PDA

View Full Version : I want to go faster (in Seti!)



Jorden
3rd January 1997, 05:29
Errrm guys, we wanted to go faster, not back in time http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

jsb
3rd January 1997, 06:35
to fast...

Avalon
3rd January 1997, 16:46
Hey. Knows somebody are there clients
that use 3D-NOW! and SSE?

The PC will crunch 2-3 times faster!

CharlesWA
4th May 2000, 11:29
Check out the thread I started called "Optimization questions". Maggi has posted some sample code for allowing you to "cache" work units if you're not on-line all the time. I think that might be a more effecient way to run SETI than having several instances at once. Of course if you have a dual processor machine, then run two instances (1 per processor).

I'm not quite sure which processor setup would benefit SETI the most. There are discussions about the caches size/speed of the Celeron vs. PIII somewhere in this forum, you might want to check them out.

------------------
A few computers, some with Matrox stuff...I'll add details later.

jms
4th May 2000, 11:37
The P3E is nice, I am running a 500E@765 ~ 5 hours a WU. Much faster than the Celeron 366@550 I had before. Some in the NG alt.sci.seti said something about the client benefitting enormously from the high FSB when overclocking the P3. You should probably also turn off Spread Spectrum Modulated, and CPU Cache ECC checking in the BIOS.

Jan M.

Pace
4th May 2000, 16:50
I have a P2-350, 256Mb..blahblah...Win2k. Anyway, I was wondering if you guys have any tips relating to what's below or indeed any in general.

When my computer is running overnight I usually run quite a few instances of Seti CLI - as with 1 or 2 the machine processes them and then sits idle for a few hours till I get up in the morning. Is this an effective way of 'caching' my WUs? Or does multiple instances slow it down (if my %'s are high I run upto 9)?

From DOS/Win9x/NT4/W2KPro what version will crunch WUs fastest? - and I my even add Linux to my machine so if this is significantly faster then let me know.

How long has v2.4 been out? And how often do updates come out - and most importantly are they any faster?

I am planning (still planning if anybody's seen my other queries regarding this upgrade!) to get a P3-600E to OC to 800 - is this good for Seti or would a Dual Celeron 500 be better? (Seti isn't the main factor in this choice but it is a factor).

Thanks in advance.

Paul

Kruse
5th May 2000, 14:27
Hmm... 5 hours seems awful slow for a 765 MHz machine! Is this because the coppermine is worse than regular PIII?

I have a vanilla PIII-450 running at 558, and it nails most WUs in just over 6 hours, and some in 5,5. You do the math.

Pace
5th May 2000, 14:27
Thanks guys, but Spread Spectrum Modulated? Please help Jan!

Paul.

CHHAS
5th May 2000, 14:52
Spread Spectrum Modulated is a BIOS setting, don't know what it does though.....

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

Assimilator1
5th May 2000, 19:51
Kruse

We've also found this ,we believe that its down to the cache size.The SETI code (?)doesn't fit into the L2 cache of the coppermine ,but does fit into the Katmai L2 cache ,hence the speed difference.
BTW the Celeron FCPGA seems to perform worse than the older Celeron by a large margain http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

err & I would hardly call 5 hrs to do a WU slow though! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

jms
6th May 2000, 00:57
Pace,
Spread spectrum modulation is basically causing the fsb to slightly vary over time. This is done because if the system is running at one speed, it creates "noise" at that frequency, and can disrupt other devices.
Some say this comes with a performance penalty, so you should probably turn it off.
Jan M.

CHHAS
6th May 2000, 05:44
I tried setting my RAM to CAS 2 instead of CAS 3, this caused my old 32MB stick to refuse detection, but didn't cause any unstability.

My SETI WUs gets done Ĺ hour faster now http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif
(avg 7Ĺ hours on the last 5)

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

Kruse
8th May 2000, 08:42
Go CHHAS!

