• 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.

Whoa! Is this disappointing! :(

O

OhioDude

Diamond Member
My dual PII 400 just turned in it's first wu since the conversion to Linux. A 0.426 AR wu took 15hr 5min! :Q🙁

This machine was averaging about 12hr 45min per wu per processor with Win2K Server for about 3.8 wu's per day.

I am severely bummed over this revolting development! :|

I think I'll try a little WINE with my Linux...
 
Dang...I wouldn't have suspected that would happen. Maybe it was a stinker wu? Let it crunch about 10 before you draw a final conclusion.
 
🙁

I had a disapointment today too... I checked a computer at my dad's office, and found that I forgot to put a shortcut to setihide in the startup folder. It hasn't been crunching all week! :|🙁 I fixed it though. 🙂
 
This is why I have been running the CLI in WINE. The linux clients are not as optimized as the windoze clients. Different compilers (Intel compiler vs gcc). Thing is, Intel now has a compiler for *nix. But will SETI ever allow the Linux x86 porter to use it? Probably not, as it would speed up the WU times and overload their network.
rolleye.gif
 
In case you have trouble getting enough Wine, I was wondering, are you running the static or dynamic client? I read on the Ars speed page that the dynamic client would take an hour or two less, at least on Athlons. Has anybody tried it here to make sure, though?
 


<< are you running the static or dynamic client >>


setiathome-3.03.i386-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2.1

Whichever one that one is... 🙂
 
OhioDude - that's a slower one, but the one you would have to use if you DON'T have a PIII, P4, Duron, or Athlon, which appears to be your case -although I always thought the PIIs could use the i686 but others have told me differently 😕

When I benched them, the differences between the i686 & i386 dynamics (on a platform fhat could support the i686 processor, ie., my PIII 600 currently running @972) is only ~5 minutes.

The differences between the static and dynamic (gnulibc2.1) was about 30 minutes when comparing like i386 & i686.

So basically:

i386 dynamic is ~30 min. faster than i386 static
i686 dynamic is ~30 min. faster than i686 static
i686-dynamic is ~5 min. faster than i386 dynamic (and same between statics)

Now depending on your processor speed, this time difference may be longer for the slower procs and not as long for the faster ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top