| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dave Trapnell
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:35 pm Post subject: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3.08 |
 |
|
I upgraded to Seti 3.08 and found the workunits were taking
12-15 hours instead of the usual 4-5 (for this machine). I
was sufficiently puzzled by this that I actually
"downgraded" back to 3.07 and found the workunits were STILL
taking 12-15 hours.
Eventually I dug around in the FAQ and found section
2.1.2.5. I had forgotten that the Seti installation switches
the screensaver to "seti@home" from "none" (in my case).
Since the screensaver was set to come on after 15 minutes
and the monitor was set to turn off after 10 minutes, I
never noticed this change.
Section 2.1.5 says:
" If running Windows 95/98/NT, make sure your screen saver
is set up for "Blank Screen". For some reason when screen
saver is set to "SETI@home" with "continuous run" enabled
the client seems to waste time fighting with itself. It can
turn out a work unit in half the time by doing this."
This comes under the "Duh" category, but since it is a
mistake someone could easily make, I am posting it here to
hopefully save someone some trouble.
DT |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
f/fgeorge
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
If you switch to the CLI version you will get about 20% or so faster
times. It doesn>t have to draw all the pretty pictures so it is
faster. And YES yours does STILL draw the pretty pictures, you have
just elected to not see them. They are still there if you choose to
view them, meaning that the computer still has to generate them.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:35:39 -0700, Dave Trapnell
<dtresearch@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]I upgraded to Seti 3.08 and found the workunits were taking
12-15 hours instead of the usual 4-5 (for this machine). I
was sufficiently puzzled by this that I actually
"downgraded" back to 3.07 and found the workunits were STILL
taking 12-15 hours.
Eventually I dug around in the FAQ and found section
2.1.2.5. I had forgotten that the Seti installation switches
the screensaver to "seti@home" from "none" (in my case).
Since the screensaver was set to come on after 15 minutes
and the monitor was set to turn off after 10 minutes, I
never noticed this change.
Section 2.1.5 says:
" If running Windows 95/98/NT, make sure your screen saver
is set up for "Blank Screen". For some reason when screen
saver is set to "SETI@home" with "continuous run" enabled
the client seems to waste time fighting with itself. It can
turn out a work unit in half the time by doing this."
This comes under the "Duh" category, but since it is a
mistake someone could easily make, I am posting it here to
hopefully save someone some trouble.
DT
[/quote]
-- Have you checked your Smoke Detector...LATELY? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Henk H
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
[quote]And YES yours does STILL draw the pretty pictures, you have
just elected to not see them. They are still there if you choose to
view them, meaning that the computer still has to generate them.
[/quote]
No, the 'blank screen' option is a SETI-client setting that speeds
things up by about 60% and that can only be done by skipping the
generating of graphics. It is not a Windows 'Display Power Saving'
setting. But the two are easily confused.
((HH)) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Stratcat®
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
"Henk H" <echoput@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3f551f95$0$49111$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
[quote]
And YES yours does STILL draw the pretty pictures, you have
just elected to not see them. They are still there if you choose to
view them, meaning that the computer still has to generate them.
No, the 'blank screen' option is a SETI-client setting that speeds
things up by about 60% and that can only be done by skipping the
generating of graphics. It is not a Windows 'Display Power Saving'
setting. But the two are easily confused.
((HH))
[/quote]
This is one issue that continuously comes up, and I wish I>d benchmarked
all clients, using a standard unit, when I did my last rebuild, and changed
from GUI 3.08, to CLI 3.08, to CLI 3.03.
Informally, using whatever WU>s came my way, I found the GUI 3.08
w/screensaver set to 'none', to be about the same running time as a single
instance of CLI 3.08. I realize this is heresy to some, and I want to
emphasize this was not controlled benchmarking, but ad hoc processing.
I did notice a somewhat significant change when I went from CLI 3.08 to
CLI 3.03, but I was monitoring my times more closely during this period.
Dayem...it would have been so easy to benchmark all four clients w/the
standard WU when I was setting up, if I would>ve thought about it. Oh well,
seeing as we>ll be BOINCED before too much longer, I guess this will soon be
moot.
--
Strat®
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/2003 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Trapnell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:52 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
"Henk H" <echoput@xs4all.nl> wrote:
[quote]And YES yours does STILL draw the pretty pictures, you have
just elected to not see them. They are still there if you choose to
view them, meaning that the computer still has to generate them.
