View Full Version : The weekly Fastest of Seti@MURC

15th May 2000, 14:36
Hi Martin,

Since we've lost a couple of days due to a break down in the forum server, people might want to look at who is fastest at the moment.

I've seen we have Rags back, so after the debacle of the last thread, in which Rags quit Seti@Murc completely, I would like to ask you to exclude all those who have average times under 4 hours.

If those people don't want to be excluded from the Fastest list, then we'd better hope that all people reading this thread have the decency not to ask how this person comes to these fast times.

Welcome back Rags.


15th May 2000, 15:16
I don't mind being asked how I get my fast times, what I do mind is when I tell them and they don't believe, then proceed to call me a liar/cheater.


15th May 2000, 15:18
Point taken.

15th May 2000, 16:46
Hey leave Rags alone, if you wanna go faster in Seti run the Linux cmdline version http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

15th May 2000, 20:50
What I'd like to see is a comparison between operating systems, setups ect.

We all want faster WU times, lets try to find the optimal setup, for the good of the team.

P3 500@560, 224 MB ram, G400 16SH, SB Live Value
Maxtor DM 40+ 30GB, IBM Deskstar 16GP 10GB, Maxtor 4320 13 GB
6h50min avg on the last 30+ SETI WUs

15th May 2000, 22:41
Recently switched back to Win98 from Win2k.
P3E@828, 256MB RAM
Win2k: ~5 a WU
Win98: ~4:30 a WU
It will do non-Gaussian ones in 4:15

Some other machines:
P3E@620, 128 MB RAM
Win98: ~5:30

P3@500, 128 MB RAM
Win NT: ~7:15

All running 2.4 commandline version.
Jan M.

[This message has been edited by jms (edited 16 May 2000).]

15th May 2000, 23:43
Point well taken, Rags.

It's good to see you back, and I'm not referring to your WUs when I say that.

Jorden: okay, I'll cook up a new list. I won't exclude the fastest murcers though. What's the point of doing a "top-20 pretty fast ones, excluding the fastest, because people might ask questions"? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


16th May 2000, 00:01
My fastest setup:

- Quad Xeon 550@550, 1MB L2 cache. One CPU used during speedtest.
- 1G memory. Dunno what type.
- 18 G Ultra 2 SCSI.
- Linux 2.2.x

The one WU that was crunched in this configuration took 5h 48m. Considering the spread in WU-times, an "average" WU may take longer or shorter. It's now back to seti-ing on all four processors, which takes longer (a little less than 7h).


16th May 2000, 00:20
The top-20 fastest SETI@murcers, for the week of May 9-16.

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TH>name</TH><TH>wus</TH><TH>hours</TH><TH>average</TH></TR><TR><TD>pace3000
</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>0.10</TD><TD>0h 6m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Rags</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>73.57</TD><TD>1h 45m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Manex</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>44.00</TD><TD>2h 56m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Guyver</TD><TD>47</TD><TD>262.98</TD><TD>5h 36m</TD></TR><TR><TD>paulcs</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>262.98</TD><TD>5h 43m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Eye MD</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>118.60</TD><TD>5h 56m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jorden</TD><TD>15</TD><TD>89.25</TD><TD>5h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark F.</TD><TD>103</TD><TD>613.62</TD><TD>5h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>jms(500E@765)</TD><TD>43</TD><TD>262.98</TD><TD>6h 7m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jakob Kruse</TD><TD>44</TD><TD>285.33</TD><TD>6h 29m</TD></TR><TR><TD>VSA</TD><TD>54</TD><TD>350.64</TD><TD>6h 30m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ace</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>19.87</TD><TD>6h 37m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Greebe</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>438.30</TD><TD>6h 38m</TD></TR><TR><TD>KvHagedorn</TD><TD>46</TD><TD>314.45</TD><TD>6h 50m</TD></TR><TR><TD>CHHAS</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>187.51</TD><TD>6h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Guru</TD><TD>75</TD><TD>526.70</TD><TD>7h 1m</TD></TR><TR><TD>minsoo</TD><TD>23</TD><TD>163.35</TD><TD>7h 6m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kruzin</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>35.77</TD><TD>7h 9m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ackerot</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>151.10</TD><TD>7h 12m</TD></TR><TR><TD>T_Burgler</TD><TD>9</TD><TD>65.05</TD><TD>7h 14m</TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess Pace3000 had a lucky day (possibly a noisy WU, which gets sent back after a few minutes).


