Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:00:14 +1200 From: "Craig Harding" <crh@outpost.co.nz> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: jabley@clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Seti project / stats reset, new version available Message-ID: <19990516230039.6F72614C96@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <bulk.38113.19990515165424@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> wrote:
> I compiled the 1.1 client for FreeBSD3.1 -- what seems to be the
> problem with it? [It seemed to work ok for me, but I admit I didn't
> test it very exhaustively].
I'm running it on a P166 box running 3.1, and it's running quite
happily.
As an aside:
I noticed on the seti@home page, in the top user and machine states,
there are machines supposedly running i386 architectures, under
Windows NT, getting 9minutes of CPU time per work unit. As I
understand it, the seti@home clients report the CPU time per running
process and the recorded stats average across the multiple processes,
so N multiple machines under a single email address will not simply
result in an apparent CPU time per work unit of
actual_time_per_work_unit/N. With that in mind, what the hell are
these i386 based machines that achieve a CPU speed two orders of
magnitude greater than my P166? (and my Win96 Celeron 416MHz for
that matter).
Followups set to freebsd-chat.
-- C.
--
Craig Harding Head of Postproduction, Outpost Digital Media Ltd
"I don't know about God, I just think we're handmade" - Polly
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990516230039.6F72614C96>