My 486 (Please Don't Laugh)

Message boards : Number crunching : My 486 (Please Don't Laugh)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Purple Rabbit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 49
Credit: 5,820,832
RAC: 3
United States
Message 187795 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:12:22 UTC
Last modified: 11 Nov 2005, 7:19:14 UTC

With the imminent demise of SETI Classic and the concern about what old machines can do I'd like to report that my 486 runs BOINC just fine. My 486 (Dinosaur) is able to run a SETI Classic work unit to a successful completion in 11 to 13 days. Running a SETI BOINC WU is very similar.

Now this isn't just any 486. It was originally a 486-DX66, but it's been upgraded to an AMD 586-133 (super 486 running faster with a Pentium rating of 58). Dinosaur has 64MB of RAM, but it reports 96MB. I think its reporting of 96 MB is important to get around the 64MB restriction for SETI. This is some weird motherboard thing, but I'm not complaining.

I have found that I can run SETI and Predictor on Dinosaur. Predictor WUs take about 4 days (one hour on my 3.4 GHz P4). Of course I do each project one at a time.

Before someone asks why, it's because it's there! I bought the darn thing in 1993 and I wanted it to do something useful. It may be trash, but it can really do some useful work.

A question: Dinosaur is currently running Win98 SE. What's the latest LINUX distribution that supports such an ancient machine? I'm running SuSE 10.0 on my "real" machines and there is no way this will run on Dinosaur. I've got SuSE 5.3 (kernel 2.0.35) in a box, but this seems really old.
ID: 187795 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187797 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:33:38 UTC - in response to Message 187795.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2005, 7:47:30 UTC

Hi!
I was very happy to see your posting, and I'm not laughing at all!
Some time ago I posted a challenge to see how small hardware you could use for SETI crunching.
I got so excited over the feedback that I tried to revive my old 486, 80MHz, 64MB RAM, by putting a Linux distro on it.

Until now without any luck, the trouble is that the standard BOINC client times out while doing CPU benchmarks. So I've tried to compile a 486-optimized BOINC client(!), also with no luck: If I compile it on my Celeron system, my 486 can't execute it, it complains about a missing libstd6 or something, and if I compile it on my 486 system, I get an internal compiler error...

The distros I've tried have been
DSL 1.4, which is Debian based, and
The latest Debian Stable

I'm considering trying the Slackware distro, since it's also announced to support 486 systems.

I think we should keep each other informed about our progress - I'll post my experiences here in this forum.

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187797 · Report as offensive
Profile Legacy
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 134
Credit: 1,778,571
RAC: 0
Singapore
Message 187798 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:37:39 UTC

11-13 days for ONE workunit? I real waste of electricity!!
ID: 187798 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187799 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:41:30 UTC - in response to Message 187798.  

11-13 days for ONE workunit? I real waste of electricity!!


No.

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187799 · Report as offensive
Profile Lee Carre
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 00
Posts: 1459
Credit: 58,485
RAC: 0
Channel Islands
Message 187800 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:41:38 UTC - in response to Message 187798.  

11-13 days for ONE workunit? I real waste of electricity!!


what would you rather have it do?
ID: 187800 · Report as offensive
Profile Lee Carre
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 00
Posts: 1459
Credit: 58,485
RAC: 0
Channel Islands
Message 187801 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 187797.  

The latest [url=http://www.debian.org/]Debian[url] Stable


Martin, might wanna edit your post while you still can to stick in that missing /
;)
ID: 187801 · Report as offensive
Profile Purple Rabbit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 49
Credit: 5,820,832
RAC: 3
United States
Message 187802 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:46:48 UTC - in response to Message 187797.  

Hi!
I was very happy to see your posting, and I'm not laughing at all!

<snip>

I think we should keep each other informed about our progress - I'll post my experiences here in this forum.


@Martin I certainly will keep you advised. I'm a real newbie to Linux so I haven't tried compiling anything yet. I'm a retired engineer, but I'm a hardware guy! This Linux stuff is new to me. I'll take the plunge soon. That's the whole point, I want to learn.
ID: 187802 · Report as offensive
Profile Purple Rabbit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 49
Credit: 5,820,832
RAC: 3
United States
Message 187803 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 7:52:16 UTC - in response to Message 187798.  

11-13 days for ONE work unit? I real waste of electricity!!

