PDA

View Full Version : Fastest seti@murcers July 31-Aug 7



Ees
7th August 2000, 00:26
<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TH>name</TH><TH>wus</TH><TH>hours</TH><TH>average_decimal</TH><TH>average</TH></TR><TR><TD>Rags</TD><TD>37</TD><TD>107.1300</TD><TD>2.8954</TD><TD>2h 54m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Sisyfos</TD><TD>35</TD><TD>161.3500</TD><TD>4.6100</TD><TD>4h 37m</TD></TR><TR><TD>cjolley</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>50.6300</TD><TD>5.0630</TD><TD>5h 4m</TD></TR><TR><TD>cancer</TD><TD>10</TD><TD>52.5600</TD><TD>5.2560</TD><TD>5h 15m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark F.</TD><TD>130</TD><TD>701.2800</TD><TD>5.3945</TD><TD>5h 24m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Eye MD</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>111.4800</TD><TD>5.8674</TD><TD>5h 52m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Fleabus</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>48.0700</TD><TD>6.0088</TD><TD>6h 1m</TD></TR><TR><TD>KvHagedorn</TD><TD>56</TD><TD>350.6400</TD><TD>6.2614</TD><TD>6h 16m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ackerot</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>131.5800</TD><TD>6.2657</TD><TD>6h 16m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Maggi</TD><TD>123</TD><TD>788.9400</TD><TD>6.4141</TD><TD>6h 25m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Guyver</TD><TD>27</TD><TD>175.3200</TD><TD>6.4933</TD><TD>6h 30m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jorden</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>39.1400</TD><TD>6.5233</TD><TD>6h 31m</TD></TR><TR><TD>atra2</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>32.7400</TD><TD>6.5480</TD><TD>6h 33m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Jakob Kruse</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>438.3000</TD><TD>6.6409</TD><TD>6h 38m</TD></TR><TR><TD>paulcs</TD><TD>145</TD><TD>964.2600</TD><TD>6.6501</TD><TD>6h 39m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dafrenchman</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>87.6600</TD><TD>6.7431</TD><TD>6h 45m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kosh</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>40.8600</TD><TD>6.8100</TD><TD>6h 49m</TD></TR><TR><TD>smb</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>116.4700</TD><TD>6.8512</TD><TD>6h 51m</TD></TR><TR><TD>Duke</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>118.2300</TD><TD>6.9547</TD><TD>6h 57m</TD></TR><TR><TD>GnrlData</TD><TD>327</TD><TD>2279.1600</TD><TD>6.9699</TD><TD>6h 58m</TD></TR></TABLE>

Still only taken from the top-300; I'll see if I can fix that some time this week.

Martin

Mr D. Ackerot
7th August 2000, 00:54
Nice to be in the top 10!
Lets se if I can make it to the top 100 in the team stat http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

/Daniel

Sisyfos
7th August 2000, 01:14
hehehehehehehe

Way ahead of y'all (almost http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif ).


[This message has been edited by Sisyfos (edited 11 September 2000).]

------------------
PIII750(cB0)1.85v@1005 cooled by GORB on CUSL2, 2x128MB Apacer 133 Cas2, Hitachi CM813ET on G400Max, 2xIBM DPTA 372050, HP 9110i, Pioneer 104S, SBLive, SpeedStream 3010 and Aopen HQ08 300W PSU.

Maggi
7th August 2000, 05:52
Yay !!!

I finally made it also into this ranking ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Pace
7th August 2000, 06:38
I was just wondering is the average times are only taken from WUs uploaded in the last week?

So that if I upload only units from my fastest machine in any particular week I could get a good indication of how fast it is.

Thanks,

Paul.

(Should've been in the top 100 by now but for a 3 week holiday, oh well... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif)

--
My new site (with my MURC images):
<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.mccarroll/hosted/arena">The Pace3000 Arena</a>

Ees
7th August 2000, 06:51
Pace: that's right. These stats are taken from WUs submitted during the last week.

However, please don't switch off your slower machines. At least leave them crunching on the "oldtimers" account for the time being; oldoldtimers@hotmail.com if I'm not mistaken.

Martin

cjolley
7th August 2000, 07:56
Despite Sissy I went up one. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
chuck

Sisyfos
7th August 2000, 08:10
Hrmph...if faster can't impress you I'm going for bigger.

Impress some women in the progress too. Yeah

cjolley
7th August 2000, 12:50
Hey Sisyfos, did I forget to mention.. nice time!
chuck

PS Like I said, now all you have to do is catch up with Rags! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif


------------------
ABit BF6, P3-650@923, 256mb@142cas3, 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 mouse,Matrox G400 MAX!!!! :D

Sisyfos
7th August 2000, 13:10
Well, I can't go faster than ~4h 30m on this setup so I've decided to quit the average race and get some more WUs under my belt.
In the future you'll see me drop in the average rank but rise in total rank.
I'll leave it to you to toast Rags then http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, what happened to Manex?

------------------
PIII750(cB0)1.85v@1005 cooled by GORB on CUSL2, 2x128MB Apacer 133 Cas2, Hitachi CM813ET on G400Max, 2xIBM DPTA 372050, HP 9110i, Pioneer 104S, SBLive, SpeedStream 3010 and Aopen HQ08 300W PSU.