I was considering upgrading my PIII450 to a PIII700 Coppermine, but now I'm not so sure. Too bad the cache size makes such a big difference. Guess the choice is between a little bit of fast cache or a lot of slow cache. SETI seems to prefer the last (meaning a vanilla PIII700 would most likely outperform a Coppermine PIII700 when it comes to SETI).

Guess I'll just have to wait for a 512 KB Coppermine...

Rags
8th May 2000, 11:18
Hi there Kruse,

My P3550E actually outperformed my P3 450 overclocked to 560 in WU's. I don't know what my averages are now, maybe EES can show another chart with last weeks averages.

Rags

Ees
8th May 2000, 12:25
Right. Last weeks fastest seti@murcers:

<pre>+-------------------+------+--------+---------+
| name | wus | hours | average |
+-------------------+------+--------+---------+
| Rags | 33 | 48.50 | 1h 28m |
| Manex | 44 | 126.00 | 2h 52m |
| Guyver | 40 | 175.32 | 4h 23m |
| Lunti | 15 | 87.66 | 5h 51m |
| Eye MD | 17 | 100.12 | 5h 53m |
| Greebe | 56 | 350.64 | 6h 16m |
| Mark F. | 84 | 525.96 | 6h 16m |
| Jorden | 6 | 37.57 | 6h 16m |
| hominid skull | 55 | 359.40 | 6h 32m |
| Jakob Kruse | 36 | 236.12 | 6h 34m |
| paulcs | 40 | 262.98 | 6h 34m |
| Atelier Media | 65 | 438.30 | 6h 45m |
| acobra | 13 | 87.66 | 6h 45m |
| minsoo | 12 | 82.35 | 6h 52m |
| VSA | 60 | 438.30 | 7h 18m |
| Kruzin | 17 | 125.42 | 7h 23m |
| KvHagedorn | 54 | 403.27 | 7h 28m |
| Paul L Gerspacher | 35 | 262.98 | 7h 31m |
| CHHAS | 19 | 142.84 | 7h 31m |
| sleepingdragon | 16 | 120.40 | 7h 32m |
+-------------------+------+--------+---------+
</pre>

Eeeeeek! 1h28m?

Martin

Kruse
10th May 2000, 10:25
Rags

Until you tell us how you cheated, I can hardly take it seriously that you complete your WUs in about 1.5 hours on PIII 550 machines.

I would very much like it if you logged some WU times on the Coppermine and the Katmai (with SetiSpy for instance) and published the logs. That would make for some interesting comparisons.

CHHAS
10th May 2000, 11:49
Hurrah!!!

Finally made a top 20 list http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

BTW just finished my fastest WU ever, 5h 27 min http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
P3 500, 224 MB ram, G400 16SH, SB Live Value
Maxtor DM 40+ 30GB, IBM Deskstar 16GP 10GB, Maxtor 4320 13 GB
6h40min avg on the last 10+ SETI WUs


[This message has been edited by CHHAS (edited 10 May 2000).]

Kruse
11th May 2000, 01:37
Rags,

It seems there's very little "default" about your configuration ;-) Oh well, if you don't want to share...

It doesn't however eliminate my suspicion that default Coppermines perform worse than default Katmais at the same speed, and that was what I was hoping for.

I'd hardly expect to get WU times below two hours from anything short of an Alpha EV6...

Ees
11th May 2000, 05:26
It gets better and better.

