From owner-freebsd-chat Mon May 24 19:58:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net (ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net [198.36.160.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEEFD15574 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 19:58:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dpilgrim@uswest.net) Received: (qmail 15071 invoked by alias); 25 May 1999 02:58:43 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG@fixme Received: (qmail 15043 invoked by uid 0); 25 May 1999 02:58:42 -0000 Received: from cdsl201.ptld.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (209.180.170.201) by ptldpop2.ptld.uswest.net with SMTP; 25 May 1999 02:58:42 -0000 Message-ID: <374A11D8.3B34029A@uswest.net> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 19:58:32 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim Organization: Neatly stacked heaps of digital chaos X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mark S. Reichman" Cc: crh@outpost.co.nz, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SETI@home has teams now! References: <19990525023006.9612E1505D@hub.freebsd.org> <374A0FD6.B2162D40@borg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Mark S. Reichman" wrote: > Craig Harding wrote: >> Darren Pilgrim wrote: >>> "Mark S. Reichman" wrote: >>>> I'm there.. My average CPU time per work unit is 25 hours. >>>> Im running a K6-200 FreeBSD 3.2-Stable >>>> Daniel O'connor's is only 10 hrs/work unit. He must have at least >>>> a 300 Mhz machine. >>> >>> A note on FreeBSD's efficiency: My P2-350 spends almost 38 hours per >>> unit when under W98 and that's with nothing else running. The last >>> work unit took my P166 running 3.1R just under 30 hours. That's >>> both disgusting and hilarious. >> >> What I can't figure out yet is the PII - 233 which has so far taken >> 140 hrs to complete 93% of a work unit. It's got 64MB of RAM so it >> shouldn't be slow, and it's running as a screen saver with nothing >> else happening on the machine - obviously this is a windreck machine >> as well. > > I am not windows weenie, but cant you control how much CPU is used > "in the backgroud" on a windows machine? Prolly in Control Panel > somewhere or each process has its own settings. Maybe your background > CPU usage setting is low. I'm taking a guess here. I only play quake > on my Windows machine dont really use it that much There are process priority levels in Win9x. But they doesn't let you limit the amount of CPU time each process uses, just in what order the things should be processed. I'm not sure about NT. On that note, is there are a way a put a limit on the load a process creates under FreeBSD? It would be great if I could leave S@h running all the time under a load limit, then just lift that limit while I'm not using the machine. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message