| Info | Message |
|---|---|
| 1) Message boards : BOINC client : Request: Add'l Multiprocessor Settings
Message 3523 Posted 16 Mar 2006 by wumpus |
What is wrong with using the settings for using the computer only when idle? Are you having any specific problems you can explain? Why do you want this? |
| 2) Message boards : BOINC client : new client for sparc-solaris
Message 3389 Posted 7 Mar 2006 by wumpus |
It is rock solid on my Sunblade 100 also. I think he plays with the boinc setup and over manages it instead of just letting it run. |
| 3) Message boards : BOINC client : Clustering or Single Systems?
Message 3296 Posted 2 Mar 2006 by wumpus |
Running on each is best. |
| 4) Message boards : BOINC Manager : multi-core processors?
Message 3104 Posted 16 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
I don't think Windows is really counting it as 4. That's why I am wondering what will happen with 2 true, dual core chips. The task manager counts the HT but when you watch the processor usage it doesn't match on some tasks. I was just accessing a CD and moving data files with a 2.8 P4 and it was showing 50% in the graph but in the listing, 96% idle. When Microsoft say Xp is for up to two processors, do they count cores or physical chips? |
| 5) Message boards : BOINC Manager : multi-core processors?
Message 3094 Posted 15 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
What happens if you run two dual core AMD processors? HT isn't really a second processor. I can't find information on Microsoft about if they are using cores or physical processors in the computation. |
| 6) Message boards : BOINC client : Resolving Computer Hostname
Message 3059 Posted 14 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
All the Media States say Media disconneccted. |
| 7) Message boards : BOINC Manager : multi-core processors?
Message 3053 Posted 14 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
I think it will also be held back by the OS. If you had Windows XP Pro on a workstation with two dual core processors, only two 'processors' would get used because of OS limits. |
| 8) Message boards : BOINC client : Linux vs. Windows benchmark stats Feb. 2006
Message 3049 Posted 14 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
It is funny you have them sorted by the Windows column and the Celeron is doing better than a lot of the other chips. I think you need to break apart the FPiops and the Iops and compare separately. If you sort by Linux, the order looks better. If the method you used is sound, I would have to wonder about the validity of the benchmarks in Windows. I was playing the stats too but just SPARC/Solaris and there aren't enough to make a good conclusion on but the benchmarks look funny there too. I was looking at the comparison of a Sunblade 100 500 Mhz to a Sunfire 2500 1.2 Ghz and the SPEC benchmarks. I expected a lot more of a difference between the models but it doesn't show in the Boinc benchmarks. |
| 9) Message boards : BOINC client : 5.2.13 - Low benchmark results on linux 64bit, Intel platform
Message 3046 Posted 13 Feb 2006 by wumpus |
I see this on Solaris/SPARC benchmarks too on E@H. Even comparing just the Solaris/ SPARC machines to one another seems funny. I would expect a 500Mhz Sunblade 100 to be way behind a Sunfire 2500 with a 1.2 Ghz US IIIi in Floating Point. According to the benchmark, it about 1/2 as fast where according to spec.org, it is about 1/5. Either that GCC is really bad compared to the Windows /Intel one. |
Copyright © 2026 University of California.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.