(I found out that I can just generate HTML-output right from my database. Very nice, and the text-table looks crappy for me, so the weekly update is a little early this time http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif)

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TH>name</TH><TH>wus</TH><TH>hours</TH><TH>average</TH></TR><TR><TD>Rags</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>43.18</TD><TD>1h 16m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Manex</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>8.83</TD><TD>2h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>bert</TD><TD>20</TD><TD>87.66</TD><TD>4h 23m</TD></TR><TR><TD>acobra</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>87.66</TD><TD>4h 52m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark F.</TD><TD>92</TD><TD>525.96</TD><TD>5h 43m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Eye MD</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>95.55</TD><TD>5h 58m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jakob Kruse</TD><TD>34</TD><TD>215.09</TD><TD>6h 20m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jorden</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>50.84</TD><TD>6h 21m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Guyver</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>262.98</TD><TD>6h 25m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Atelier Media</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>438.30</TD><TD>6h 38m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ant</TD><TD>26</TD><TD>175.32</TD><TD>6h 45m</TD></TR><TR><TD>hominid skull</TD><TD>12</TD><TD>81.63</TD><TD>6h 48m</TD></TR><TR><TD>minsoo</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>123.22</TD><TD>6h 51m</TD></TR><TR><TD>CHHAS</TD><TD>23</TD><TD>159.77</TD><TD>6h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>KvHagedorn</TD><TD>41</TD><TD>289.48</TD><TD>7h 4m</TD></TR><TR><TD>VSA</TD><TD>60</TD><TD>438.30</TD><TD>7h 18m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ackerot</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>132.08</TD><TD>7h 20m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kruzin</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>36.70</TD><TD>7h 20m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Greebe</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>438.30</TD><TD>7h 26m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Guru</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>422.43</TD><TD>7h 33m</TD></TR></TABLE>

So, Rags, what do you want us to do before you tell us your secret? Should we get on our knees?

(Voice from below... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif) Won't you please, pretty please tell us how you manage to do your WUs in 1 hour and 16 minutes?

Martin

(Edit: wahow! I guess UBB isn't too happy about html-tables...)

(Re-edit: does this fix it?)


[This message has been edited by Ees (edited 11 May 2000).]

SteveC
11th May 2000, 05:51
That BIG GAP happens when you get Frontpage/Excel/Word or something like that to produce HTML pages and then cut n paste into this UBB. I can't figure out why though!

Thos average times - do they mean per WU per CPU? Or say if it takes me 5 hours to do one, and I have 5 machines, is my average time 1 hour? If so, that explains Rags' times.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

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

jsb
11th May 2000, 06:13
goto http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/country_43.html
and check nr192!!!! 26min....

MMMMMM im nr79 in Sweden

Stefan

jsb
11th May 2000, 06:23
or http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/venue_1.html
nr46? 17min

Ees
11th May 2000, 06:35
SteveC,

Dunno why that big gap appears, but I now know how to fix it: strip all newlines from the table's HTML (make it all one big line).

It took some searching before I found the solution (on UBB's own forums).

And no: these are really the times per unit.

But if I read between the lines correctly, Rags' times are less than official...

I apologize up front if I misunderstand, but I sure hope that we can keep Team Matrox Users patch-free.

Martin

jsb
11th May 2000, 06:38
Sort of cheating, Isnít it

jms
11th May 2000, 11:20
Well,
check out these guys: <a href="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_lookup&name=vietnam">Vietnam</a>
Sh*t, 3 minutes!

Jan M.

Guru
11th May 2000, 12:52
Rags have you found out a way of using the P3 SSE instructions?

------------------
PIII450@558, ABIT BX6-2, 256RAM, G400MAX, SBLIVE, HOTROD-UDMA66
Join the MURC SETI team @ <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


" TARGET=_blank>http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


</A>

Guru
11th May 2000, 12:58
Rags has is now gone from the SetiMURC team please make him come back

------------------
PIII450@558, ABIT BX6-2, 256RAM, G400MAX, SBLIVE, HOTROD-UDMA66
Join the MURC SETI team @ <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


" TARGET=_blank>http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


</A>

Jorden
11th May 2000, 16:33
Oh, look at that, I'm running the same times as Mark F. and Greebe, with considerable less WU's http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Matt, did you have a couple of 1 minute WU's in there? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Jord.

