Jason,
I've been running Seti@home on a 300 MHz K6II and on a dual
PII 350 machine (both under linux) and I'm finding that each processor
gets through one lot of data per roughly 11-13 hours. (I don't have an easy
way to distinguish the specific runtimes) I'm running two concurrent
seti@home clients on the SMP machine. The overhead in managing the two
processes on the SMP system is no more than a few percent.
I tried running SETI@home on my PII 350 (in win95 so it only saw one
processor), admittedly while running starcraft, but after over 30 hours
of CPU time the client hadn't even completed even one batch of data. Someone
else mentioned that they didn't think that the processor time accounting
was very accurate and I have to say that I agree. I'd have a hard time
believing that win95 is 3 times slower than Linux.
Chris
Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here?
.... Where are you going?
------------------------ Chris Gottbrath ------------------------
http://agave.as.arizona.edu/~chrisg/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2 Jul 1999, Jason Sogolow wrote:
> Hi list,
> Has anyone run a Linux command line version of SETI@home on a smp machine?
> How much faster is it than the screensaver running on a 'comparable' single
> processor under say, Win 98?
> Thanks for the bandwidth,
> Jason
>
> -
> Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
> To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/mentre/smp-faq/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
