work units sent don't add up!
george a.
was wondering how some people can have ~3000 work units sent with
~15hr/work unit times? This would be 15*3000=45000 or 45000/24=1800
days?? I must be missing something. If they are using multiple computers
then this should also be listed, and ~5-1/2 months (~168 days) since
seti was released (publicly) 1800/168=10.7 computers! Seems like one
person is taking allot of credit for there group. If it is a group it
should be listed that way!
Uray
Mike Riley <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
news:IILT3.38814$Q6.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Just because a person has several computers working, does not mean that he
> has a group of people working. For example, I have two computers at home
> and one at work. All three of these computers are 'mine' and I am the one
> who oversees the work done on each (before S@H the second one at home was
> only used for multiplayer gaming). I'm sure there are also IS managers
who
> have a number of company servers they use for SETI@home during off-hours.
>
> I don't have a problem with listing the number of computers that are
working
> for each person (in fact, I think that would be an interesting stat to
have,
> along with rankings showing how I compare to other people using the same
> number of systems); however, this is more than we can reasonably expect
from
> the people running this project as they have far more important things
with
> which to concern themselves.
That wouldn't work to well, many people run it on a "variable" number of
machines. I've run it on as few as one and as many as eleven. Right now
it's chugging away on eight. So what would my "system count" be?
Besides, to track that would mean gathering more data on users machines, and
that could get them into a privacy problem.
Uray
Mike Riley
has a group of people working. For example, I have two computers at home
and one at work. All three of these computers are 'mine' and I am the one
who oversees the work done on each (before S@H the second one at home was
only used for multiplayer gaming). I'm sure there are also IS managers who
have a number of company servers they use for SETI@home during off-hours.
I don't have a problem with listing the number of computers that are working
for each person (in fact, I think that would be an interesting stat to have,
along with rankings showing how I compare to other people using the same
number of systems); however, this is more than we can reasonably expect from
the people running this project as they have far more important things with
which to concern themselves.
Perhaps we would all be better off if S@H got rid of all the statistical
reports and rankings. Afterall, how many of us joined up and started
running the software for the stats? Isn't the science what we should
concern ourselves with?
-MRiley *
george a. <tec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:381F68CD...@yahoo.com...
Stefan Bauer
>
> Mike Riley <michae...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:IILT3.38814$Q6.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> > has a group of people working. For example, I have two computers at home
> > and one at work. All three of these computers are 'mine' and I am the one
> > who oversees the work done on each (before S@H the second one at home was
> > only used for multiplayer gaming). I'm sure there are also IS managers
> who
> > have a number of company servers they use for SETI@home during off-hours.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with listing the number of computers that are
> working
> > for each person (in fact, I think that would be an interesting stat to
> have,
> > along with rankings showing how I compare to other people using the same
> > number of systems); however, this is more than we can reasonably expect
> from
> > the people running this project as they have far more important things
> with
> > which to concern themselves.
>
> machines. I've run it on as few as one and as many as eleven. Right now
> it's chugging away on eight.
Same for me. I was running up to 5 clients (UnixWare 7, linux, Win95/98
GUI), but at the moment I can't get more than 2 running (UnixWare 7, Win
95).
> So what would my "system count" be?
Just a suggestion: S@H has the date, when a user got his account. So
they could add a "statistical field" with CPU time divided by the time
since signing up. This would at least give a feeling of how many CPUs a
user would use in average.
> Besides, to track that would mean gathering more data on users machines, and
> that could get them into a privacy problem.
>
--
Stefan Bauer
Uray
Stefan Bauer <sba...@wb-lorenz.de> wrote in message
news:382072C3...@wb-lorenz.de...
It might be an interesting statistic, but CPU count isn't the only factor
that would influence it. The time SETI is running on each machine would
matter as well. I could have one machine running for 24 hours, or I could
have 24 machines than only ran it for an hour each. Both situations would
give me 24 CPU hours of SETI per day.
Uray
Jan Boelsma
I have completed 761 WU's and the elapsed time since signing up to the S@H
project is 3480 hr 34 min 43 sec.
My total CPU time is 14805 hr 26 min 17.2 sec.
That means I have 4.25 CPU's running full time and process 178.9 WU's per
CPU.
An even better method is when client, CPU-type and OS are also considered
(CPU clock and FSB frequenty, cache(s), RAM).
Gr. Jan