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 11 May 2000).]

jms
11th May 2000, 16:51
Rags,
there is no way that you could achieve those times with a P3. The Compaq Washington benchmark centre are averaging 1 hour 39 minutes, and they probably have some pretty funky machines. So what are you running? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif
Jan M.

Mr D. Ackerot
11th May 2000, 16:52
Sorry I cant make him come back http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif Maybe my WU may help U....


Hm... I have now completed 130 WU...
Why is it showing 18...
---------------------------
Nice my P!!!450@600 isn't so slow
Running the GUI 2.04 client...
"Ackerot 130 1018h 25m..."

[This message has been edited by Mr D. Ackerot (edited 12 May 2000).]

agallag
11th May 2000, 20:33
So, how do you figure out your time per work unit? I can't see anywhere that it lists your time for each individual wu, just your overall average.

On a side note, why is the text in Netscape 4.72 for linux so frickin small, and how do you make it bigger?

Andrew

Ees
11th May 2000, 23:07
Rags,

What can I say? This is silly. Please come back to seti@murc.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

- You were using a patched seti-client. Just don't do that, get back to murc and show that you're still in the top-20 fastest (I hardly doubt that you are, considering your skills).
- You weren't; it's simply that your setup is godawful fast. In that case, just say so, and I offer you my humblest apologies. I'd still love to know how you did that though.

If my suspicion was wrong, I'll be the first one to eat dust, but just bailing out seems like a pretty poor solution to me.

Martin

Ees
11th May 2000, 23:19
Mr D. Ackerot: I see you listed with 131 WUs. Where do you see the 18?

Agallag: You're correct, it only shows average times. I'm able to provide the table above (with "last weeks" fastest times) because I keep a database with all seti@murc info. It's still an average though. Some seti helper-programs will be able to show you individual WU-times.

About the fonts: check out the Linux Font HOWTO (http://www.pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/font_howto/). Short summary: get, install, and use some better fonts than the ones that come with Linux.

Martin

Rags
11th May 2000, 23:20
No, it isn't silly. Before MURC had a SETI team, I was on team anandtech, and I was never flooded with emails and posts accusing me of cheating. Now, that you guys have brought up the issue of a patch, I have had a stream of emails asking me for the patch. Well, if you want your WU's to be quicker use a better OS, fast/good Hardware, set it up to it's fastest and let it rip. My only comments in this thread were offers of assurance that with the original GUI version of the SETI program, a P3 550E@550 is, indeed, faster than my Katmai 450@560, by about 45 min. at that. I could care less if you guys believe me or not. This doesn't matter to me so much that I will make a deal of it. I am just doing the best thing. Moving to another team/or quit using SETI all together, and being left alone. If there was anything I could do to help you get your WU's faster, I would post some tips for you. But, my config. is quite a bit different than all of yours. End of story.

Rags

jsb
11th May 2000, 23:26
Okej Rags, if you are not using any illegal patches, what is the problem? Just say so, but if you are stop and continue to run a normal seti, same as everybody else.
Leaving because someone asked what config you have is a bit strange to me.
Stefan

Rags
11th May 2000, 23:47
Rags
Until you tell us how you cheated, I can hardly take it seriously that you complete your WUs in about 1.5 hours on PIII 550 machines.


I'd hardly expect to get WU times below two hours from anything short of an Alpha EV6...

Rags,
there is no way that you could achieve those times with a P3. The Compaq Washington benchmark centre are averaging 1 hour 39 minutes, and they probably have some pretty funky machines.

But if I read between the lines correctly, Rags' times are less than official... I sure hope that we can keep Team Matrox Users patch-free.

