at the moment BOINQ/SETI@HOME runs 4 applications at a time, allocating one to each of my cpu's.
However, i want to finish an astropulse on its own; when i suspended every other application it only ran 25%, basically one cpu only.
So:
how do i set things up so one application uses all 4 cpu's?

---

Unfortunately, it's not set up to do that. No way to break each work unit down into four different parts to use all your CPUs on just the one WU.

---

PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

really?
i have just started word, exel and ie9, one at a time, whilst watching Task Manager. in all three cases all four processors jumped into work.
how come these programmes can do this but not SETI BOINC. Isn't the basic architecture of a PC, motherboard, North/southbridge, bios, op system and everything else, to share out the work and run it as fast as possible?
My partner runs cityville on facebook on here and it uses more than 1 processor.
What,s the difference with SETI BOINC and cityville on facebook?

If Word for windows can chop up its processing needs in to 2 or 3 or 4 chunks which are then allocated to multi-processors to do, why can't SETI BOINC? please note that i accept that one of the processors might be allocated to Windows op system work...but what is all 4 doing?

---

really?
i have just started word, exel and ie9, one at a time, whilst watching Task Manager. in all three cases all four processors jumped into work.

Word and Excel are simple programs that mostly wait for user input. IE9 spawns separate threads for each tab, but once the webpage is loaded, that's it.

Those are simple apps that use multiple threads that the OS can use to spread across multiple processors if available.

Don't assume that because you watch Task Manager and you see Windows automatically spreading the load of multiple threads across multiple cores, that every app can take full advantage of multiple cores.

how come these programmes can do this but not SETI BOINC.

Because of cache coherency and the overhead required to keep all cores up-to-date with all the most accurate information. At this point it is far simpler for a separate process to be spawned for every core and keep the data separate and the overhead down.

Isn't the basic architecture of a PC, motherboard, North/southbridge, bios, op system and everything else, to share out the work and run it as fast as possible?

Actually, no.

The basic architecture of a PC is only as good as the most recent advancements of our technology, and bottlenecks will always be prevalent on many different factors.

This was the very fallacy that many users didn't understand once Symmetric MultiProcessing (SMP) first came about. I had the pleasure of supporting users and helping them understand why their dual- quad- and octo- socket/slot systems did not provide a linear boost in performance for all their applications.

My partner runs cityville on facebook on here and it uses more than 1 processor.
What,s the difference with SETI BOINC and cityville on facebook?

Cityville runs in a browser. A web browser can spawn multiple threads for each tab. Many apps that run in a browser run under Java or a similar API. Each thread, each program can be spawned to a separate thread or can be it's own executable source that spawns its' own threads.

SETI@Home is nothing like these apps that wait for user input. There's no need for multiple threads. Not that it is impossible, but the processing overhead required and the cache coherency required to keep all the information accurate (and not stale), the entire process is actually slower.

If Word for windows can chop up its processing needs in to 2 or 3 or 4 chunks which are then allocated to multi-processors to do, why can't SETI BOINC? please note that i accept that one of the processors might be allocated to Windows op system work...but what is all 4 doing?

Again, Word is a simple input program. It doesn't do anything other than accept user input and inserts it into a digital document. There's no overhead involved with this, and it's not really using multiple cores to their fullest potential.

Most apps on the market today are barely multi-threaded enough to keep CPUs busy. A popular compression program known as WinRAR has only been coded to use up to 2 cores to compress a single batch of files.

Word, Excel, Cityville are all very bad examples, nor are they intensive enough to even be compared to something the scale of what SETI@Home does.

If you want to feel what it's like to run a multi-threaded application under BOINC, attach to the AQUA@Home project. Just don't complain when all your CPUs are taken up by their application and none is running Seti. It cannot do both at the same time!

---

okay.
well i get all that.

i tried aqua and saw that it used all 4 cpu's, QED.

However, would it not help the long running ASTROPULSE tasks to be set up to use more than one cpu?

---

really?
i have just started word, exel and ie9, one at a time, whilst watching Task Manager. in all three cases all four processors jumped into work.

Word and Excel are simple programs that mostly wait for user input. IE9 spawns separate threads for each tab, but once the webpage is loaded, that's it.

Those are simple apps that use multiple threads that the OS can use to spread across multiple processors if available.

Don't assume that because you watch Task Manager and you see Windows automatically spreading the load of multiple threads across multiple cores, that every app can take full advantage of multiple cores.

how come these programmes can do this but not SETI BOINC.

Because of cache coherency and the overhead required to keep all cores up-to-date with all the most accurate information. At this point it is far simpler for a separate process to be spawned for every core and keep the data separate and the overhead down.

Isn't the basic architecture of a PC, motherboard, North/southbridge, bios, op system and everything else, to share out the work and run it as fast as possible?

Actually, no.

The basic architecture of a PC is only as good as the most recent advancements of our technology, and bottlenecks will always be prevalent on many different factors.

This was the very fallacy that many users didn't understand once Symmetric MultiProcessing (SMP) first came about. I had the pleasure of supporting users and helping them understand why their dual- quad- and octo- socket/slot systems did not provide a linear boost in performance for all their applications.

My partner runs cityville on facebook on here and it uses more than 1 processor.
What,s the difference with SETI BOINC and cityville on facebook?

Cityville runs in a browser. A web browser can spawn multiple threads for each tab. Many apps that run in a browser run under Java or a similar API. Each thread, each program can be spawned to a separate thread or can be it's own executable source that spawns its' own threads.

SETI@Home is nothing like these apps that wait for user input. There's no need for multiple threads. Not that it is impossible, but the processing overhead required and the cache coherency required to keep all the information accurate (and not stale), the entire process is actually slower.

If Word for windows can chop up its processing needs in to 2 or 3 or 4 chunks which are then allocated to multi-processors to do, why can't SETI BOINC? please note that i accept that one of the processors might be allocated to Windows op system work...but what is all 4 doing?

Again, Word is a simple input program. It doesn't do anything other than accept user input and inserts it into a digital document. There's no overhead involved with this, and it's not really using multiple cores to their fullest potential.

Most apps on the market today are barely multi-threaded enough to keep CPUs busy. A popular compression program known as WinRAR has only been coded to use up to 2 cores to compress a single batch of files.

Word, Excel, Cityville are all very bad examples, nor are they intensive enough to even be compared to something the scale of what SETI@Home does.

OMG did you fail to read this. Please try again. this question has thoroughly been answered. Asking it again is just frustrating to those trying to explain things to you

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

However, would it not help the long running ASTROPULSE tasks to be set up to use more than one cpu?

no, because:

There's no need for multiple threads [for SETI@Home, AP or MB]. Not that it is impossible, but the processing overhead required and the cache coherency required to keep all the information accurate (and not stale), the entire process is actually slower.

---