I was running w2k and the commandline client, probably the difference. I do
know that the screensaver version eats up a considerable amount of system
resources (linux running the cmdline
client on the same box averaged about 3 hours better/wu) which is why I gave
it up early.
Wish I could run some tests again. Does make me think that maybe cpu cache
is not
the determining factor tho.
A
>
> Explorer,seti@home, and systray and puilling 32 hrs. 256 megs of ram.
Ran
> tests at 256,192,128, and 64 megs and my lowest time was 26 hrs I think?
My
> K6/2 was a cxt core. Hitting the web, and they say it's good. In
personal
> experience? bad. My Cxt had a 64k cache. And looking on Setispy? They
> show 128k to 512k cache.....
>
> Maybe I got ripped on my k6/2.....
>
> Broc Olson < Byark!>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ablemonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Difference in WU's
>
>
> >
> >
> > Strange. When I had my K6-2/500 (128mb ram, ALI mobo) running SETI my
> > average times
> > were generally around 19 hours, not in the 30s. Are you sure you had no
> > other overhead
> > or no other reasons for the slow times?
> > Andy
>
>
> ==
> Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html
> This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online.
> Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com
>
==
Unsubscribe instructions: http://www.talkspace.net/mlists/setiathome.html
This list sponsored by talkspace.net: building space communities online.
Mailing list services provided by klx.communications -- www.klx.com