Sort of cheating, Isnít it
Hmmmm...sounds pretty accusing doesn't it. Well you should see the emails I have gotten in the past few days. I never thought that people would be so upset that a P3 could be so fast in SETI, I guess I was wrong. I will not go for it. I am sorry. There was another thread where I was prodded a bit about my system, and I explained there vaguely what my system is like, and I was left alone. There are just some things I won't divulge in, and the setup my SETI WU's come from is one of them. I can tell you that I am using Win2k as my OS, and am running the original GUI version. The only problem with this is that I have to manually connect myself, but my output is still greater. I have considered (and it can be done http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif ) fixing the GUI version so it will use DUN under win2k properly, but have chosen to keep the seticlient un-touched, the program itself is untouched. Why can't people leave it at that? Maybe the remaining WU's on the original SETI client are just easier to crunch, I dunno.

Rags

jms
12th May 2000, 00:03
Rags,
I apologize if I've sounded accusing. That was NOT my intention. I was just getting curious, because you are obviously churning out WUs like there is no tomorrow. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif
Please reconsider, and come back.
Jan M.


[This message has been edited by jms (edited 12 May 2000).]

Ees
12th May 2000, 00:41
Rags,

I still think you're overreacting.

What did you expect to happen when you do your WUs on a 550e in less than 1.5 hours? People are going to be very, very curious.
I don't give a rat's ass that a 550e is faster than an overclocked Katmai; I'll take it for fact anyday. I was just stupified by the fact that you get it to churn out a unit in 1h 16m.

Your vagueness about your setup didn't help too much either. The statement that you're running the "original GUI version" is new. You could have stated something similar anywhere in this thread, but you didn't. And the way I read it, you *purposely* didn't. That's where I got the idea that you might be running a patched client.

So you're achieving those results entirely official. I apologize for mentioning a patch. Please note however that the full quote should have been:


I apologize up front if I misunderstand, but I sure hope that we can keep Team Matrox Users patch-free.

(Emphasis added.)

Best of luck, and happy seti-ing (anywhere, but hopefully for seti@murc),

Martin

Jorden
12th May 2000, 00:45
I've done some testing over the past weekend, since I couldn't connect to the internet anyway. Crunched one and the same WU 4 times (btw, I only sent it in once, before I get comments on that http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif), and here's my outcome (from memory, as I'm at work now, will edit it if I'm wrong when I'm home later today):

P3-450, non OC, 256Mb RAM, P2B
HDD's used: 10.8G Fujitsu 5400rpm, 9.1G Seagate 7200rpm.

I've tested with the APM on and off.
Fujitsu with APM on: approximately 6 hours 20 minutes.
Fujitsu with APM off: approximately 7 hours 15 minutes.
Seagate with APM on: approximately 6 hours 0 minutes.
Seagate with APM off: approximately 6 hours 20 minutes.

Leaving my system idle, with GUI 1.06 in the system tray only, and enabling my HDD to power down after 1 minute, speeds up Seti for some unknown reason.

I agree with Matt in believing the original GUI works faster. The new one(s) crunch other data as well, which could explain the difference between the GUI's. And as long as Seti still enables me to receive data using the 1.06 GUI, I'll be using that one.

The last witchhunt so to say costs us dearly when people wanted to know who Charlotorn (or something alike) was. I'd say we stop witchhunting, before Manex for example is the next one on your hunt-list.

Matt, you know what I wrote in my email, and I meant it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif Just call me up to go grab a beer http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Jord.

Checked the times and they were correct, just the APS should've been APM http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 12 May 2000).]

Guru
12th May 2000, 10:41
Rags I have just tried the old setiathome_win_1_06 client under wk2 and it takes over 8h to complete a unit for me (the setiathome-2.4.i386-winnt-cmdline takes 6h 30min!) what am i doing wrong? Is this the same ver. as you are using? Oh by the way if I remember your system specs right the are (correct me if I am wrong) :
Intel P3 550e @ 733 825MHz using a 150MHz FSB right that would make it a fast seti cruncher, 384MB Cas 2 PC133 Ram!