Electricity is relative. I recently (last 9 months) got two more P4 computers. My electric bill has doubled since then. Dinosaur is a pimple on the elephant. It's a harmless endevour :-)
ID: 187803 · Report as offensive
Metod, S56RKO
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 309
Credit: 113,221,277
RAC: 9
Slovenia
Message 187811 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 9:19:14 UTC - in response to Message 187797.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2005, 9:19:45 UTC

Until now without any luck, the trouble is that the standard BOINC client times out while doing CPU benchmarks. So I've tried to compile a 486-optimized BOINC client(!), also with no luck: If I compile it on my Celeron system, my 486 can't execute it, it complains about a missing libstd6 or something, and if I compile it on my 486 system, I get an internal compiler error...


Martin,

I'd be quite interested if my generic BOINC client (you can get it here) runs on your 486. I didn't use any speciffic compiler switch to enable only Pentium or whatever instructions, so in principle it should run even on 386. But one never knows. And it is statically linked, so it shouldn't rely on shared libraries of any particular version.

Metod ...
ID: 187811 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187816 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 9:50:59 UTC - in response to Message 187811.  


Martin,

I'd be quite interested if my generic BOINC client (you can get it here) runs on your 486. I didn't use any speciffic compiler switch to enable only Pentium or whatever instructions, so in principle it should run even on 386. But one never knows. And it is statically linked, so it shouldn't rely on shared libraries of any particular version.


Great! Thanks!
I'll try it out as soon as possible.

If you're interested, I'll post some benchmark results like the ones you provide on your site. Provided I have any success, of course...

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187816 · Report as offensive
Metod, S56RKO
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 02
Posts: 309
Credit: 113,221,277
RAC: 9
Slovenia
Message 187817 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 10:10:12 UTC - in response to Message 187816.  

If you're interested, I'll post some benchmark results like the ones you provide on your site. Provided I have any success, of course...


That would be great. Especially if you would manage to run official BOINC CC (in benchmark-only mode would do) to have a couple of numbers to compare ...
Metod ...
ID: 187817 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187820 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 10:38:44 UTC - in response to Message 187817.  


That would be great. Especially if you would manage to run official BOINC CC (in benchmark-only mode would do) to have a couple of numbers to compare ...


Well, like I mentioned earlier, the official BOINC client timed out when I tried to run the CPU benchmarks.

So, at least for now, the benchmarks are "timed out" or whatever you could call it.

That being said, I think my system was running some unnecessary daemons while doing this benchmark, and I also installed it with the ext3 filesystem type, which I've read somewhere, is a bad idea on older/slower systems. But I don't know if it's only disk I/O, CPU usage, or both that are affected by that choice...

So I hope to install a minimal crunching-only Linux system in the near future, running with ext2 filesystem and no unnecessary daemons. Maybe then I will be able to complete a CPU benchmark. After all, it must be within the reach of my 486, since Purple Rabbits 586 system obviously must have pulled a benchmark through(?)

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187820 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187825 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 10:52:24 UTC - in response to Message 187801.  

The latest [url=http://www.debian.org/]Debian[url] Stable


Martin, might wanna edit your post while you still can to stick in that missing /
;)


Thanks and done!

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187825 · Report as offensive
Profile Legacy
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 134
Credit: 1,778,571
RAC: 0
Singapore
Message 187827 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 11:00:26 UTC - in response to Message 187799.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2005, 11:02:25 UTC

11-13 days for ONE workunit? I real waste of electricity!!


No.


Let's say a new Pentium 4 consumes 200 watts of power (without monitor) and finishes 2 workunits in 2 hours (with HT on). It cost 200 watthours per workunit.

And a 486 running at 20 watts (rough estimate). It takes 11 days to complete a workunit. That's 11x24x20=5280 watthours per workunit.

So why is it not a waste of power to use a 486 to crunch?
ID: 187827 · Report as offensive
Profile Legacy
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 134
Credit: 1,778,571
RAC: 0
Singapore
Message 187829 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 11:01:14 UTC - in response to Message 187827.  
Last modified: 11 Nov 2005, 11:02:48 UTC


ID: 187829 · Report as offensive
Ned Slider

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 01
Posts: 668
Credit: 4,375,315
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 187835 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 11:57:30 UTC - in response to Message 187827.  

11-13 days for ONE workunit? I real waste of electricity!!


No.


Let's say a new Pentium 4 consumes 200 watts of power (without monitor) and finishes 2 workunits in 2 hours (with HT on). It cost 200 watthours per workunit.

And a 486 running at 20 watts (rough estimate). It takes 11 days to complete a workunit. That's 11x24x20=5280 watthours per workunit.

So why is it not a waste of power to use a 486 to crunch?


Because the 486 might be on anyway doing other things - like being a firewall or router than doesn't need a whole lot of processing power. So if it's running 24/7 anyway, why not crunch on it too?

Ned

*** My Guide to Compiling Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients ***
*** Download Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients for Linux Here ***
ID: 187835 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187837 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 12:01:02 UTC - in response to Message 187827.  


So why is it not a waste of power to use a 486 to crunch?


Because we do it for fun, not for speed, efficiency or glory.

You could also say that lighting a cristmas tree is waste of electricity. And that's perfectly OK, but if I do it, and I'm willing to pay for that electricity, and it bears a value for me to look at that lighted christmas tree, then I will not feel it's a waste of electricity - and then it isn't, at least for me.

Same argument goes with
- running a marathon (take a bus!)
- drinking beer (snaps has a higher alcohol-percentage!)
- playing World of Warcraft (waste of time and electricity, you should sweep your floor and have your computer do something useful, like crunching SETI WU's!)

Luckily there is lots of room to disagree here - I would never try to convince you to crunch on a 486 if you don't see the fun in trying to do it, because then it actually would be a waste. Therefore I hope you will leave room for us to crunch on our 486's as long as we pay our own electricity bill (which I actually do).

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187837 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 187839 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 12:04:59 UTC

Ok, then let's assume he already owns his 486, but not a P4 w/ht. he must then purchase a P4. We must figure the cost of that into the $/result calculation.

Let's assume a 5 year lifespan for a computer and set the price at $1000 USD for this fictional machine/example. Let's also assume a one hour/result completion average. OK there's 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year (excluding leap year), so 24 X 365=8760 results/year X 5 year lifespan=43800 Results/puter lifespan. divide $1000 by 43800 results = 2.28311 cents/result.

I know my P3-500 drew 104 watts (100%seti load, 80 watts no load)w/o monitor, so my guess for the 486 would be closer to 50/60 watts. let's use 60. 60 watts x (12 days x 24 hours)288 hours=17280 watts or 17.28 KWH X 10 cent/KWH = $1.728 dollars/result.

With the 200 watt system we get. 200 watts is .2 KWH times $.10/KWH or 2 cents/wu.

Summary:

486, no additional equipment outlay, $1.73/result
P4, 2.283 cents/result (equipment cost) + 2 cents/result electricity = 4.283 cents/result.
ID: 187839 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 187849 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 13:11:56 UTC - in response to Message 187839.  

Ok, then let's assume he already owns his 486, but not a P4 w/ht. he must then purchase a P4. We must figure the cost of that into the $/result calculation.

Let's assume a 5 year lifespan for a computer and set the price at $1000 USD for this fictional machine/example. Let's also assume a one hour/result completion average. OK there's 24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year (excluding leap year), so 24 X 365=8760 results/year X 5 year lifespan=43800 Results/puter lifespan. divide $1000 by 43800 results = 2.28311 cents/result.

I know my P3-500 drew 104 watts (100%seti load, 80 watts no load)w/o monitor, so my guess for the 486 would be closer to 50/60 watts. let's use 60. 60 watts x (12 days x 24 hours)288 hours=17280 watts or 17.28 KWH X 10 cent/KWH = $1.728 dollars/result.

With the 200 watt system we get. 200 watts is .2 KWH times $.10/KWH or 2 cents/wu.

Summary:

486, no additional equipment outlay, $1.73/result
P4, 2.283 cents/result (equipment cost) + 2 cents/result electricity = 4.283 cents/result.



But Tony, the currency here is not "results" but "credits". So you'll have to make a credits based analysis. And in order to do that, you'll have to have a large population of results crunched by 486 based systems to derive accurate mean and standard deviation. So in order to provide you with that, we now must crunch a lot of WU's on 486's in order to provide you with a reliable base of data for your calculations.

So now we're not even doing it just for fun anymore, now it's actual economic science.

Thanks, Tony ;-)

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 187849 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 187851 - Posted: 11 Nov 2005, 13:23:47 UTC - in response to Message 187849.  

So in order to provide you with that, we now must crunch a lot of WU's on 486's in order to provide you with a reliable base of data for your calculations.

Seems right to me. I'll bookmark this thread and we'll start it back up in a year or two once you get enough results.

LOL
ID: 187851 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : My 486 (Please Don't Laugh)


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.