Five new boxes up...

[SpeeDj]

Told you guys I would be back :) I got my dual 550, duron 900, pII 400, and my girlfriends pIII 800 laptop up and folding FAH 2.12 Console. Hope it helps a bit. They are sharing time with Seti too, all but the laptop. Just so it is known, can't not run Seti full time consider my leadership role over there. One question while I am at it, anyone know how to set the process priority on FAH ? I have my duron folding two instances, but Seti seems to overrun them on cpu time. Let me know ASAP =)

J

[_Will_]

are you runnign 2000/xp?

if so its pretty easy...go to task manager: processes: right click the process/z

i think winFAH u can leave alone...that only uses cycles when u open the console....

the core_65 is the only one u need to change, methinks

[SpeeDj]

Yeah 2000 Pro on this machine, it's showing Seti as eating 96% of process time when it is set to low priority. Then FAH is getting 4% to split at normal priority hmm... I dunno. I think it may be that I just set up seti on this box, I will have to see. Right now it is filling the Cache for Seti Driver, maybe when it is done it will equal out. Keep the thoughts coming folks!

J

[Ebola]

sounds cool. we could use about 50 more of you. can you clone yourself. hehe.

[Ploaf]

SpeeDj that's great :burn:

About the SETI thing. There was another thread on that yesterday(?).

There are 3 sub processes in the core_65 priority. Even if you decrease SETI or increase the core_65 priority, the subprocess that does all of the work remains at an ultra low or idle priority. The way only I've seen to increase that is in win98/ME with a 3rd party task manager(ATM) that will allow adjustment of the sub processes as well as the main process. Not sure what kind of solution there is in win2k/xp.

[SpeeDj]

2k has what is known as the task manager where you can assign Process Priority but other than that, that's about it. Seti was hogging it all, I dunno what to do. There has to be a way to set it so it can all equal out. Anymore suggestion's would be superb, keep em rolling guys. I had to shut seti down so I can get some wu done. Let me know

J

[nihili]

Is there a reason why you want to split the cpu time on each box, rather than just devoting some boxes entirely to SETI and others to Folding?

nihili

[SpeeDj]

Well I would really like it to be the way is used to be, each box ran instances of folding, and seti side by side. I don't see why it cannot be done now. I would rather do it that way then have to say, Oh today I am doing folding on box a, and tomorrow is seti... etc... I know it prolly sound's odd, but I like doing my share for both.

J

[SpeeDj]

b u m p :)

[Ploaf]

I'm going to be looking at a couple of third party task managers(freeware) for win2k. I know about the win2k task manager but it doesn't give enough control over the subprocesses. Hopefully a solution will be found. :)

[SpeeDj]

Thanks I really appreciate that I will keep my eyes open. Just really would like to keep both processes going and working towards the common goal.

J

[Ploaf]

I'm not having much luck :( the only things I found that were supposed to be "task Managers" were nothing more than buggy wastes of space, but while messing around with seti trying to make it play nice with F@H I found 18 wu's for the SETI team so at least somebody made out from the effort. ;)

[Dunga Bee]

I didn't see this mentioned, but can't you lower SETI to IDLE priority and then at least it will be the same as FAH ?

If that doesn't work, it looks like the only options are to:

a) Buy another rig to run FAH on, or
b) buy another rig to run SETI on

:D

[Ploaf]

Dunga Bee, you may be right about having to run different clients on different boxes for now. :(
The problem is with the priorities set for the core_65 subprocess. They dropped priority clear down to 1 just for the one process. The taskmanager cannot set a priority below 4 which is what SETI runs at. I am not sure but there is probably a plugin/addon to the win2k task manager that will provide access to sub processes. I thought I saw something like this before but cannot remember where and haven't been able to find anything yet that will work. Here's a message that explains the problem-
From: pandegroup@y...
Date: Mon Nov 5, 2001 4:13 am
Subject: Re: Core_65.exe priority?


The core priority of 'normal' assigned to the core process is
different from the priority of the actual core work thread, which is
fixed at level 1 by default (the lowest possible, even lower than the
task manager 'idle' priority, which is level 4... there are a total
of 31 under NT/2000/XP).

This is why fah (<insert>He means FAH1</insert>) and seti (idle: level 4) are getting more than
Core_65.exe. We'll eventually add a command-line flag to the console
version so that you can do it directly when you start the client. In
the meantime you could manually change the core work thread priority
via a 3rd party program that lets you adjust thread priorities
directly.

Cheers,

- siraj


--- In folding2@y..., kasper99@c... wrote:
> Howcome no priority is assigned to Core_65.exe? fah and seti gets
> 50% each leving none to Core_65.exe even though it's priority level
> is set at a default of normal where the other two has a default
> priority og low. Is this the way of ensuring that the program only
> uses spare CPU cycles? It should rather split the resources evenly
> amog the distributed programs.