------------------
PIII450@558, ABIT BX6-2, 256RAM, G400MAX, SBLIVE, HOTROD-UDMA66
Join the MURC SETI team @ <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


" TARGET=_blank>http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678


</A>

Assimilator1
12th May 2000, 11:03
I've seen some conflicting reports regarding GUI v1.06 vs GUI v2.0x as well

On my Celeron 550 PC the v2. cut my times by about 2 hrs on average!!! :Q
But a fellow team member who had a PII @ 504MHz found it made virtually no difference!

Strange! ,if I remember rightly most of our team found v2. is a bit quicker.
I guess the best thing to do is to try both on your own systems to find out which is quicker.
Maybe the differences are to do with cache size & speed?

Further thoughts anyone?

Jorden
15th May 2000, 11:51
up

Pace
16th May 2000, 03:45
.luaP

?crum detartlifni slairtserret-artxe evaH

CHHAS
16th May 2000, 03:55
.ecaP

!noitcnuflam rojam a sah draobyek ruoy kniht I

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif oot enim ,yeH

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

Pace
16th May 2000, 16:08
http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/cwm/updown.gif ?draobyek ym htiw gnorw si tahw dnA ?taht gniod uoy era woH !sdrawkcab gnipyt era uoy ,yeH http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/cwm/twirl.gif There's gnihton wrong htiw my draobyek!

.luaP

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 01:35
?yelims ecaf gnillor taht ekam uoy od woH !yeH

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif looc ytterp s'tahT

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

Hunsow
17th May 2000, 03:01
.flesruoy rof ees nac uoy dna nottub tide eht sserp tsuJ

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 03:08
http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/cwm/twirl.gif wosnuH ,sknahT

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

Pace
17th May 2000, 03:37
.erom rof etis (http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/) siht tuo kcehC.

luaP.

!hgual a teg ot tsuj tuo siht lla epyt ot hguone das dnA !depraw elpoep ew t'nerA

Jorden
17th May 2000, 05:14
?gnipyt lamron

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif taht ekil elifgis sih tide, SAHHC ees ot tnaw I

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif .droJ

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 05:27
!! gnihtemos togrof I wenk I ,nmaD

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif ? nedroJ yppaH

------------------
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 ,065@005 iamtaK
BG 13 0234 rotxaM ,BG30 +04 MD rotxaM

Pace
17th May 2000, 05:37
?lamron eb og yhW

?gis sih htiw gnorw s'tahw dnA



BG 31 0234 rotxaM ,BG03 +04 MD rotxaM , http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 ,065@005 iamtaK


!em ot enif skool tI

luaP.

Pace
17th May 2000, 05:44
!setunim 01 yb em taeb uoY !hoD

!siht ta wols eb tsum I

.luaP

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 05:49
.luaP ecitcarp sekat tI

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif recrum-inim a tub llits era uoY

------------------
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 ,065@005 iamtaK
BG 13 0234 rotxaM ,BG30 +04 MD rotxaM

Hunsow
17th May 2000, 06:01
.SAHHC gis ruoy ni rorre elttil eno si ereht ,thgir ti tog taht eno eht si luaP tuB

Jorden
17th May 2000, 06:32
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gifammoc eht sessim eno nehw ,sekatsim owt yllacinhcet

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gifti ekil I tuB

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif BST ot siht sevom tnA nehw rednoW

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon2.gif seirots gnol rof sdrawkcab etirw nosaJ evaH http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ereht eno trats dlouhs SAHHC rO

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gifdroJ http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

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

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 06:51
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif ti dekcehc-elbuod d'I erus saw I ,!!it nmad

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ? BST ot ti dnes ot tnaw enoyna dluohs yhW


------------------
, http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 ,065@005 iamtaK
BG31 0234 rotxaM ,BG30 +04 MD rotxaM

