Howard,
SetiQueue shouldn't affect the WU execution time one way or the
other. What it does is eliminate the downtime between WUs. Your 2 GHz P-4
is moving surprisingly fast. I wonder if SETI has put some optimization
into v3.06 and/or v3.07 to take advantage of the CPU architecture.
Bruce
19000+...
At 04:13 PM 3/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Bruce--
>
>I've now been using SetiQueue for a week or so and I love it. The sky
>display is much more entertaining to look at, as well as being actually
>substantive. I've found that the 2 GHz Pentium machine in my office will
>polish off WUs in an average of just over 3:30, a good hour off the S@H
>screensaver time and faster than I'd expected. OTOH, SetiQueue on my home
>computer, a Pentium 700 MHz, runs WUs in about the _same_ length of time as
>the screensaver, 11:30. At my satellite office, a P4 866 runs WUs in about
>8h vs. 10h. Don't know why the discrepancies, especially the lack of any
>improvement at all on my home computer.
>
>Any suggestions for optimizing the performance of SetiQueue?
>
>--howard
>Closing in on 2500....
>
>==
>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
