View Full Version : Seti @ Home & MURC, on the side

6th March 2000, 21:27
OK, I just don't get it. I used to not care, but since I've been knocked out of the top 200 I have a new goal to strive for http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

How the hell do you all of you get such good hours on your units? I get 32 hours on average w/ K6-2 500 and 192MB Ram. What am I missing? I have it set to run 24x7 no matter what I'm doing on the computer and I still get these crappy hours/pdu(per data unit). I know the K6-2 has a shittier FPU but jesus! is it that bad?


6th March 2000, 21:44
Are you using the Windows "screen saver" version. You might want to try the NT Command Line version. It runs in a DOS window. It doesn't, however, shut down when you start using your computer.


6th March 2000, 22:07
There are 2 options in running Seti.

1. Data analysis runs only when the screen saver is active or application window is maximized, or...

2. Data analysis alwyas runs (recommended only for fast computers with atleast 64MB RAM)

I have option 2 selected. Does the NT version run in Win98(dos mode) as well? You confuse me when you say 'DOS' in NT since there is not DOS in NT. Do you mean a command prompt?


I can never think of a good signature...~

6th March 2000, 22:12
The "cmd" line version is one of the correct names for it, another is the "chui" or character interface version.

It just runs faster than the windows version.

In the windows version, make sure that the "blank-screen after" is set to 0 seconds.

Hope this helps....


6th March 2000, 23:50
Sorry guys, but my GUI version runs an average of 7 hours per WU, on my P3-450, minimized all the time. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

I just use version 1.06
(Check my average time in the list, I'm around place 70)


7th March 2000, 01:24
Hi Dave,

go for the Intel cmd line version (ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/setiathome/setiathome-2.0.i386-winnt-cmdline.exe) or if that one doesn't work, grab the Non-Intel cmd line version (ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/setiathome/setiathome-2.0.i486-nonintel-winnt-cmdline.exe) ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

I made a directory structure with 20 subdirectories, each containing a different WU. I run those WUs from a batch with '-stop_after_process' and lateron another batch with '-stop_after_xfer' so that I can render 20 WUs in a row without having to connect to SETI ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

7th March 2000, 07:05
Well holy-be-joleez! I guerss I'll have to try the 'cmd' line version then http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Thanks everyone,


7th March 2000, 16:39
My K6-2 400 at home knocks out a command line w/u in 16.5 hrs.

8th March 2000, 06:53
I run a minimun of two command line versions by placing the executable in different directories, then I shorten the name of the .exe to setiathome-1.exe setiathome-2.exe, etc. On my dual systems (Celery550, PII350, PPro200) I run 6, 6, and 3 instances, respectively. My single processor systems (PII400, PPro200) I run 4 instances and 2 instances, respectively. So basically, I am working against 21 WU's at any time. This has helped me reach 12th place.

I use SetiSpy to baby sit the units in case their are upload issues. When I find the time, I will even figure out how to cache some down because the Seti server has been down before I ran out of WU's.

Have fun and go MURC!

ABIT BP6, 192MB PC100 RAM, dual 366->>550MHz, 3DFXCool GlobalWin FEP32 'Lil Mofo' h/s fans. G400 DH, 3COM 905B NIC, Buslogic FlashPoint LW Ultra-Wide SCSI, SBLive PCI 1024. Segate Medalist PRO 9.1 GB UW SCSI 7200RPM, Maxtor 20.4GB ATA66 7200RPM 2MB Cache, 8GB tape b/u, IDE 32x CDROM, SCSI 4xwrite/8xread Panasonic CD writer, 4 more various 2GB SCSI drives.

8th March 2000, 08:03
I use the GUI version running in the background all the time, and my times are not that bad last time I looked. Hell, I am still in the top 25, and I am running on one system only.

9th March 2000, 14:40
Do we not refer to it as the NT command line version because it's confusing, or because I'm way off base about what the "winnt" stands for in the executable's name?

Helevitia, in my experience, in Windows 98 the command line version runs in a DOS Window. In Windows 2000, the command line version runs in the "command line console," which looks an awful lot like DOS.

It is confusing. The letters "NT" are in the name of the executable, as is i386, but it runs fine in Windows 98 (in a DOS window). It, of course, is not limited to 386's either.

This all made selecting the file to download a bit of a challenge (for me at least). http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif