Boinc/Seti needs always one hour longer as seti-classic to crunch 1 workunit.
Is this normal???

Sorry for my poor english. i will braining(!?) me ;-)

> Boinc/Seti needs always one hour longer as seti-classic to crunch 1 workunit.
> Is this normal???
>
> Sorry for my poor english. i will braining(!?) me ;-)
>
>

WU sizes are not the same BOINC S@H units are bigger and/or more work is done on them (this was never cleared up thatI know of) but regardless, yes its normal for them to take longer.

Really? On Classic it took 7 hours on my machine, and now with bionc it takes just over 4.

How about others. Does it take longer or shorter? :)

> Really? On Classic it took 7 hours on my machine, and now with bionc it takes
> just over 4.
>
> How about others. Does it take longer or shorter? :)
>
>

Longer for me on all machines I have it running on.

>Really? On Classic it took 7 hours on my machine, and now with bionc it takes >just over 4.
>
>How about others. Does it take longer or shorter? :)
>

The graphical client of seti-classic takes 7 hours on my machine too.
Use the command line client instead.

The current BOINC-seti-wu is the same size as in "classic", and the same calculations should be done on them and give the same answers.

Speed-wise the BOINC-version seems under windows comparable to cli-v3.08, and this is roughtly 10% slower than v3.03. The same variations based on AR is still apparent in the BOINC-version, but not sure if ever had a VLAR in BOINC... Anyway, v3.08 was great on VLAR so this is probably true under BOINC also.

Here

Classic SETI 3.08 cmdline.exe = 5 hours
Boinc SETI 3.08 GUI = 6 hours

>The current BOINC-seti-wu is the same size as in "classic", and the same >calculations should be done on them and give the same answers.
>
>Speed-wise the BOINC-version seems under windows comparable to cli-v3.08, and >this is roughtly 10% slower than v3.03. The same variations based on AR is >still apparent in the BOINC-version, but not sure if ever had a VLAR in >BOINC... Anyway, v3.08 was great on VLAR so this is probably true under BOINC >also.
>

if the size of the wus are the same and also the same calculations would be done, why boinc needs always 1 hour longer?
in seti-classic, the angle rangle varied between 0.4 and 8.0 or higher.
but it tooked never over 4 hours. (4 hours was the maximum with an angle range of 0.4). boinc tooks over 4.5 hours (this is the minimum).
are they really the same???

Well, some has mentioned it looks like some of the calculations is done in a different order, but atleast all comments has seen is the science-part is the same so the result should be the same... As for wu-size, the only difference is a larger header...

As for why v3.08 is roughtly 10% slower than v3.03, no idea, but the same reason is probably showing up in the BOINC-client...

Personally it's too long since run v3.08, so can't directly compare with the BOINC-version, but the slowest box is 10% slower compared to v3.03 atleast...

The other machines is worse off memory/multiplier-wise, so actually is a little slower than 10% compared to v3.03...

No idea if different windows-versions plays a part here, and have absolutely no idea if linux is terribly slow under BOINC...


Oh, and currently all seti-wu is the same, with only the normal AR-differences so...

when i was running classic 3.08 my wus finished between 3.25 and 4.25 hours
with boinc it's exactly the same...
maybe all these people who are noticing a difference were running 3.03...

One of my systems that has recently run both classic 3.08 and boinc\seti 4.03 was also returning results in about the same amount of time, 3 to 3-3/4 hours.

<FONT face="Courier New"> </FONT>

boinc is running about a hr faster than classic for me
[url=http://usa.duane-n-lisa.net]

I have Boinc running faster than the classic Seti 3.08. I put this down to the fact that as I run 24x7 I have set my profile to wait 300 secs before writing to disk. I may "loose" 5 minutes when I shut down but this is more than made up by running longer before taking a restore point.
<font face="Edwardian Script ITC">Mel</font>

>when i was running classic 3.08 my wus finished between 3.25 and 4.25 hours
>with boinc it's exactly the same...
>maybe all these people who are noticing a difference were running 3.03...

seti-classic cli 3.08!!! is running about 1 hour faster than boinc on my machine.

> As for why v3.08 is roughtly 10% slower than v3.03, no idea, but the same
> reason is probably showing up in the BOINC-client...

Other reasons for the differences include the newer compiler, different options settings on the compiler, and the newer version is running on BOINC which is an Object Oriented beast.

Your Mileage May Vary...

One thing I didn't see mentioned that affects run times is which tab the GUI is left in when it is closed. If it is left in the disk or work tab it will slow down processing dramatically because those 2 tabs require frequent updateing (BOINC steals CPU time from the apps) and they can interupt the applications to retrieve data. The messages tab and the projects tab seem to be the best tabs to leave the GUI on when it is shut down.

John Keck -- BOINCing since 2002/12/08 --

> seti-classic cli 3.08!!! is running about 1 hour faster than boinc on my
> machine.

Same here. I have also notice that my CPU run 3°C cooler on BOINC

Hello
I was doing seti classic 3.01 wu's around 2 hours and 45 mins.Boinc 4.05 I am running two wu's at once and they are doing in around 3 hours 20 mins for two.So about 1 hour and 40 mins per wu.

> Hello
> I was doing seti classic 3.01 wu's around 2 hours and 45 mins.Boinc 4.05 I am
> running two wu's at once and they are doing in around 3 hours 20 mins for
> two.So about 1 hour and 40 mins per wu.
>
>

Sorry that classic time was for the screensaver.The 3.01 I was doing about 15 wu's a day, so about the same times.One hour 40-45 mins per unit.