadly. There is no way to cache F@H WUs, and the G@H client has been "upgraded" so it can't cache WUs any more, either. 🙁

 

[YellowRose]

The wu's would stay on the same machine. I would just create say 5 id's and download a wu for each id. Then work on them one at a time
so I don't have to worry about a connection till all 5 are completed.

 

[ericlp]

The only cheating going on here would be cheating your self of not getting any thing done.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

all it would do is slow down production.

 

[YellowRose]

How would it slow production if only one wu at a time was processed

 

[Confused]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
How would it slow production if only one wu at a time was processed

If you're trying to process 1 WU with multiple instances of the program, then they will all work on the same bit of the code, but at different times, and will slow it down to the point of probably not doing any real productive work. It's like three people open the same document. They all start working on it, and all add the same text. However, as it is saved as they go along, it gets overwritten with "less" information than before. It's not productive, and if you get enough people keep opening the document and starting work and saving it, it won't go anywhere! 🙂


That's the best analogy I can come up with for now 🙂


Garry

 

[YellowRose]

So you are saying that under WinXP I cannot make use of the,(for lack of a better word) ability to have multiple id's/users and
use that function provided by WinXP to download multiple F@H wu's (one per user) and then run them one at a time.
Example

1. create user/Id's---- mon,tue,wed,thur,fri.

2. then download a wu under each user name// also rename folder to be on safe side.

3. Now on Day one sign on as mon and run wu till complete then log user mon off

4. Day 2 sign on as tue and run wu till complete then log user tue off

5 Day 3 sign on as wed and run wu till complete then log user wed off

6 Day 4 sign on as thur and run wu till complete then log user thur off

7. Day 5 sign on as fri and run wu till complete then log user fri off

day 6 upload results and repeat

 

[RaySun2Be]

It would be far better to just install SETI as a service, and let it crunch away, no matter if a person is logged on or not. 🙂

 

[YellowRose]

remember this is just 1 computer

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
So you are saying that under WinXP I cannot make use of the,(for lack of a better word) ability to have multiple id's/users and
use that function provided by WinXP to download multiple F@H wu's (one per user) and then run them one at a time...

F@H != SETI@Home

With F@H, you can have no more than 4 unique client installations on one machine (designed so that someone can run one client per processor in SMP systems). Each one must be in a separate folder, and must be configured and run with the -local switch to keep it from messing with the other folders or the registry settings.

 

[dnuggett]

So you are saying that under WinXP I cannot make use of the,(for lack of a better word) ability to have multiple id's/users and work on one at a time

WHY? The F@H client already works on one at a time, then downloads another as soon as it is done. What is the point of what you are trying to do?

 

[ZapZilla]

Looks like an attempt at a mini-dump.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: YellowRose
How would it slow production if only one wu at a time was processed

and I was talking about the first post...running seti 😛
I know nothing about F@H.

 

[YellowRose]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

So you are saying that under WinXP I cannot make use of the,(for lack of a better word) ability to have multiple id's/users and work on one at a time

WHY? The F@H client already works on one at a time, then downloads another as soon as it is done. What is the point of what you are trying to do?

I want to use a computer that at present is not connected to the net.

 

[dnuggett]

I want to use a computer that at present is not connected to the net.

Well how fast does that computer crunch a WU? Is it capable of connecting?