No, the 'blank screen' option is a SETI-client setting that speeds
things up by about 60% and that can only be done by skipping the
generating of graphics. It is not a Windows 'Display Power Saving'
setting. But the two are easily confused.
((HH))
When I get the time, I want to compare the CLI version with[/quote]
the "optimized" GUI version, that is, with the screensaver
set to "none" or "blank".
DT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
rys
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2003 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
| oooooooooooooooooooooooo |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Clyde C. Phillips, III
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:52 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
Dave Trapnell <dtresearch@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<5doclv0uq6oh9evm3935asb598og72ghp8@4ax.com>...
[quote]"Henk H" <echoput@xs4all.nl> wrote:
And YES yours does STILL draw the pretty pictures, you have
just elected to not see them. They are still there if you choose to
view them, meaning that the computer still has to generate them.
No, the 'blank screen' option is a SETI-client setting that speeds
things up by about 60% and that can only be done by skipping the
generating of graphics. It is not a Windows 'Display Power Saving'
setting. But the two are easily confused.
((HH))
When I get the time, I want to compare the CLI version with
the "optimized" GUI version, that is, with the screensaver
set to "none" or "blank".
DT
A lot of people have been getting about 20 percent higher calculation[/quote]
speed by using the CLI over the optimized GUI. This was true for me
but may vary with machine. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Dave Trapnell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:12 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
"Stratcat®" <nobody@no.org> wrote:
[quote]"Robi" <r_buecheler@remove.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vlh0pd450nk066@corp.supernews.com...
Dave Trapnell wrote:
Stratcat® wrote:
Oh well,
seeing as we>ll be BOINCED before too much longer,
I guess this will soon be moot.
BOINCED? Say what?
You know, BOINC? BOINCED?
I wonder if you verbize BOINC you need to add a K
or change the C to a K....
BOINCKED? BOINKED? ;o) "BOINSD" just doesn>t sound right...
Anyhow, BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing)
as in http://boinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Yes, Robi is absolutely correct in my verbalizing the noun BOINC.
While my posting is occasionally sporadic, reply to this thread if you would
like any additional links/info on BOINC & the SETI II transition. I,
or perhaps someone else, will be happy to respond, though my knowledge is
somewhat limited, in relation to some of the more 'aware' posters.
I went to that website. It appeared that they were going to[/quote]
offer an open-structured SETI-like model for other types
of problem processsing. I could not immediately see how
that was going to affect the ongoing SETI@HOME project,
unless the implication is that such a project will take
processing power away from SETI? They seem to already
have more processing power than they can use anyway.
Did I miss something?
DT |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Robi
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Why workunits were taking 3x longer after upgrading to 3 |
|
|
Dave Trapnell wrote:
[quote]Stratcat® wrote:
Robi wrote:
[...]
Anyhow, BOINC (Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing)
as in http://boinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/
[...]
While my posting is occasionally sporadic, reply to this thread if you would
like any additional links/info on BOINC & the SETI II transition. I,
or perhaps someone else, will be happy to respond, though my knowledge is
somewhat limited, in relation to some of the more 'aware' posters.
I went to that website. It appeared that they were going to
offer an open-structured SETI-like model for other types
of problem processsing. I could not immediately see how
that was going to affect the ongoing SETI@HOME project,
unless the implication is that such a project will take
processing power away from SETI?
[/quote]
Well, the ongoing SETI@home will be replaced with BOINC *running* SETI@homeII
SETI@homeII will analyze the southern sky as well.
The ongoing beta test of BOINC uses AstroPulse (Black Hole evaporation)
http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/SETI@home/Update_110501.htm
There will be other projects running on BOINC, and every user can run
whichever project(s) he wants, so to your next question, the processing power
will be split up between different projects.
[quote]They seem to already have more processing power than they can use anyway.
[/quote]
"They" will need the processing power again for the southern hemisphere
scan(s), and listening for a signal from some ET intelligence/civilization
needs patience, because those civilizations - like us (or unlike us ;o) -
don>t broadcast nonstop high powered signals into space for us to lock onto
the signal whenever we like. Actually we might be missing their broadcast
just because they send (or sent) it right when arecibo rolls out of reception
range and the signal ends some time before arecibo is back in the range.
This means that the sky needs to be surveyed and analyzed over and over and
over and over... again, and that, my dear Watson, needs processing power :^)
[quote]Did I miss something?
[/quote]
did I? ;o)
--
Robi
(2.8#@ 2.67 yrs) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
