PDA

View Full Version : Work unit times...



Pace
29th August 2000, 16:32
Just wondering average times for different machines/OSes. Can you post experiences of processor/cache/chipset and OS please. I'd like to compile a list of as many machines as possible.

Not sure about my own machines (damn last 10WUs stats still down - maybe the next downtime they can add that http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif)
P3-500, 512k, ZX, Win2k: 6 hours
P2-350, 512k, BX, Win2k: 9 hours
P120, ?k, ?, Win95: >24 (Laptop running 24/7: never checked)
A couple of friends machines: Unknown!

Thanks,

Paul.

------------------
Pace3000 Network: (early stages)
Arena (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/arena) | Seti (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/seti) | P3K (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/p3k) | TechSupport (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/support) | Portal (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/portal)
Matrox Users / SETI@MURC
Join the team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678) | Crunch faster! (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.mccarroll/hosted/seti/) | View the stats! (http://seti.matroxusers.com/)

Kruse
30th August 2000, 02:56
I can add a few to that list (and I assume we're talking current CLI version here):

P3-500, 512k, ??, WinNT4: 6.8-7.4 hours
P3-450@558, 512k, BX, Win98 2nd: 5.5-6.1 hours

I'd like to point out though, that one of the most important things (even more important than processor speed), memory timing, is missing here... let me know if you want to include that.

Liquid Snake
30th August 2000, 12:18
P3-750@825, 256k L2, BX@110, 256MB SDRAM 2-2-2, Win98 CLI: 6 hours or less

Seaspray
30th August 2000, 13:10
Ok I have posted on this topic before but here goes ....

PIII@667, 256kb, VIA Apollo 133A, 128Mb@133 3-3-3, Win98, SETI v2.04. Average time around 10 hours best time around 7 hours.

I seem to get the best times if I leave SETI running and don't interrupt it or run any other programs at the same time.

From what you all say I'm sure I should be getting better times. Still haven't tried the CLI version though.

Pace
30th August 2000, 13:47
(just lost an attempt to post so here is a summary - it was a long post - DOH!)

Kruse: yea, CLI

Seaspray: Screensaver times inflate the CPU time by measuring running time - even if system is busy and giving it 0% attention. CLI measures actual CPU time so 10% of 10 hours counts as 1 hour in CLI yet 10 in GUI.

I once found a WU which was at 56 hours in the GUI (my 3rd WU!) - I used the GUi but didn't like it - I only became really interested in Seti after I got the CLI - and Maggi gave me a batch script.

Faster RAM is a major boost - try 2-2-2 at lower FSB.

Paul.

Rattledagger
30th August 2000, 16:26
Pace, afaik win9x doesn't have an documented way to get cpu-time, so under win9x the cmd-line have the same time-bug as the gui-version.
NT4 and later have a way for programs to get actual cpu-times.

Pace
30th August 2000, 16:37
Yea - ok I'll include it then - can you's add FSB and RAM timing.

P3-500, 512k, ZX@100, 128M/222, Win2k: 6hr
P2-350, 512k, BX@100, 256M/222, Win2k: 9hr
The other machines? Hell I don't even know the RAM off-hand!

Paul.

Guru
30th August 2000, 22:32
Pace&Rattledagger under win9x you can use WinAccelerator to do just that! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.tweakfiles.com//allinone/winaccelerator.html

Rattledagger
31st August 2000, 16:25
Guru, does this utility pass the times back to seti@home so the averages doesn't get screwed up? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Rattledagger
1st September 2000, 16:08
The gui-version is only using run-times.
As for win9x, I don't think there is a difference from before.

Pace
1st September 2000, 16:16
I used to use the 'Last 10 WU' page on Seti's site to judge times - so is the CLI under Win9x still giving out running time rather than CPU time?

And does the GUI measure run time or CPU time in NT?

Paul.

Assimilator1
6th September 2000, 17:06
PII 233 @ 280 ,512K L2 ,112 MHz FSB ,BX chipset, CAS2 ,SDRAM precharge enabled ,average 10.5 hrs.Win 95c

As above but with PIII 700 @ 787MHz ,average 5.9 hrs http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Cel 366 @ 550,100MHz FSB ,CAS2 RAM, 128K L2 cache,BX chipset ,average 7.9 hrs

------------------
I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) Team Anandtech

cjolley
6th September 2000, 19:12
Running Screen Saver 5 min delay, 0 min before blank.
See Sig: about 4.5 hr. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif
chuck


------------------
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!!!! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by cjolley (edited 07 September 2000).]

Kruse
7th September 2000, 01:06
Hey, I'm back so I'll update those stats I posted earlier... better late than never...

