Bruce--
The difference in processing times is between the S@H screensaver client and the CLI client running under SetiQueue, not between the CLI client alone (which I had never used until downloading SetiQueue) and running under SetiQueue. I assume the difference is due to the lower overhead of the CLI client. In addition, not having to battle the Berkeley bottleneck several times daily improves throughput further, as you say. Can't wait to put the CLI client and SQ on my kid's Athlon 1800+. Matter of fact, no time like the present.... --howard > From: Bruce Hudgens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 18:28:02 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: SetiQueue > > > 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+... == 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
