hi why is this new client makeing my cpu workload at 100%? The Old SETI client never made CPU load go anywhere near that high.

I just came back,but if there is nothing i can do to decrease the cpu load i might quit again,i dont wont this program frying my CPU.

Is there anything i can do to decrease the cpu load?
i did bring the share thing down from 100 to 10 but doesnt seem to do anything and yes i did hit the update button in the client.

Also why did they go to this client anyway i like the old one better,seemed to work better for me.

One more thing how can i make the graphics not move in the screen saver? keeps wobbling up and down etc. you know like the time screen saver windows has? like that i mean.The way they have the graphics now for the screen saver,to me it dont look scientific/professional anymore looks like a kid did the graphics,no offense.

One more thing anychance to add sound to the data being processed? i know its just noise but to me sounds from space seem interesting,yes i know im a geek but what can i say :)

Thank you inadvance for the help.

---

Wow, that's a lot for one question!

hi why is this new client makeing my cpu workload at 100%? The Old SETI client never made CPU load go anywhere near that high.

I just came back,but if there is nothing i can do to decrease the cpu load i might quit again,i dont wont this program frying my CPU.

Is there anything i can do to decrease the cpu load?
i did bring the share thing down from 100 to 10 but doesnt seem to do anything and yes i did hit the update button in the client.

Well, it's at 100% because that's the way it's designed: to use all your otherwise unused CPU cycles. If your computer runs too hot like this, or if you just don't like the idea of 100% usage, there's software called Threadmaster which is discussed in [rul=http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=18055]this thread[/url]. My box is happy running at 100% but I've seen others that aren't, so it's your call on whether to do something about it or not.

Also why did they go to this client anyway i like the old one better,seemed to work better for me.

It may have worked better for you, but there were problems on the back end that are now solved with the new interface. It's also generating more real data for the scientists, and is more flexible for new projects. The original SETI@Home software was cutting edge for its time, but it needed updating and improving.

One more thing how can i make the graphics not move in the screen saver? keeps wobbling up and down etc. you know like the time screen saver windows has? like that i mean.The way they have the graphics now for the screen saver,to me it dont look scientific/professional anymore looks like a kid did the graphics,no offense.

You can change your preferences to make the graphics act more like the Classic version: Instructions for changing the settings.

One more thing anychance to add sound to the data being processed? i know its just noise but to me sounds from space seem interesting,yes i know im a geek but what can i say :)

That's not in any plans that I've seen, though somebody may have done a third party add-on that I haven't read about.

For loads more information, you can check out the Wiki, which is linked in my signature.

MJ

---

If you want the sounds turn a radio between stations - that will do unless you actually get the WOW signal.

---

BOINC WIKI

"Well, it's at 100% because that's the way it's designed: to use all your otherwise unused CPU cycles."

no offense but ive never heard of a program that did that untill now and there lucky it didnt fry my processor cause they would be oweing me a new one.
seems more like poor programming than anything else.The old client never did this,and shouldnt.

"The original SETI@Home software was cutting edge for its time, but it needed updating and improving."

True it may of needed updateing and improveing but they could of kept it the same,just update it with patches etc. They didnt have to redo something that over all still pretty much did the job.

"You can change your preferences to make the graphics act more like the Classic version: Instructions for changing the settings."

I read the instructions has nothing to do with keeping the stuff from spinning/wobbling in the screen saver.

"Wow, that's a lot for one question!"

what does this have to do with anything? never said it was going to be 1 question in the topic lol.



I used that threadmaster and followed the instructions to the letter.
everything was working fine till the problem below.


The problem:

When i turn off the client and the screen saver,and when i go play any game it does a dance like stop go stop go stop go,etc. I have uninstalled the client and the threadmaster and also got rid of the entry in the registry now everything is fine with games. This client seems very buggy.Threadmaster just made stuff worse,it did decrease the 100% load but more problems creeped up. I have not reinstalled the client,i wont do it till the client is fixed right.


i really miss the old client.






Could some one delete Message 171491 i did by mistake please.

---

---

If you want the sounds turn a radio between stations - that will do unless you actually get the WOW signal.

No smart remarks please. and stay on topic.
i have reported your response as off topic.

---

"Well, it's at 100% because that's the way it's designed: to use all your otherwise unused CPU cycles."

no offense but ive never heard of a program that did that untill now,seems more like poor programming than anything else.The old client never did this,and shouldnt.

The old client ran at Normal priority, so it always took all the CPU cycles it could get.

The Seti science application through Boinc takes the lowest possible priority, even lower than Windows can show. A lot of programs and applications have gone before it using the unused CPU cycles this way.

But hey, since you never heard of it, why not fill in "unused CPU cycles" into Google and tell all those people and programs out there that they are wrong?
UD Agent, Folding@Home, Genome@Home, the old CPDN, the Google Compute toolbar and loads of other projects out there.

"The original SETI@Home software was cutting edge for its time, but it needed updating and improving."

