well though it seems that it is a rather fanciful goal seti does have other benefits. Whenever something interesting pops up (something that they think might be a signal) they tag it and take a look later on. It ain't been a signal from space yet but instead they have found a good load of freaky space phenomanon. The client is basically a program to help analyze data coming into the dish.

I personally am not as cynical as bigjohn, though i am sceptical that aliens are suddenly going to be found. I still think that there is no harm in trying especially since my computer rarely utilizes is processing potential. Also United devices don't have a linux client so windows will have to keep looking for cancer cures.

Alex

Interesting reply. Reason I have seti running on my machines is because the CPU is 99% idle almost all the time for my workstation, and a little less on my servers. If it wasn't crunching numbers for SETI it would be doing absolutely nothing.

I installed SETI as a background service running whenever the computer starts. Since I never notice it is on, I never really pay attention to it. I just look at how many units I have crunched every 100 or so.

If you feel like it is a waste, don't do it. I just wanted to use the wasted CPU cycles for something.

I'm pretty much in the same boat... I have many, many CPU cycles going to waste if I didn't do something with them. Now, I don't subscribe to the idea that there is definitely something out there (although I would like to think there is... it'd be a very lonely universe once we finally get off this planet if we were alone) and that the SETI project will definitely find it, but when sitting on the fence, you can't afford not to help in this small way at least. And I still find that I have some CPU cycles going spare, so I downloaded the Folding client as well. I have to admit that the Biology one are more up my street, but I can't see the harm in running both?

I appreciate that my previous post was the voice of my darker more cynical side, but at least the idea of using idle cpu time to help analyse cancer stuff is, I feel, the best possible use for it! I had actually heard the bit about "SETI" and locating strange astronomical phenomena before. As for the "cancer cure" people not having a linux client, then someone should damn well write one.

I should dearly love to have the knowledge, but as others have said, these forums are for everyone!

It is my misfortune to be part of the "non technical" rabble (as I'm of an age when there was no such thing as the "school computer" - that came in not long after I left.) This results in having to learn everything "IT" the hard way i.e. by myself, and end up being an "encourager" not a "doer" (and yes, as far as linux/IT are concerned, i'm as thick as 10 bog seats nailed together).

In fact, I will suggest the above as a worthwhile project for my local LUG as they have just been on about "what is missing in linux", and as there appears to be a number of vvv knowledgable types at the SLUG who are looking for a pet to nurture, it could be right up their street.

keep up the good work

regards

John

I know the feeling! Beelzebub mentioned, however, that the NT Seti client runs fine under Wine... perhaps the "cancer cure" one does too?

If the "cancer one" is from www.parabon.com, called Pioneer, then there is indeed a Linux version.

Here's a daft question... is there a way to download multiple data sets (for either Seti or Folding) in one instance? It's quite expensive for me to connect to the Internet, so it would be a bonus if I could download lots of datasets when I am online and have my computer crunch through them all whilst I'm offline, and then upload the results at a later date.

There is a program called SetiQueue that holds a cache of work units for users... it downloads a bunch of units at once, lets you crunch them, then uploads them at a later time. The problem is it works only on windows.

I do have a SetiQueue server running, but you would still have to connect to it via the Internet. If you just happened to have a windows box on a LAN you could use it for all the computers on your network.

There are other programs that download caches of workunits for individual workstations, but you have to configure and monitor it for each computer, whereas the SetiQueue server can handle all your networked servers while keeping the work units in a central location.

Try looking on Sourceforge.net for Seti. There are TONS of different programs out there that will do some pretty useful things... such as download work units, display data, etc. I think KSetiSpy will offer everything you are looking for and more

In the Navy, they aren't called MOS, but I think you are talking about my job.

I am a Hospital Corpsman specialized as Pharmacy Technician.

E-4/HM3

Cool

I just wanted to mention this not so surprising piece of information. For a while I had two computers on my LAN that ran SETI. One was a PIII 650 /w Windows ME running the command-line client. The other computer the Linux box (a PII 350) also ran the command-line SETI client (not the WinNT one). The Linux box crunched a unit in about 20-21 hours. The Windows box consistently took above 30 hours. Both run Windowing of some sort. I do admit that the Win box ran constant games but to be smacked by a PII 350 acting as a firewall and a load of other services is a disgrace to Microsoft. (or me I haven't figured it out yet)

Just goes to show you what an OPTIMIZED kernel can do for you.

--tarballedtux

Comparing apples and oranges does't really say much. My windows webserver running Windows 2000 Server crunches work units in about 10-11 hours using a 500 Mhz Pentium III processor. As for your 650 Mhz PIII taking 30 hours to complete a unit, something sounds like it is taking up all the unused CPU cylces, namely your games. Even still, those numbers look like the screen saver numbers. My friend's Linux system running on a Celeron 300A takes about 18-21 hours a work unit without a GUI, and about 22-26 hours when he runs it using GNOME.

I would definitely look at your configuration with your computers if you want to milk out the best work unit times. Seems to me that they are a tad slow.

Here are my averages --
Celeron 300A with 128 MB PC100 RAM
-- Win2K = 18:34
-- Linux = 19:54
-- Linux using Wine = 18:29

PIII 500 w/ 256 PC100 RAM
-- Win2K server = 10:37
-- Linux = 11:37
-- Linux using Wine = 10:30

PIII 866 w/ 256 PC133 RAM
-- Win2K server = 7:15
-- Linux = 8:05
-- Linux using Wine = Haven't tried

AMD Athlon 1700+ @ 142 FSB w/ 256 PC2700 RAM
-- WinXP = 3:43
-- Linux = 4:20
-- Linux using Wine = 3:29

I haven't been crunching that long (since January 29), but I do have over 2000 units crunched, so my sample size is fairly adequate. At the moment I am raking in 16-18 work units per day, depending on if I play games (which take up all cpu cycles, yet do not change the average times since it isn't crunching).