• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Do these times look right?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

hitbyaprkedcar7

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Location
Barnegat, NJ



Look at the linux7 on the left, the black box.

Its a 2.4ghz P4 running linux, with forceasm advmethods and verbosity 9

Iv had these WU's before and it doesnt take nearly 6 hours a damn frame!!!

Have had one of these units before, and it took a long time, but not 6 hours a frame.

Running it in the background via "nohup ./FAH504-Linux.exe -verbosity 9 -forceasm -advmethods &" and then using "tail -f nohup.out" to follow it
 
Holey crapo, I must be doing this math thing wrong. On the left (white letters on a black background) I get about 15 mins per frame and on the right(black letters on a white background) I get about 9 mins per frame. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG????? I need help BAD!!!!!!
 
@ jws

There are a lot of 15 minutes checkpoints per frame.

@hit

Depending on how many checkpoints occurred prior to the restart, It may be running about half as fast as it should. Two instances running? Something else eating cycles?

Folks on dialup aren't going to be thrilled when they hit this thread. Could you perhaps edit your post to just the text of the log?

How many checkpoints did it make before it was restarted? From what you've posted, we don't really know how long a frame takes.
 
@Matt, re: the wu shown in the terminal- you could stop it then run -config again and choose 30 mins for checkpoints. The logfile for the different wu(on the right) looks normal.

Why are you trying to run the wu in the backround with the nohup command ? Are you using the machine heavily, and trying to keep up the production?
 
Thanks ChasR for putting up with us "noobs" asking rather dumb questions (talk about putting finger into action without engaging brain), what confused me was all the checkpoints. I was just subtracting one from the other and not paying attention to the fact it wasn't a complete frame. D'oh :shrug:
 
Well, stupid me forgot to kill some of the processes and had like 6 fah clients running! :doh fixed it now. Sorrry about the large image, i thought i told imageshack to downsize it

As for the nohup, how else could i run it in the background? This linux box is also a webserver for a few websites....
 
hitbyaprkedcar7 said:
As for the nohup, how else could i run it in the background? This linux box is also a webserver for a few websites....

I'm just curious why it needs to run in the "background", or what is meant by background, in this instance. Would it be the same to just run as a service?
 
ihrsetrdr said:
I'm just curious why it needs to run in the "background", or what is meant by background, in this instance. Would it be the same to just run as a service?


Its on a linux server machine, running Red Hat Server, i think. Only way to access the machine is via SSH, so using the nohup lets the client run in the "background" so i can do other stuff with the SSH, and keeps it running while im logged out of the machine. Its more so me minimizing the client in a desktop environment, me thinks. Not sure what/how it does/work, all i know is it does :) lol
 
hitbyaprkedcar7 said:
Its on a linux server machine, running Red Hat Server, i think. Only way to access the machine is via SSH, so using the nohup lets the client run in the "background" so i can do other stuff with the SSH, and keeps it running while im logged out of the machine. Its more so me minimizing the client in a desktop environment, me thinks. Not sure what/how it does/work, all i know is it does :) lol

Interesting...:) I just use VNC for remotes, but that's on a home network . I did use PuTTY for a while to remote in when I was running unhappy_mage's Foldix. It's my understanding that ssh is much more secure, but for a LAN I wouldn't think it would matter, when behind a NAT router.
 
ihrsetrdr said:
Interesting...:) I just use VNC for remotes, but that's on a home network . I did use PuTTY for a while to remote in when I was running unhappy_mage's Foldix. It's my understanding that ssh is much more secure, but for a LAN I wouldn't think it would matter, when behind a NAT router.

That's right... just remember to keep the proper ports closed kids. ;)
 
ihrsetrdr said:
Interesting...:) I just use VNC for remotes, but that's on a home network . I did use PuTTY for a while to remote in when I was running unhappy_mage's Foldix. It's my understanding that ssh is much more secure, but for a LAN I wouldn't think it would matter, when behind a NAT router.


Ohh but its not on my lan, its in an office building a few miles away, on my domain. linux7.*********.com :) Plus, it will only accept SSH login's from my home IP address, so its safe
 
hitbyaprkedcar7 said:
Ohh but its not on my lan, its in an office building a few miles away, on my domain. linux7.*********.com :) Plus, it will only accept SSH login's from my home IP address, so its safe

I figured that it was business related- Redhat is cool, but not sexy. ;)
 
Back