True it may of needed updateing but they could of kept it the same,just update it with patches etc. They didnt have to redo something that over all still pretty much did the job.

And thus they didn't redo it. They started from scratch, building something completely new. The old client was broken, it could not be patched up. The present outfit is getting more data in per work unit. It also gives you the chance to do more projects than just Seti at virtually the same time.

I doubt you are still running Windows 98. Maybe because you wanted some up to date XP version. You're running XP, I see. You're also running an AMD XP2600+ CPU, not the old 486 or Pentium Pro that you probably started with.

So why isn't it right to upgrade this way of distributed computing into the 21st Century? Why would UCB have to keep running the old client, that can't nearly do as much data as the present one can, nor be upgraded in such a way that it can get even more data out of one work unit, such as the upcoming Seti science client can for BOINC?

Just because you don't like change? You changed the whole hardware and OS on your computer...

This client kinda bites seems buggy. I have not reinstalled the client,i wont do it till the client is fixed.

It's by design. Nothing buggy about the client.

Here is an explanation why all your work units were breaking down with the Client Error. But you'll probably blame the client no matter what.

---

no offense but ive never heard of a program that did that untill now,seems more like poor programming than anything else.The old client never did this,and shouldnt.

The whole point of SETI is to use all your spare processor cycles. Thus, your CPU utilization will always be at 100% when SETI is running. Otherwise, it's not really using all your spare cycles. Does that not make logical sense?

This is not poor programming. I'm sorry you've never heard of it before, but since you haven't, shouldn't you check into it before you label it "poor programming"? If you did, you'd find that what we are telling you is correct.


Incidentally, I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the old client never did this, because when I was running the old client, it did. On every machine I had it installed on.

---

no offense but ive never heard of a program that did that untill now,seems more like poor programming than anything else.The old client never did this,and shouldnt.

The whole point of SETI is to use all your spare processor cycles. Thus, your CPU utilization will always be at 100% when SETI is running. Otherwise, it's not really using all your spare cycles. Does that not make logical sense?

This is not poor programming. I'm sorry you've never heard of it before, but since you haven't, shouldn't you check into it before you label it "poor programming"? If you did, you'd find that what we are telling you is correct.


Incidentally, I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the old client never did this, because when I was running the old client, it did. On every machine I had it installed on.

never took 100% the highest it ever went for me was like 30 to 40% no higher. the old client i mean.

---

never took 100% the highest it ever went for me was like 30 to 40% no higher. the old client i mean.

Well, I don't know what to tell you, but my guess is that something was wrong with your old client and/or computer configuration. I can only come to that conclusion because, as I said, it always used up 100% on all my machines, and I know that to be normal because that's the whole point of using all your spare CPU cycles.

[edit]Did you perhaps have other software that wanted your CPUs power and therefore limited SETI Classic to a mere 30-40%?

I ask this because the processor cannot manage it's own time slices (I know this as a computer tech), and therefore any program that requests all the CPU's power (100%) will get it. The program will not ask for all and only get 30%. The only way a program will only get 30% is if it only needs 30% of your power, but this isn't the case with SETI-BOINC or SETI Classic[/edit]

---

never took 100% the highest it ever went for me was like 30 to 40% no higher. the old client i mean.

Well, I don't know what to tell you, but my guess is that something was wrong with your old client and/or computer configuration. I can only come to that conclusion because, as I said, it always used up 100% on all my machines, and I know that to be normal because that's the whole point of using all your spare CPU cycles.

my computer and your computer are 2 different computers,yours may do things different than mine,mine only ever did 30 to 40% load wich in my view was fine.Nothing was wrong with the old client i had it worked great.

---

my computer and your computer are 2 different computers,yours may do things different than mine,mine only ever did 30 to 40% load wich in my view was fine.Nothing was wrong with the old client i had it worked great.

Yes, but architecturally they are the same. The way computers work, overall, are the same. Just because we may have a different processor or video card does not mean they will handle the same program differently. If that was the case, it would be too difficult to program for any computer.

Did you perhaps have other software that wanted your CPUs power and therefore limited SETI Classic to a mere 30-40%?

I ask this because the processor cannot manage it's own time slices (I know this as a computer tech), and therefore any program that requests all the CPU's power (100%) will get it. The program will not ask for all and only get 30%. The only way a program will only get 30% is if it only needs 30% of your power, but this isn't the case with SETI-BOINC or SETI Classic

---

my computer and your computer are 2 different computers,yours may do things different than mine,mine only ever did 30 to 40% load wich in my view was fine.Nothing was wrong with the old client i had it worked great.

Yes, but architecturally they are the same. The way computers work, overall, are the same. Just because we may have a different processor or video card does not mean they will handle the same program differently. If that was the case, it would be too difficult to program for any computer.

Did you perhaps have other software that wanted your CPUs power and therefore limited SETI Classic to a mere 30-40%?

I ask this because the processor cannot manage it's own time slices (I know this as a computer tech), and therefore any program that requests all the CPU's power (100%) will get it. The program will not ask for all and only get 30%. The only way a program will only get 30% is if it only needs 30% of your power, but this isn't the case with SETI-BOINC or SETI Classic

i rechecked it was 100% ignore this part.

