Just to clarify....
SETIQ make NO difference to the speed of the SETI client unless of course your Queue is being hit hard by lots of machines. It is only the CLI that is giving you the speed inprovement. RDRAM is responsible for the fast time as SETI is memory bandwidth starved. I have PIII (same clock speeds)systems with RDRAM and SDRAM and the RDRAM machines are 3 hours faster. > > 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 > == 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
