I remember, many years ago, when I first heard of the Seti@home project. Back then I had a 500MHz processor or less in all my computers. I tried the Windows version of the software and it worked well. Tasks ran in a day or less. Last year I tried to run the software on a 700+ MHz processor system and what to my surprise to see, the task took over 50 hours when the estimate was only 8 or 9 hours.

The current recommended processor is a 500MHz, but is that realistic? I remember a few weeks ago that there was an article listing that Seti@home project needs a 2.0 gig processor or better to run properly.

I still have several desktop computers that have under 1 gig for a processor, but if it takes 40 or 50 hours to process one "small" task, and at this time my 2.0 gig system keeps getting 15 and 20 hour tasks, WHY BOTHER adding these slower computers to the network?

I see the message boards chatter about getting new 2 and 4 core processors for their computer farms, but what about those of us on more limited budgets that would like to help? To get a 1 gig processor system locally costs about $250. The guy who had these things for less money died of old age and did the fixing and selling to pass the time. So where can us simple folk find the computers at a price we can afford to setup these big and hungry computer farms?

I really want to support the project and do my part, but it seems to me that some of the board chatter make me feel that if you do not have the biggest and fastest computer to dedicate to this project, you should not even try.

Gone are the days when a company will allow you to run the software when their computers are not busy with other work. Gone are the days when the average person can afford the most powerful, or even the next to levels down the line from that.

I remember when the computer first came to a desktop. It was much better than the punch card thing I started with. Now we can get a desktop that is 100's or even 1000's of times faster than what I first worked with. Yet, do we need to buy the newest, fastest, computer out there to run the latest software? We had great chess games that ran on a 286 machine with 128k of memory. Now you need to have 1 to 2 gig of processor speed and ram size to run a chess game. We use to call it sloppy coding. Microsoft is big on sloppy coding.

Now - after the ranting is over - Where did the software go that could easily run on those 500 MHz machines? The current version does not. Even if it states the recommended processor is 500 MHz or faster, it needs over a gig to do the job in a timely manor.

Can we make a computer farm out of these slower machines and be worth the effort? I would really like to know. It would be ashame if those on "government retirement" cannot help the cause.

Just a couple of thoughts on this -
It's still worth it to run Seti on slower machines if they're going to be on anyway, I just personally wouldn't use a slower machine as a dedicated Seti cruncher (due to the cost of power).
If you want to support the project, but can't afford to get and run something you see as worthwile, why not send in the money as a donation instead? They do need that kind of support, too.

-Dave

---

I beg to differ. My 400MHz Celeron MMX running Windows 98 has no difficulty keeping up and contributing to the cause - and at the same time, it's also giving an equal share to Einstein@home, and managing to keep up with their much more restrictive timescales.

There is an argument for retiring these old machines, that the amount of sky searched per unit of electricity consumed doesn't match the modern kit. But if you have already got the computer, and it would be turned on anyway for other purposes, then it's certainly adequate to contribute to SETI.

Now - after the ranting is over - Where did the software go that could easily run on those 500 MHz machines? The current version does not. Even if it states the recommended processor is 500 MHz or faster, it needs over a gig to do the job in a timely manor.

Remember, first and foremost, BOINC is designed to harness what is an otherwise waste product -- unused clock cycles.

So, while I have the utmost respect for those building dedicated SETI machines, this is a bit of an aberration, running computers just to make unused clock cycles just for BOINC.

I've got a machine that crunches SETI incredibly poorly, the Via C3 processor just isn't good at floating point math -- it produces the right answers, but incredibly slowly.

It's running BOINC because it is going to be turned on anyway, it might as well do something useful while it is on.

As to what happened: it would be possible to make a SETI science application that ran quickly on a slow computer by simply reducing the number of calculations done -- by reducing the sensitivity of the search. Because we have fast computers, and because finding ET is so incredibly unlikely, more sensitivity is better, and it reduces the load on the SETI servers -- both good things.

---

I have been running SETI, Einstein and QMC for years on a 400 MHz PII Deschutes, Linux OS, meeting all deadlines. Now I have a 1.8 GHz Opteron 1210 and have added Climateprediction.net and LHC@home to its tasks, also meeting deadlines.
Tullio

---

The pace of change in computer technology and software design is relentless and unceasing. SETI, like all actively maintained software, has evolved with the times.

That said, SETI and many other projects do run just fine on lesser hardware. (Unlike the latest version of a certain Microsoft operating system.) And while projects do specify different hardware requirements, owning the latest whizz-bang, multi-core rig isn't actually one of them.

A search of the forum will reveal many threads which discuss the pros, cons viability and methods for running older hardware.

