Most processing power/Watt

External Since: Jun 10, 2004 Posts: 10

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz.RemoveThis@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message news:<LL%Kc.2399$N77.206012@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> N. Thornton wrote:

> Thanks. I have it running as lean as I can.

I realised once I pressed post that that was unlikely to be
appropriate advice.

> There are other distributed computing projects I've looked at. However, in
> *all* cases it appears that commercial entities stand to make money out of
> my CPU cycles. I don't want my hobby to end up making the rich richer.

I guess any distributed computing project costs to set up, so people
will only do it when theres the possibility of profit. Only government
funds would setup something that will never return anything.

> Penny could be right about SETI, however, over the years I've read a lot of
> criticism of it and conspiracy theories about it. Who do you believe?

no-one. I just hope you consider your input to seti to be a fulfilling
way to spend your life. I guess its different to my approach to
things. Good luck.

Regards, NT

External Since: Jul 10, 2004 Posts: 181

"it seems a bit strange to have software that seems optimised for machines
other than the ones it's going to run on." That fact may be strange to
you but that's the way it is; and also one of the reasons that at least one
rogue version of the application was written (which couldn't be accepted
because of the need to protect the integrity of the signal processing.)

As for the effect of L2 cache size on the SETI@home application, try
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/efficiency.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/efficiency.htm</a>
which is just a little further into
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/" target="_blank">http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</a> .

--
Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
For communication,
replace "at" with the 'at sign'
replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
replace "dot" with "."

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz RemoveThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:59DKc.1918$N77.190231@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
> > Try this URL
<font color=green> > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html</font" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/3q99/setiopt-1.html</font</a>>
>
> Ummm, when was that was written? The guy mentions his machine, a Celeron
> 300a @ 450Mhz and version 1.06 was the latest version of SETI GUI (Now
> 3.0 Cool

. I read all three pages and saw no mention of L2 cache.
>
  > > and this URL
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</font" target="_blank">http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/</font</a>>
>
> Having used SetiSpy myself I'm familiar with this page and have exchanged
> emails with Roelof on occasion. However, once again no mention of L2 cache
> and it's effect on WU throughput times at this page.
>
  > > and this URL
  > >
  > > The L2 benefit really kicks in at 1 MByte, unless new versions of the
  > > SETI@home client have been written to make more effecient use of 256
  > > KByte and 512 KByte L2 caches.
>
> Ok, that could be true. I have only set SETI up on machines having L2
caches
> up to 512KB. My girlfriends Barton at 2.2Ghz and my Tbred at 2.1Ghz are
very
> similar in WU times, hers is slightly faster as you would expect from the
> clock-speeds, so I doubt there is much benefit going from 256KB to 512KB.
I
> would think that, until recently, hardly anyone (considering the user-base
> of Seti) had machines with greater than 512KB of L2 cache so it seems a
bit
> strange to have software that seems optimised for machines other than the
> ones it's going to run on.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> ~misfit~
>
  > > "~misfit~" <misfit61nz RemoveThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
  > > news:1mlKc.1601$N77.181349@news.xtra.co.nz...
   > >> Phil Weldon wrote:
   > >>> The SETI@home application is very sensitive to L2 cache size, and
   > >>> needs neither a display device, a hard drive, nor very much random
   > >>> access memory. A loosely coupled cluster would likely provide the
   > >>> most bang per buck. With a large L2 cache, main memory speed is not
   > >>> much of a factor.
   > >>>
   > >>> You might also consider one, very efficient, switching power supply
   > >>> for the entire cluster (perhaps a Lamda from ebay?)
   > >>>
   > >>> Eliminating as many support elements as possible may lower power
   > >>> consumption per work unit more than going with lower power CPU's.
   > >>
   > >> All good points Phil. However, I'm running the new BOINC client now
   > >> and I'm fairly sure it needs a HDD. At least, I don't have the
   > >> know-how to do it any other way.
   > >>
   > >> I have heard others mention that Seti is L2-dependant as well.
   > >> However, from personal experience I have noticed little, if any,
   > >> discernable difference between similarly-clocked Coppermine and
   > >> Tualatin Celerons (128 and 256KB respectively). Maybe it's only over
   > >> 256KB that the benefits kick in.
   > >>
   > >> Thanks for your input.
   > >> --
   > >> ~misfit~
   > >>
   > >>> "~misfit~" <misfit61nz RemoveThis @yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
   > >>> news:ZfaKc.1398$N77.176817@news.xtra.co.nz...
   > >>>> Something I've been thinking about recently, of the CPUs in the
   > >>>> 700Mhz and upwards range, which CPU, or family of CPUs gives the
   > >>>> most for the least, electrical-consumption-wise?
   > >>>>
   > >>>> I'm running a few machines for SETI and am on a budget. I have a
   > >>>> bit of hardware and am able to decide which machines to run. I'd
   > >>>> just like to know which will give the best return for money spent
   > >>>> on power. Hell, I just run the fastest of what I have at the
   > >>>> moment and damn the cost. It'd be nice to know though, I'm on a
   > >>>> budget.
   > >>>>
   > >>>> Any ideas folks?
   > >>>>
   > >>>> Cheers,
   > >>>> --
   > >>>> ~misfit~
>
>