Best way to run SETI

[BrainLifter]

Ok I was wondering the best way to run SETI (so I can get the fastest number crunching)

I have both Win98SE and Linux so I can do it through Linux if it's faster that way......

[Cy]

Howdy Brain,

The best way to run SETI is using the CLC - command line client - 24/7 using a cache program. :) I'm not sure if there is really much speed difference per OS (or those you mention). By using a cache program you will be able to crunch through those times when Berkeley is down for some reason, or your internet connection is having problems or the whole internet is slow etc. We have members on this team who use SETIDriver and some who use SETIQueue. HTH :)

Cy

[lonewolf1983]

i dont think the client has been optimised for either OS
so the speeds should be about the same
you will howver probably find more programs(setidriver,setispy....etc) for windows
and will be easier to use

crunch on!

[TC]

Don't worry about the OS nearly as much as tweaking your hardware. The faster you can push your cpu and ram the better your times will be. You could take the same machine and compare different OS - the difference would be less than 5 minutes in most cases.

[rogerdugans]

I have heard rumours that linux is faster than 98, or even 2000, but have not confirmed anything yet.

If I ever figure out how to track units on linux, I can compare averages though.....or you can! Which, if you know linux, will probably be a LOT faster than me doing it!

Win2K and WinNT 4.0 both crunch a little bit faster than 98, but not much, I'd guess MAYBE 1 wu a month more for an XP 1800.

This is not the result of any formal testing, just OSes that I have run at different times, and compared approximat averages, so take it with a grain of salt!

[eobard]

Originally posted by BrainLifter
Ok I was wondering the best way to run SETI (so I can get the fastest number crunching)

I have both Win98SE and Linux so I can do it through Linux if it's faster that way......

One thing that helps speed up SETI crunch times is reducing the size and volume of your sig.

[TC]

Originally posted by rogerdugans
I have heard rumours that linux is faster than 98, or even 2000, but have not confirmed anything yet.

If I ever figure out how to track units on linux, I can compare averages though.....or you can! Which, if you know linux, will probably be a LOT faster than me doing it!

Win2K and WinNT 4.0 both crunch a little bit faster than 98, but not much, I'd guess MAYBE 1 wu a month more for an XP 1800.

This is not the result of any formal testing, just OSes that I have run at different times, and compared approximat averages, so take it with a grain of salt! I tried Linux back when I was regularly submitting results to team lamb chop. Red hat was 35 seconds faster than 2k for the same work unit. Of course a plain install of red hat is kind of bloated relatively speaking, so a bit of tweaking with the kernel could possibly improve that slightly, but imo not worth the time.

[e_storm]

Originally posted by Cy
Howdy Brain,

The best way to run SETI is using the CLC - command line client - 24/7 using a cache program. :) I'm not sure if there is really much speed difference per OS (or those you mention). By using a cache program you will be able to crunch through those times when Berkeley is down for some reason, or your internet connection is having problems or the whole internet is slow etc. We have members on this team who use SETIDriver and some who use SETIQueue. HTH :)

Cy

What if your running the screen saver version? From the looks of it, SETI Driver and SETI Queue are designed for the CLC. Are there any programs that will cache WUs for the screensaver version?

Sometimes I come home to a blinking SETI cursor in the systray. Some kind of conncection problem it would seem. All I have to do is double click on it and it sends and receives the data just fine. It would be nice if the rig was crunching another unit while the first was waiting to be sent.

[eobard]

Originally posted by e_storm


What if your running the screen saver version? From the looks of it, SETI Driver and SETI Queue are designed for the CLC. Are there any programs that will cache WUs for the screensaver version?

Sometimes I come home to a blinking SETI cursor in the systray. Some kind of conncection problem it would seem. All I have to do is double click on it and it sends and receives the data just fine. It would be nice if the rig was crunching another unit while the first was waiting to be sent.

Yes, SETI Monitor. You can get it here (http://www.itcompagniet.no/setimon/). It's what I use.

[Sir-Epix]

The best and the fastest way to run Seti is under my email addy :) I find that windows 2000 is better than any other Gates OS's. Haven't tried any others but will sooner or later. Using the CLC really helps. I tie it in with a program called Seti Driver, and monitor it with seti spy. To get the most out of your hardware concentrate on RAM times and settings. More Memory bandwidth faster seti goes, for that is were it gets bottlenecked. This deceases work unit times more then higher MHz does. I hope my seti wisdom will be put to good use. Now go and crunchith some units and vanquish those frogs :)

[JigPu]

I believe that linux is supposed to be 10% faster or something. Also, it's optimized for a 586... Quite an upgrade from the 386 binaries that the Windows uses IMO.

About the connection problem, is it set to automaticly connect? If it's not, that is your problem. However, if it is set, then something else has happened... Probably something weird with Berkeley.

JigPu

[e_storm]

Originally posted by eobard


Yes, SETI Monitor. You can get it here (http://www.itcompagniet.no/setimon/). It's what I use.

thanks man...

[eobard]

Originally posted by e_storm


thanks man...

Thanks should go to JigPu, he's the one who told me.

[lennytiger]

i have my iMac running seti don't know how much faster that is all it runs is the screensaver client!!

[BrainLifter]

been using WIN98SE CLC with a queue... only one problem... my ISDN decided it doesn't want to work... so I have 2 WUs done but no where to send them... the proxy at work doesn't allow me to do work on them at work (while the computer is up overnight I might add)

Anyway.... I'm working with K 2.4.13 (my own compile) and I'll see how fast that runs

[eobard]

Originally posted by BrainLifter
been using WIN98SE CLC with a queue... only one problem... my ISDN decided it doesn't want to work...

I had that problem, I solved it by reducing the size of my sig.

[PhoenixMDM]

Originally posted by eobard


I had that problem, I solved it by reducing the size of my sig.

I think you're hinting at something...

I find that Linux does WU's in about half the time of the windows screensaver. I'm moving to windows CLC so more WU's should be coming!

[eobard]

Originally posted by PhoenixMDM


I think you're hinting at something...

And I think you're observant. To hints and observancy! :beer: