-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
How to read results?
- Thread starter flagreen
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
Assuming you have SetiSpy and using the CLI version.
Open SetiSpy, on the left menu click results, and you'll see a log of all your previous results. If you want to see your current process, click Performance on the menu, check instaneous performance, from there you should be determining how long it's going to take to finish the WU.
Yodums
Open SetiSpy, on the left menu click results, and you'll see a log of all your previous results. If you want to see your current process, click Performance on the menu, check instaneous performance, from there you should be determining how long it's going to take to finish the WU.
Yodums
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
If you have a finished result it's line 18 "cpu" or something like that. Time is listed in seconds. Simply divide by 3600 and you've got it. You can also perform a manual estimate on a unit in progress. Open the state file and multiply the cpu time by 100 and divide by the current progress on the line below, then divide by 3600 and you have it.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
You're welcome, and welcome to the team too 
- Thread Starter
- #6
Thanks TC. What I did was to download the benchmark WU after installing Cli as directed in the sticky thread. I then ran four tests. One with a single WU process, one with two WU processes, one test with three WUs and last but not least, one with four WU processes. Originally I had posted the scores here but have since decided to run the tests over again as I believe I had it set up wrong.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Location
- Mexico City, Mexico
WOW.....look at his sign. He also has a dual Prestonia cores and running them at 2.2 GHz.....WOW we need those comparisons from you and from Tim, so we can drool about them
*****drooling already*****
*****drooling already*****
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2001
- Location
- Mt. Pleasant Pennsylvania
flagreen said:
Sweet welcome to the team.
- Thread Starter
- #9
Thanks for the welcome guys!
Well after further review I decided to go ahead and post the original results I had edited out of my last post above. It turns out they were accurate after all.
The single WU time is not that great. But the real benefit of having two cpus appears to be the ability to process more than one WU at a time even though Seti itself does not appear to be multi-threaded. A further advantage of having the Prestonia Xeons is that they feature Intel's Hyperthreading technology. Windows XP Pro supports Hyperthreading (SMT) and so shows four CPUs in both the Device and Task Managers. When I installed Seti I noticed that Seti Driver listed a maximum of four processes. Anyway what this meant was that if I set the "Desired cache" in Seti Driver to four WUs, Seti would process all four WUs at once. So for benchmarking, I set the "Cache" to 1,2,3,& 4 WUs and copied the Benchmark WU into each of the four folders. I then ran all four tests and got the following results.
3.283 hours for a single WU.
3.589 hours for two WUs.
4.659 hours for three WUs.
5.432 hours for four WUs.
All of the WUs were run concurrently with each test. Obviously the most benefit is received by running four WUs at once as the above time per WU averages out to 1.358 hours per WU. By running four WUs at once, I could if I chose too, process 17+ WUs per day on this one PC. But I will most likely run only two or three at once as running four results in 100% cpu usage.
Anyway, thanks again for the welcome.
Well after further review I decided to go ahead and post the original results I had edited out of my last post above. It turns out they were accurate after all.
The single WU time is not that great. But the real benefit of having two cpus appears to be the ability to process more than one WU at a time even though Seti itself does not appear to be multi-threaded. A further advantage of having the Prestonia Xeons is that they feature Intel's Hyperthreading technology. Windows XP Pro supports Hyperthreading (SMT) and so shows four CPUs in both the Device and Task Managers. When I installed Seti I noticed that Seti Driver listed a maximum of four processes. Anyway what this meant was that if I set the "Desired cache" in Seti Driver to four WUs, Seti would process all four WUs at once. So for benchmarking, I set the "Cache" to 1,2,3,& 4 WUs and copied the Benchmark WU into each of the four folders. I then ran all four tests and got the following results.
3.283 hours for a single WU.
3.589 hours for two WUs.
4.659 hours for three WUs.
5.432 hours for four WUs.
All of the WUs were run concurrently with each test. Obviously the most benefit is received by running four WUs at once as the above time per WU averages out to 1.358 hours per WU. By running four WUs at once, I could if I chose too, process 17+ WUs per day on this one PC. But I will most likely run only two or three at once as running four results in 100% cpu usage.
Anyway, thanks again for the welcome.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Location
- Mexico City, Mexico
As you the 100% usage of the CPU, if you are using a program that assign priority to the processes (like SETIDriver or the NT manager) you can assign a medium or low priority to SETI, so that if someother program of higher priority is run it will grab all the CPU cycles, leaving SETI with only the unused cycles.....
Running 2 processes---->4 WU in 7.178 h
Running 4 processed---->4 WU in 5.432 h
a slowdown from 3.5 h/WU buy and increased production
*****drool*****
Imagine a quad Xeon setup with hyperthread (a 1 GB of L3 memory)
*****drool*****
Running 2 processes---->4 WU in 7.178 h
Running 4 processed---->4 WU in 5.432 h
a slowdown from 3.5 h/WU buy and increased production
*****drool*****
Imagine a quad Xeon setup with hyperthread (a 1 GB of L3 memory)
*****drool*****
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2002
- Location
- Wheaton, IL
flagreen, may I ask about how much this setup costed you?
I'm trying to streamline my farm (haha, I only built it a month
or so ago!) and I'm not sure I like the idea of Dualie AMDs
on the current boards.
Can you break it down for me/us?
I'm trying to streamline my farm (haha, I only built it a month
or so ago!) and I'm not sure I like the idea of Dualie AMDs
on the current boards.
Can you break it down for me/us?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
I've got the same setup except with 2GHz instead of 2.2. I got the board and cpu's in a bundle for $1400 from next international. They also had a 2.2 gig bundle for $1900. You need to use win xp if you're going to take advantage of hyper threading. It is pretty interesting stuff. During post the bios says "Intel Xeon Processor 2GHz - 4 Processors Detected" Windows is also apparently "fooled" into thinking there are 4 physical processors:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2001
- Location
- perth, Australia
*drool*
man thats a sweet setup
17 wu/day is a lotta crunching
man thats a sweet setup
17 wu/day is a lotta crunching
- Thread Starter
- #15
Ok here goes -
Board - I think was about $700. But it has onboard dual channel U160 SCSI 3. You can get a Supermicro P4DCE+ for about $400. It's the same board with out the SCSI.
Xeons - I paid through the *** for the 2.2s. - $793 each. But I got them when they first became available. You can get 2.0s or even 1.8s for far less. 1.8 Prestonias are going for a little over $300 each now. Performance of the 1.8s and 2.0s is pretty darn good.
Tyan and Iwill also make i860 chip set boards. The Iwill DP400 has very recently been available through certain suppliers. Were I to do my system over, I would consider this board closely as it also supports 133 FSB without modification. This will allow it to be used with the Xeons coming out later this year which be 533MHZ FSB vs. the 400MHZ of the current Xeons. The DP400 has no SCSI and sells for about $500.
All the i860 boards are "BX" like in stability and have built in longevity since even the boards such as mine which officially support only 100MHZ FSB can be used with up to 3.0 GHZ Prestonia Xeons which will be coming out in the future as they will be available in both 400MHZ and 533MHZ flavors. The 533MHZ boards will also be able to use PC1066 RDRAM which appears to provide a large improvement in performance over PC800.
Edit - Darn! Two new posts as I was typing this one. I should add that the Iwill board was not available when TC got his system. It is only now available through retailers who build their own systems as an OEM product.
Board - I think was about $700. But it has onboard dual channel U160 SCSI 3. You can get a Supermicro P4DCE+ for about $400. It's the same board with out the SCSI.
Xeons - I paid through the *** for the 2.2s. - $793 each. But I got them when they first became available. You can get 2.0s or even 1.8s for far less. 1.8 Prestonias are going for a little over $300 each now. Performance of the 1.8s and 2.0s is pretty darn good.
Tyan and Iwill also make i860 chip set boards. The Iwill DP400 has very recently been available through certain suppliers. Were I to do my system over, I would consider this board closely as it also supports 133 FSB without modification. This will allow it to be used with the Xeons coming out later this year which be 533MHZ FSB vs. the 400MHZ of the current Xeons. The DP400 has no SCSI and sells for about $500.
All the i860 boards are "BX" like in stability and have built in longevity since even the boards such as mine which officially support only 100MHZ FSB can be used with up to 3.0 GHZ Prestonia Xeons which will be coming out in the future as they will be available in both 400MHZ and 533MHZ flavors. The 533MHZ boards will also be able to use PC1066 RDRAM which appears to provide a large improvement in performance over PC800.
Edit - Darn! Two new posts as I was typing this one. I should add that the Iwill board was not available when TC got his system. It is only now available through retailers who build their own systems as an OEM product.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2001
- Location
- perth, Australia
yeah ive heard alot about that 1066 RDRAM
seems to be pretty quick
*cough* TC *cough*
seems to be pretty quick
*cough* TC *cough*
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2001
- Location
- Denver, CO
Ahem, I must have said something good about itlonewolf1983 said:yeah ive heard alot about that 1066 RDRAM
seems to be pretty quick
*cough* TC *cough*