Krackedpress, Like you I have been into computers a long time. Started with puch cards and paper tape in the early 70's. Bloated software? When I first started writing programs if they were over 2K in size I was in trouble. Computers have always been one of my hobbies. I like to play with them and see what they can do. The result is that at the moment I have 10 systems cruching full time. Three are quads, the rest are Core 2's. I still have a buch of older machines even a couple of Z80 based computers. I only cruch with the newer machines because of the cost of power. One quads system consumes less electricity than one of my P4 computers. It has a sustained RAC of about 3,500. A P4's sustained RAC is about 500. So it produces 7 times the RAC per watt.
The cost of one of these is not that much anymore either. The Q6600 is selling for just under $200 (sales prices available today), add 2 gigs of memory, (around $35 Newegg Crucial DDR2-800), and a motherboard, about $40 put it all in your old case and for about $275 you have a super crucher.
That said, your contribution, even with a slower computer is greatly accepted and much appriciated. There is an optimized app for it that will increase the computer's speed. Look for the Opptimized app thread in this section.

---

The current recommended processor is a 500MHz, but is that realistic? I remember a few weeks ago that there was an article listing that Seti@home project needs a 2.0 gig processor or better to run properly.

Nonsense. I have a couple of 400-MHz G4 Macs that run S@h and a couple of other projects as well—including Einstein@home, which has comparatively long tasks—and have had no computation or deadline problems to speak of, with average turnaround times here running between one and three days despite the mere one-third resource share. Of course their throughput is something on the order of one-tenth of a current system’s, but there’s nothing “improper” about their contribution otherwise.

---

Hear, hear:

I've got x86 machines of 500, 333, and even 233 MHz crunching here, and
seem to return proper results. The low end one may take a week to
run a s@h unit, but, so what?

I believe the reason for the long run time (compared to the old days)
should mostly be attributed to analysis being done in much greater
depth and/or detail, not code bloat.

So if you can afford to run them, fire 'em up. They'll do fine,
I think. Whatever the minimum specs say, they have not really been
obsoleted (yet...)

Dave

Thanks to all who replied to this thread.

The older machines run Win 98 and Win 2000 pro. The "dedicated" machine is used as a file server, since my laptop has an 80 gig drive and I need to have access to about 100 gig of videos and 100 gig of programs, audio, and fonts. All this plus the backup data from the laptop. This is not processor intensive.

For the electric cost, I now live in an apartment that offers free utilities. The rent pays for heat, electric, etc. So, If I run 1 server or 10, t does not cost me a thing. I am planning to move to a better place, and it has the same deal.

I am currently running the sete@home on an old 2002 IBM server that has 2 gig processor and 1 gig of ram. It looks like a black desktop on its side. I hope to get another one sometime soon along with adding a new 500 gig drive to the server and replace the 80 gig laptop drive with a 160 or 250 gig one.

If there is a good version of the older machines that I have, I will look into installing them for a test run. Of course, I tried to lead Linux to the server, since it originally had a version of it, BUT the "modern" version I have bomb out every time I try to install it. IF Linux would be a faster O/S with seti@home, then I might try it. Of course, I will have to find an older version of Linux, since all of the modern ones want 1-2 gig of processor for the graphic desktop options. I know a guy locally that use Linux with a windows machine as the very slow network gateway. He cannot get full broadband in his area but he has a service that about 3 times the dialup speed. I will talk to him about what versions of Linux he uses. He runs about 8 computers for seti@home and other projects. He dumpster dives and finds 1 gig machines that are thrown out.

Thank for all of your suggestions.

If there is a good version of the older machines that I have, I will look into installing them for a test run. Of course, I tried to lead Linux to the server, since it originally had a version of it, BUT the "modern" version I have bomb out every time I try to install it. IF Linux would be a faster O/S with seti@home, then I might try it. Of course, I will have to find an older version of Linux, since all of the modern ones want 1-2 gig of processor for the graphic desktop options.... (snipped a little bit)...

Not necessarily true. Linux is as resource-heavy as you want it to be.
In fact there are several distros deliberately aimed at lesser hardware.
Here is a small sample as a starting point:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=damnsmall
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=puppy
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=xubuntu

With a bit of judicious pruning, I was able to get the mainstream distro Mandriva onto a P200/64MB RAM ('twas a little slow, but it worked ok). On a P2-466/256MB RAM it installed and ran with no fuss just fine. And of course, it isn't compulsory to have a gui at all... A bit of searching found these instructions for using Ubuntu server edition with command line BOINC:

http://www.dunadd.co.uk/seti/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4022&highlight=#4022

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/apps.php used to list all the official apps and their release dates, but the page seems to be broken.

---

Sir Arthur C Clarke 1917-2008

I had a P90 that was running S@H until it died. I believe my P200 dual picks up an occasional S@H task.

---

BOINC WIKI