Kruse
8th August 2000, 15:55
Nice to be back on the list again, albeit only at #14...

Maybe I should move those PIII-500s to the oldtimer account...? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/icons/icon12.gif

[This message has been edited by Kruse (edited 08 August 2000).]

Pace
8th August 2000, 16:29
Sorry Martin, I certainly won't be taking off any machines - there's a little person called ScooterX who overtook me during my holidays and I'm needing every WU I can to stay up there with him! (and by up there I mean down at about 125). I just meant limiting my cache upload to one machine.

Paul.

cjolley
9th August 2000, 11:09
I would still like to see a ranking by CPU Hours.
This is realy the fairest comparison.
Unfortunately, I would drop way off of the list. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
chuck

Pace
9th August 2000, 13:57
I'd like to see the CPU time ranking as well though I don't think it'd be the fairest as Rags has obviously put a lot of effort into those times!

So Martin - can we burden you more http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif?

Paul.

Guru
9th August 2000, 14:12
Ranking by CPU Hours would bee nice! <img src=http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net/smileysex5.gif>

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

paulcs
9th August 2000, 16:14
Being able to upload WU's without losing them would be nice as well. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Just lost two. I believe that's eight in a weeks time.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Rattledagger
9th August 2000, 16:31
Ranking by most cpu-hours doesn't work, because win9x doesn't use cpu-hours but run-time-hours. The gui-version doesn't use cpu-hours either, not even under NT.

If you wants to get many hours, run the graphic version alongside the cmd-line. If you're using win9x, you can start many instances of the cmd-line and get many hours.

Pace
9th August 2000, 16:56
I suppose - but can we not rely on people to cheat? We could always spot the guy on a P3 with 139(!) hours unit average. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Paul.

ScooterX
9th August 2000, 22:02
Thanks for noticing Pace http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif
I am trying to get more machines running to secure myself a position in the top 100
As I mentioned in another thread, Diablo2 is killing my WU production.

Ees
10th August 2000, 01:01
Guys,

Just to see if we have a business case here...

This is what the "ranking by effort" would look like (for the same week):

<TABLE BORDER=1><TR><TH>name</TH><TH>hours</TH><TH>weeks</TH></TR><TR><TD>breezer</TD><TD>7538.76</TD><TD>44.87</TD></TR><TR><TD>GnrlData</TD><TD>2279.16</TD><TD>13.57</TD></TR><TR><TD>He cubus</TD><TD>1490.22</TD><TD>8.87</TD></TR><TR><TD>Alastair</TD><TD>1440.52</TD><TD>8.57</TD></TR><TR><TD>Charles</TD><TD>1227.24</TD><TD>7.30</TD></TR><TR><TD>Bob & Sons</TD><TD>1227.24</TD><TD>7.30</TD></TR><TR><TD>Ees</TD><TD>1051.92</TD><TD>6.26</TD></TR><TR><TD>Brian</TD><TD>1051.92</TD><TD>6.26</TD></TR><TR><TD>Radioman</TD><TD>1015.27</T D><TD>6.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>JSB</TD><TD>964.26</TD><TD>5.74</TD></TR><TR><TD>Alpha Centauri</TD><TD>964.26</TD><TD>5.74</TD></TR><TR><TD>paulcs</TD><TD>964.26</TD><TD>5.74</TD></TR><TR><TD>box</TD><TD>964.26</TD><TD>5.74</TD></TR><TR><TD>JJc</TD><TD>876.60</TD><T D>5.22</TD></TR><TR><TD>Maggi</TD><TD>788.94</TD><TD>4.70</TD></TR><TR><TD>bert</TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mark F.</TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>DirtFarmer</TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD><-TT-></TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>NauTiLUS</TD><TD>701.28< /TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>hbitsch</TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Andy Watling</TD><TD>701.28</TD><TD>4.17</TD></TR></TABLE>

One obvious problem is that many people appear to have exactly the same number of hours. That's because on Seti's page, "Total CPU time" is listed in years, with two decimals precision. Not much I can do about that. That's also the reason why this is actually a top-22 (hbitsch and Andy Watling fall just below the top-20, but have the same number of hours).

So: interesting? I can just include it in the "weekly" (ahem http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif) reports I post here.

Martin

(Edit: whoops, that didn't come out quite right... This better?)
(Re-edit: buggery fsck...)
(Re-re-edit: waaaaaah, if it still isn't right, you'll have to live with it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif. UBB keeps messing with my table.)

[This message has been edited by Ees (edited 10 August 2000).]

Rattledagger
10th August 2000, 17:47
Martin, your comment seems to indicate using the wrong approach on top cpu-hours. 0,01 years is 87,6 hours, a much too big error. For Rags, this is 30 units.

But seti@home also rapports average cpu-time per unit. This is in 0,1-seconds. For a user with 8000 units, 0,1 second difference is only 13m20s, or 0,000025 years. Only then you've completed more units whan SGI SETI will this approach give a bigger error. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

cjolley
11th August 2000, 09:57
Why am I arguing for a measurment that would put me way down the list? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
chuck

Brian R.
11th August 2000, 10:34
Cool, I finally made some list or another. How about a list of handles in alphabetical order?