DentyCracker
17th May 2000, 08:43
.das os os era syug ouY
.in gninioj rof I ma os dnA

rekcarCytneD

OAMLFTOR

.eman nwo ym lleps neve t'nac !!ho'D

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

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 16:16
http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/dvv/nuke24.gif looc os tsuj stahT


http://geocities.com/r337m0nk3y/net/ukliam2.gif

...gnipyt lamron ot kcab og dluohs ew ebyaM

...haaaN

------------------
Katmai 500@560, 196 MB ram, G400 16SH http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif, Maxtor DM 40+ 30GB, Maxtor 4320 13 GB

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

Ees
17th May 2000, 23:38
'esrever ralacs tnirp' enl- lrep

...sopyt eht lla fo erac ekat dluohS
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif .yrroS .tahwemos ti fo tuo tra fo tnemele eht sekat osla tI

nitraM

CHHAS
17th May 2000, 23:41
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif retaehc uoy ,nitraM

------------------
,HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 , 065@005 iamtaK
BG 31 0234 rotxaM, BG 03 +04 rotxaM

Pace
18th May 2000, 03:55
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif !retaehc elttil uoy ,nitraM ,haeY http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif ospyt ro stpircs tuohtiw ti od nac eW
)!stsop rieht tide ot evah ohw sluos rekaew eht gnidulcxE(

?cipot no kcab teg ot stnaw ohw ,wohynA

.luaP

CHHAS
18th May 2000, 03:59
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif ?? cipot a evah ew od ,cipoT

------------------
,HS61 004G ,mar BM 691 , 065@005 iamtaK
BG 31 0234 rotxaM, BG 03 +04 rotxaM

Assimilator1
18th May 2000, 12:25
Damn that did my head in to read just 1/2 of that! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif,I gave up!

Sorry to break the backwards run http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

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

Jorden
18th May 2000, 13:36
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif siht kaerb nac uoy kniht uoy fi ,missA foop gib a er'uoY

NedroJ

Pace
18th May 2000, 14:20
?ti saw rO ?crum detartlifni slairtserret-artxe evaH :saw cipot eht ,SAHHC ,haeY

!1rotalimissA detalimissa eb lliw ouY

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif !yas ylbissop t'ndluoc I crum@sneila eht ro crum@ites yB

reve4 CRUM@ITES

.luaP

(:

!su rof krow ot seilims s'bbu etadpu s'teL SP

Pace
14th June 2000, 14:51
Sorry to bring this old thread back up (seen as we almost lost Rags) but I was wondering about the version thing. I was just reading the thread again and went to try and find the GUI version 1 - nobody wants to give it or has it. Is it OK to use this version and use CLI2 to upload them?

.luaP

(just to keep the backwards writing going! -but I wanted to get an answer out of somebody without them giving up on the backward thing!)

Maggi
15th June 2000, 00:06
Hi luaP ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I'd say it won't work when you use the new CLI version to upload, simply because they changed the extension form .txt to .sah

I tried to crunch WUs that I d/l with V2.4 with an older CLI version (1.3 I think) an instead of calculatiing them, they were just deleted and the exe tried to connect and d/l a WU ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Cheers,
Maggi

PS: Strange, why isn't my keyboard affected by this strange UBB virus ???

jms
15th June 2000, 01:33
Pace,
After digging in my old backups I found both v. 1.0 and 1.05 of the GUI client. Tried them both. Very dissapointing. WU times hover around 6:30. The 2.4 commandline client crunches them in ~4:30. Thats a 2 hour difference, and yes the screensaver is off... This is on a P3E600(currently@858MHz) with 256MB RAM.
If any of you want to try the original GUI out, they're available at:

<a href="http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s016839/setiathome_win_1_0.exe">GUI_v1.0</a>
<a href="http://homefree.sensewave.com/~s016839/setiathome_win_1_05.exe">GUI_v1.05</a>

Jan

[This message has been edited by jms (edited 15 June 2000).]

Pace
18th June 2000, 13:04
Thanks guys - I'll have a go at the Gui anyway.

And about that UBB virus: I think it was a problem with the forum server - where the newest characters were behind the oldest http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Paul.