---

no offense but ive never heard of a program that did that untill now and there lucky it didnt fry my processor cause they would be oweing me a new one.
seems more like poor programming than anything else.The old client never did this,and shouldnt.

The other posters have told you about the efficient use of your unused CPU cycles. You might also want to read the Rules and Policies page, linked from the home page. It says, in part:

Is it safe to run SETI@home ?

Any time you download a program through the Internet you are taking a chance: the program might have dangerous errors, or the download server might have been hacked. SETI@home has made efforts to minimize these risks. We have tested our applications carefully. Our servers are behind a firewall and are configured for high security. To ensure the integrity of program downloads, all executable files are digitally signed on a secure computer not connected to the Internet.

The applications run by SETI@home may cause some computers to overheat. If this happens, stop running SETI@home or use a utility program that limits CPU usage.

SETI@home was developed by University of California. BOINC was developed at the University of California.

Liability

SETI@home and University of California assume no liability for damage to your computer, loss of data, or any other event or condition that may occur as a result of participating in SETI@home.

I read the instructions has nothing to do with keeping the stuff from spinning/wobbling in the screen saver.

Read again, and look for the settings regarding Oscillation. That's a technical term for "spinning/wobbling".

what does this have to do with anything? never said it was going to be 1 question in the topic lol.

The topic (which you wrote) says "why 100% CPU Usage?". The rest of your questions went off that topic. And by the way, I offset your down check of his answer.

Nothing was wrong with the old client i had it worked great.

Just because it ran without crashing on your computer doesn't mean it worked great. The old system has 50,000,00 work units waiting for validation. It was easy to cheat on. It isn't flexible enough to deal with new data sources, new ways of processing data. And on, and on.

I'll second Ageless's remarks:
I doubt you are still running Windows 98. Maybe because you wanted some up to date XP version. You're running XP, I see. You're also running an AMD XP2600+ CPU, not the old 486 or Pentium Pro that you probably started with.

So why isn't it right to upgrade this way of distributed computing into the 21st Century? Why would UCB have to keep running the old client, that can't nearly do as much data as the present one can, nor be upgraded in such a way that it can get even more data out of one work unit, such as the upcoming Seti science client can for BOINC?

Just because you don't like change? You changed the whole hardware and OS on your computer...

MJ

---

---

i rechecked it was 100% ignore this part.

Fair enough.

Running at 100% is a good thing. If your processor were bad, it would fail soon after being stressed at 100% before long. If your processor can withstand 100% for over a couple days, then you can rest assured your computer is running as it should without defects. As a matter of fact, many people use SETI (including Sun Microsystems - the main contributor to the SETI team) as sort of a stress-testing tool and a benchmarking measurement in the real-world analysis (i.e. how long it takes a system to processor a Work Unit).

There is certainly nothing to worry about it using all your computers CPU power, as long as it gives it back when you need it! ;)

---

---

"SETI@home and University of California assume no liability for damage to your computer, loss of data, or any other event or condition that may occur as a result of participating in SETI@home."

Yes they are,Like i said before i didnt know it did this before i installed the software and ran it after i updated my info etc.

Just because you didn't read the information available to you, doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of knowing it.

what does this have to do with anything? never said it was going to be 1 question in the topic lol.

"The topic (which you wrote) says "why 100% CPU Usage?". The rest of your questions went off that topic. And by the way, I offset your down check of his answer."

Better than makeing 50 different posts isnt it?

"I offset your down check of his answer."

What?? who??

Yes, it is better than starting multiple posts. Until you respond like this. Then, you're applying a double standard and you're going to get called on it.

I never said they didnt have the right not to do anything.

But you did say, in this message

True it may of needed updateing and improveing but they could of kept it the same,just update it with patches etc. They didnt have to redo something that over all still pretty much did the job.

Pretty clear, though you didn't say they don't have the right, that you don't want them to change.
[last edit!]

MJ

---

---

Like i said i never said anything about them not being able to do anything.,what i meant to say so ya understand it better was that they didnt have to rewrite anything or redo anything,they could of(a choice understand now?)updated it and improved it but kept the client the way it was. Ok i will admit it looked better too than the bland baige<sp>?

SP = beige


The reason why they didn't just rewrite SETI Classic is because there were too many problems with both the client and the server software. It pretty much needed to be rewritten from the ground up, built upon the mistakes they made with the first SETI. (It might not have looked like their were any problems to the average person, but to those who wrote it know of the problems it had)

While rewriting it, they decided to give the infrastructure (BOINC) to the entire scientific community so they, too, could take advantage of all the spare CPU power that SETI had the privilege of using. There's so many more science projects that need Petaflops of processing power but do not have the funding to buy super sized servers, hence the idea behind the Distributed Computing initiative.

BIONC was the brain-child of that idea so other projects wouldn't have to write their own entire software client, they could just focus on the executable and the work units.

---