16th May 2000, 05:27

Did you change your seti nickname (from "jms(500E@765)" to "jms")? If so, will you keep the new one? I'll give you back your WU-history on seti.matroxusers.com then.


16th May 2000, 05:57
I'm going to keep my new nickname.
Jan M.

16th May 2000, 06:38

our fastest system(for the newbies: I'm a member of "Alpha Centauri") is a Athlon 750.
In the last couple of weeks we all upgraded our home system from K6-3's to Athlons (2x Athlon 750,1x Athlon 600).
What makes me angry is that the clients are mostly Intel optimzed. Even with an 750Mhz one we need nearly 6 hours for a WU. Some of you get that with a crappy "slow" Coppermine OR Katmai 600.
Really shitty.

PS: We are all using commanline client.


16th May 2000, 07:33
Thanks Martin.

16th May 2000, 10:18
HuiHuiHui, We are on place 5 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif!!!

unluckily we will be passed by Xenosynth in a (couple?) of days http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif.

But it's easier to handle that we will be passed by such a strong Competitor.

Has anyone seen Xeno here on the forums yet??

16th May 2000, 10:54

>>>What makes me angry is that the clients are mostly Intel optimzed<<<

I don't believe that the clients are optimised for Intel ,I believe that the PIII's do better at SETI because of their better memorey performance when on a BX chipset board

16th May 2000, 11:28
Yup! I check in every once in a while.
All my clients are finaly running without problems, so my stats are pretty good.

16th May 2000, 11:34
Just wondering, Xeno, how many clients are that? And on how many PC's/Mac's etc?


16th May 2000, 12:21
Hi Assim,

You think BX Boards perform sooooooooo much better than my AMD 750 Chipset? The Memory performance is somewhat exactly the same...
And the KX-133 does even better in my brothers machine.

Aehm, did i mentioned that Intel is one of SETI's sponsors?

In fact I'm quite happy that it's not even more slower than now, but how about an optimzed client just for the Athlon, like the ones just for Alpha's?


16th May 2000, 16:48
Thanks Martin.

Katmai 500@560, 196 MB ram, G400 16SH :), Maxtor DM 40+ 30GB, Maxtor 4320 13 GB

16th May 2000, 19:19
Geez, I leave for a week or so of vacation and miss all the drama. Even though he's stomping my fastest WU time by almost a factor of 2, I'll be the first ( OK maybe not the first http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif ) to stick up for Rags. I've been around a long time here, and Rags is a first rate Murcer. If he says he's using a P3-550E, then I believe him with no questions asked.

Anyway, I freely admit that I'm not using a regular desktop PC to get my WU times. I've said it before, but for the the record I'm running my seti clients on a pair of HP L2000 class servers. These servers have four processors each and 4GB of RAM. The servers are attached to fibre channel disk arrays. I'm using the unix command line client version 2.01 I think (the last version before they changed the client to be silent to std out) compiled for the HP-UX 10.20 OS. If you guys decide to exclude me from the fastest WU rankings, I understand and that's fine with me. I just want to do my part for the team. I didn't get into this for any kind of personal glory, just a little friendly competition. Anyway, I'm glad to see Xeno on the team, along with all the other new members. We could use a few more like him so we could catch back up to Team AnandTech. Somebody needs to make a call down to engineering and tell Scotty we need more power! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


16th May 2000, 22:41
I meant to post this a few days ago but the forums were down:

Welcome to the top 10 XenoSynth!

At the rate you are going, you should pass me in about a week. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Mark F
16th May 2000, 22:43
Oh sure I bring more units online and I fall from my last 4th place finish in the fastest times(sarcasm intended, for the empathitcly impared). Oh well. An houre and a half slower average time but many more WU per day.

Anyone noticed we are still well below 2 WUs per member per day (And just look at how many the top 20 members post per day). Come on all of you posting 0 per day for the last few days put up 1 or 2 WUs and we might catch up to TeamBoyWonder (TA) and Assimilator1 might have to shut up for a while. (Hey you've been hear long enough for us to know you can take it ;P )

Been too busy to post on the board. but my WUs have been going up. Lost 6 housrs yesterday, as a storm knocked out my power. Not sure when I'll be posting again. Hey, It's not always cheaper to keep 'er. But it'll be good when everything is settled. Mandatory mediation tomorrow, So wish me some luck.

Night all!

Mark F.

OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a DVD...
and burped out a movie

16th May 2000, 23:44

Mark has a point: there are quite a few seti@murc-ers that haven't posted a single result over the last few weeks. I could send you a list, and maybe you (being able to get their addresses) could send them a nice e-mail asking them to revive their seti-efforts. How 'bout it?