P3-500, 512k, Unknown chipset@100, 128M/333, WinNT4: 6.8-7.4 hours
P3-450@558, 512k, BX@124, 256M/222, Win98 2nd: 5.5-6.1 hours

agallag
7th September 2000, 10:09
P2-350/100/512k - ~9 hrs
p3-650/100/256k - ~6.5-7 hrs
p3xeon-800/133/256k - ~5-5.5 hrs

-=-=-
Andrew

[This message has been edited by agallag (edited 07 September 2000).]

rocketmanx
8th September 2000, 09:13
Is anybody running apps or surfing the web on these machines?
I have a Dual P3 550 Win2k machine running at 617 with latency set to 2 and all the other bios settings set appropriately. I also have 2 clients running with each set with an affinity to cpu 0 and 1 respectively so each runs on it's own cpu. My unit on cpu o is set to below average priority (so I can still work at a reasonable pace) and cpu 1 is to realtime or high priority depending on what I'm doing.
The point (question) is, even when I leave my machine run overnight with nothing else running my best time/wu is on 7:52. Does this seem right with the 2.4 cl client? My times aren't nearly as fast as the ones I see here. By contrast my win98 machine at 770 with latency set to 2 turns out wu's in a little over 4 hours with the 2.7 gui client running minimized. This is while runnning apps and surfing the web.
Thanks for any comments
Pete

Pace
8th September 2000, 09:51
rocketmanx: There's a new site which is under construction for all new SETI@MURC team members - I've designed it and produced some content as has our stats (http://seti.matroxusers.com) king, Ees - after us two though it's been all Guru (big thanks to him http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif).

You can access the site in my signature below or a page with a performance graph showing times you could get with your system is here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.mccarroll/hosted/seti/articles/guides/perfgraf.htm).

Paul.

------------------
Pace3000 Network: (early stages)
Arena (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/arena) | Seti (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/seti) | P3K (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/p3k) | TechSupport (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/support) | Portal (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/portal)
Matrox Users / SETI@MURC
Join the team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678) | Crunch faster! (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.mccarroll/hosted/seti/) | View the stats! (http://seti.matroxusers.com/)

Guru
8th September 2000, 09:58
rocketmanx runing 2 clients at the same time on a dual CPU system is not as fast as runing just one client on a singel CPU system! Runing just one client on your system will lower your average times abaut 1.5-2.5h but you will still not be able to crunch as many WU's a day as you are now! Some people report that runing the 2.70 beta (GUI) on one CPU and the 2.4 CLI on the other is faster then runing two CLI! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

BTW why don't you join our team? Just follow the link in my signature!

Guru

------------------
Join the MURC SETI team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678) | SETI @ MURC (http://www.pace.fsnet.co.uk/seti/)

rocketmanx
8th September 2000, 11:32
I am a member - I just passed the 100 work units a little over a week ago. I crunch 2 units at the same time because I'm more concerned with quantity than speed. The times listed above are the first I've seen that are on comparable systems to mine. I would love to get faster times as that would increase my output per day. I am building a dual p2 450 Xeon 1mb cache system right now. I just am waiting on the motherboard to arrive and it will do nothing but crunch seti #'s. I also have 2.7 running on 3 more win98 machines (just added these today)here at work (total of 6 now) where I only had two at home that only run when I'm home from work. On the Xeon machine I will be very concerned with time per WU as that is why I built it. Hopefully I will be putting out double digit wu's as opposed to my measley 3 per day now.
Pete

BTW -Back to my original question- is anybody using there machines for anything but seti? or are those times for seti dedicated machines?
[This message has been edited by rocketmanx (edited 08 September 2000).]

[This message has been edited by rocketmanx (edited 08 September 2000).]

rocketmanx
8th September 2000, 11:42
GURU-
Thanks for the 2.4/2.7 client tip.
I'll try it when I get home tonight and post what I find as I'm sure there are plenty of dual proc machines on the MURC team.

xfile
8th September 2000, 12:12
This is my PC at home.

Athlon-920, ABIT KA7, RAM@115MHz, Linux 2.2.14, Client 2.74: 5.5-6h

Sisyfos
8th September 2000, 12:47
CUSL2 P3-750@1005 256MB@134/222/7T,5T GUI 2.70 3h15m-3h45m and the occasional 6h30m
BE6-II P3-650@806 128MB@124/222 CLi 2.4 5h30m-5h45m

Both on Win soMEthing

------------------
Join the MURC SETI team! (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cgi?cmd=team_join_form&id=25678)
View the exciting stats (http://seti.matroxusers.com)