....So why do Lunatics now?

Because you'll get to use the optimised CPU apps instead of using the slower stock CPU apps. ;-)

Cheers.

And I just noticed "8.19" WUs on my stock machine.

Anyone running stock with a modest cache, so I can check the returned stderr before completing work on the next Lunatics installer?

....So why do Lunatics now?

Because you'll get to use the optimised CPU apps instead of using the slower stock CPU apps. ;-)

Cheers.

Well, no, at least not now, as "8.19" appears to be the latest SoG from Beta(???).

---

And I just noticed "8.19" WUs on my stock machine.

Anyone running stock with a modest cache, so I can check the returned stderr before completing work on the next Lunatics installer?

Richard, I just reset a computer to stock and have started to download 8.19 on to it. No modification or commandlines. Should start to have results in 5 minutes

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=8049350

---

....So why do Lunatics now?

Because you'll get to use the optimised CPU apps instead of using the slower stock CPU apps. ;-)

Cheers.

Well, no, at least not now, as "8.19" appears to be the latest SoG from Beta(???).

8.19 is now the new normal for Main as it has finished testing on Beta and Eric has moved it to Main.

Richard will decide if and when to include it into the next version of Lunatics installer

---

....So why do Lunatics now?

Because you'll get to use the optimised CPU apps instead of using the slower stock CPU apps. ;-)

Cheers.

Well, no, at least not now, as "8.19" appears to be the latest SoG from Beta(???).

Have you completed any yet, so I can check that from the revision number printed in stderr_txt?

Lunatics will be updated soon, sooner if I can get answers to questions like that (but not instantly - there's a lot of other checking to do before the process is complete). Ah - thanks Zalster, that'll speed things up.

Wiggo was pointing out that Lunatics CPU apps are faster than stock - nothing to do with SoG or other graphics coprocessor apps.

v8.19 is indeed r3528 - confirmed. A shower and more coffee, then I'll get cracking.

....So why do Lunatics now?

Because you'll get to use the optimised CPU apps instead of using the slower stock CPU apps. ;-)

Cheers.

Well, no, at least not now, as "8.19" appears to be the latest SoG from Beta(???).

Have you completed any yet, so I can check that from the revision number printed in stderr_txt?

Lunatics will be updated soon, sooner if I can get answers to questions like that (but not instantly - there's a lot of other checking to do before the process is complete). Ah - thanks Zalster, that'll speed things up.

Wiggo was pointing out that Lunatics CPU apps are faster than stock - nothing to do with SoG or other graphics coprocessor apps.

Here are the first 4 done

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938248

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938023

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938315

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938317

Zalster

---

First one back in under 9 minutes - that's what I call service!

Now we just have to wait for them to start validating...

First one back in under 9 minutes - that's what I call service!

Now we just have to wait for them to start validating...

These 2 have validated

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938398

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213938410

Zalster

---

I saw the overflow had validated before I posted, but we now have three full-length as well (probably more before I finish typing) - and no inconclusive. Looking good.

Here's my first two:


http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213249358

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=5213249360

---

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on computer 8107155 - you seem to have had a high rate of inconclusive validations recently with the older v8.12/r3430, but none yet with v8.19/r3528. Let's hope that's another good sign.

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on computer 8107155 - you seem to have had a high rate of inconclusive validations recently with the older v8.12/r3430, but none yet with v8.19/r3528. Let's hope that's another good sign.

I had a lot of inclonclusives too with r_3430.
This should be better now.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Ok, I've run thru about 150. Most are still pending. Here is the link to the results
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=8049350

---

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on computer 8107155 - you seem to have had a high rate of inconclusive validations recently with the older v8.12/r3430, but none yet with v8.19/r3528. Let's hope that's another good sign.

Got 2 inconclusives yesterday, possibly after changing RAM from 16gb -> 8gb to see if it got laggy. It did, a bit, but no other symptoms that I can see and Task Manager shows plenty of free ram.

EDit: By up time in TM, the inconclusives WERE after RAM downsize.

---

Added more RAM, but still getting inconclusives. So it just may be that my first batch(es) just didn't have any in them.

---

Added more RAM, but still getting inconclusives. So it just may be that my first batch(es) just didn't have any in them.

. . Often inconclusives are more about your wingman on the task than your own computer, especially if they validate successfully after 3rd party confirmation.

Stephen

.

Added more RAM, but still getting inconclusives. So it just may be that my first batch(es) just didn't have any in them.

The more WUs you crunch, the more inconclusives you will get as there will be more wingmen that have a slightly different result to you.
As long as your Inconclusives are generally less than 7.5% of your Validation Pending then things are good.
Any Invalids or Errors would be a problem.

---

Grant
Darwin NT