BTW: SETI's statistics over the last few days are completely bogus. We've completed a lot more WUs than we're being given credit for. Hopefully, they'll catch up in the next few days, and we'll see how we really do in our epic battle with TA.

BTW2: we're doing great in the new members department: 443 at the moment http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif.

BTW3: Mark, I know you're being sarcastic, but I sure hope no-one is taking their slower machines off-line just to get in the top-20 fastest list.

BTW4: way to go XenoSynth! Three (?) weeks and counting http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

BTW5: that's a lot of BTW's.


17th May 2000, 00:40
Good luck Mark.

Quantity, not speed is what we need!
Of course, I'm not in the top 20 fastest so...

17th May 2000, 03:52
<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TH>name</TH><TH>wus</TH><TH>hours</TH><TH>average</TH></TR><TR><TD>pace3000
</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>0.10</TD><TD>0h 6m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Rags</TD><TD>42</TD><TD>73.57</TD><TD>1h 45m</TD></TR></TABLE>

I guess Pace3000 had a lucky day (possibly a noisy WU, which gets sent back after a few minutes).


Lucky day? I just got a new Intel Quantium running Windows 2000 Ultra http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Hehe. I've just started caching my WU's so this won't be happening again - but I sure was happy at seeing my name at 1st - and above speed king Rags!

And I always wondered what was going on with those couple of minute WU's - Thanks!


PS Don't anybody try to put a table in a quote!

PPS Don't miss out >'s in the table code then blame it on a quote!

[This message has been edited by Pace (edited 17 May 2000).]

17th May 2000, 12:59
Thanks for the welcome everyone.

As you are no doubt aware I achieve these kinds of stats by setiing a lot of PC's. The only thing I can say is that there's a base of ~500 machines varying from P-60 to P3-550. The clients (cmd line) only run during idle periods. I never realy know how many machines are doing my bidding as it varies based on our users. (Oh..., yes I do have permision.)

Number 1 looks good on a resume but my main goal is to get into the top 20 Teams and MURC looks like it can do it.

17th May 2000, 16:38
Mark F

>>>Assimilator1 might have to shut up for a while. (Hey you've been hear long enough for us to know you can take it ;P )<<<<

Hehe ,glad you added that last bit http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ,BTW if you did pass us again I wouldn't shut up 'cos I'd be whining & crying instead http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif


>>>You think BX Boards perform sooooooooo much better than my AMD 750 Chipset? The Memory performance is somewhat exactly the same...<<<<

If so then why are people getting better times on a PIII Katami than a equally clocked Athlon?It can't be 'Intel optmisation' because the same is true in memory intensive games.Check this out.

That's just 1 example.

>>>And the KX-133 does even better <<<

Agreed their http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ,1 of our members shaved off around 20 mins off average WU times on a KX133 board http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

I knew that Intel is a major sponsor http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Don't think me anti AMD BTW ,I'm building a Athlon 700 KX 133 system for my father soon.
Oh yeah & he's considering the RT 2000 for it as well http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif uh oh ,I wonder what the latest is on that ,I guess I'd better check out the other sections for an answer to that http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

BTW2 that Athlon 700 will be for ME under TA http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

BTW3 have you tried the non Intel CLi client?
Maybe that's better for Athlon systems?

I guess I won't recruit for my team here :) TA

17th May 2000, 18:57
I'm curious, how do you check the fastest speed someone is getting if they have multiple computers like me? Or is it just an average of all of there computers? The reason I'm asking is because I just hooked up a PIII 700 w/ 256MB housed by a Compaq SCSI Raid server http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif I got it going about 10:30ish or so this morning and when I checked it again at 3:30ish it was already done with it's first WU! Now I have 5 machines going and I'm getting ready to drag my old Pentium 90 out just for grins. I'm starting to twitch about WU's. I need more WU's! All I work with is computers, now I just need to figure out how to take ovef all of them! I'm officially a WU-aholic. WU this! I WU you! WuHuu! Wuking hard on it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif OK, OK, I'll stop.....


[This message has been edited by Helevitia (edited 18 May 2000).]

Brian R.
17th May 2000, 20:52
Even though the time per WU is averaged over all WU done, I guess the faster machines contribute more to the average time per WU (biasing the average time down) since they have completed more WU than the slower machines.

17th May 2000, 21:47

Yes I tried the "non_intel" commandline. It helps to get from 6 and a half hours to only 6 hours.
But this client is manly for cyrix and 486'ers, not optimized for Athlon.
Yes, I'm deprimated (wonder if this word excists like i wrote it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif).


17th May 2000, 23:49

If you're referring to the table above: it *is* an average over multiple machines. But it only takes in account the WUs completed during the previous week, so any WUs completed long ago with inferior hardware don't skew the averages. But please don't take your slower machines offline, everybody; it's the quantity that counts.

Mega: "depressed" (and "exists") is what you're looking for http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif


18th May 2000, 03:48
Yeah, boot up those Pentiums and 486s! Meanwhile, on another point, why can't I run the WinNT cmd line on a Win95 486? Do I need Win32s installed or something similar?

I take it that by winnt-commandline they really mean Win32? No?

TIA, Paul.

18th May 2000, 06:22
Ees - I'll email firstly anyone who has never sent in a WU and ask them to either rekindle their efforts or to remove their name from the list.


"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

18th May 2000, 06:57
These are the ones who I'm going to email:

408) E.T.
409) EraZeR
410) El Coyote
411) Jake j
412) durango
413) Tlaloc
414) Justin
415) bmiller
416) Chatter
417) Al
418) Kiki999
419) W@NKER
420) JoWe
421) Simon
422) jaspur
423) [Bozo]
424) Florian Lentsch
425) Ghost
426) Gurmn
427) dozer
428) budi
429) avbers
430) Scout255
431) Jacques Lebreton
432) Chrazy
433) Paul H
434) Predator
435) Freak on an IDE Cable
436) CannonFd
437) thurston
438) Honkus
439) Danfoss
440) AnTCeR a
441) Pale
442) Joakim Plate
443) bastioned

All have never produced a unitt (although, they could just be new members)


"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

18th May 2000, 07:09
I've changed my mind cos I don't think you can remove your name... Martin - can you send me the names of who haven't sent in a unit in the last few weeks then?


"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

18th May 2000, 07:52
The list should be in your mailbox.

(Edit for the curious: 83 members haven't submitted a single result since April 28.)


[This message has been edited by Ees (edited 18 May 2000).]

18th May 2000, 08:19
How about emailing all those people on the list who haven't send in a WU in weeks, but do have lots of WUs on their name?


18th May 2000, 08:28
"MegaMan" must be also on the list, I hooked up my very very old account (from single PC crunching (uh oh! That was slow http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif) to Matroxusers some months ago, just because to help with 23 more units.

18th May 2000, 09:38
You'll prob find 20-30 units on one of my old accounts, think its called rego.

One of my relatives. (uk people will know what i'm taking about)

Mark F
18th May 2000, 12:03
Don't worry I'm in it for the quantity, over speed! Running 4PCs now, slowest is PIII450@558. Haven't been able to get it any faster, but it's more than is really needed. It's for my GF and daughter to use and heay the G200 has been put back into service.

Mark F.

OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a DVD...
and burped out a movie

18th May 2000, 12:16

err ,no http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/redface.gif

what do ya mean?

I guess I won't recruit for my team here :) TA

18th May 2000, 18:16
Hi Guys,
Well, I've got my new P3-650 up to 910 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
I've got cycles to spare now so here come the wus (hopefully 3 or 4 per day).

ABit BF6, P!!!650@910, 128mb gh@cas3, 10gb IBM@7200, SB Live Value@3.0, Pioneer 104s
DVD, Mitsumi CDRW@2x2x8, Acatel 1000 ADSL@1.5mb/sec, Linksys EtherFast NIC, LG 995e, USB IntelliEye,Matrox G400 MAX!!!! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

(had to up date my sig for todays jump from 133mz to 140mz) http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by cjolley (edited 19 May 2000).]

19th May 2000, 08:48
How come that I'm not at all listed in that chart ?

My G4 does every WU in ~6 hours ...

Do you count all submitted WUs/week and take the whole CPU time that is used ?

I fear that olden P2-333 is keeping my average down then ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Anyway, as long as I can submit enough to stay in the top 10 I don't really have a prob with that.



20th May 2000, 08:51

bacardi rigo --- bacardi breezer

21st May 2000, 23:14

> Do you count all submitted WUs/week and take the whole CPU time that is used ?

That's right, since that's the only information I have (I can only get the information that's on the web).

> I fear that olden P2-333 is keeping my average down then ...

For sure. But don't switch it off.


22nd May 2000, 03:56
LOL ... I certainly will continue crunching WUs on all available CPUs ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I don't have a prob in being NOT in the top 10.