> does anyone know, what has been changed in order to decrease the processing
> time? Beside that, faster crunching is always greatly appreciated. thanks for
> that!

As a programmer, I'll take a guess that some debug code was left in 4.05 and was removed for this release.

---

> > does anyone know, what has been changed in order to decrease the
> processing
> > time? Beside that, faster crunching is always greatly appreciated. thanks
> for
> > that!
>
> As a programmer, I'll take a guess that some debug code was left in 4.05 and
> was removed for this release.
>
>
Hi

As Rom Walton wrote in an other post, there is no debug code in the Seti app.
We can belive it or not.
The crunching time will tell us.
When my machines reaching the 3 houres mark i have to belive.

greetz from Germany and a nice weekend.

Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Well, my Windows box downloaded some new units and v4.07 of the SETI client so I'll wait and see how quick they process after my older units get finished first.

Ned

---

*** My Guide to Compiling Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients ***
*** Download Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients for Linux Here ***

P4 3.02 Using 4.05 = 5 hour crunch time
P4 3.02 Using 4.07 = 3 hour 28 minute crunch time (faster than before the slow down)

P4 1.9 Using 4.05 = 7 - 8 hour crunch time
P4 1.9 Using 4.07 = 5 - 5.5 hour crunch time

AMD Athlon 1.1 Using 4.05 = 9 - 10 hour crunch time
AMD Athlon 1.1 Using 4.07 = 7 - 7.5 hour crunch time

Whatever they fixed, it worked. :-)

Craig


www.Support-Aurora.org.uk - Put Europeans On Mars!


S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club ©
[/url]

> does anyone know, what has been changed in order to decrease the processing
> time? Beside that, faster crunching is always greatly appreciated. thanks for
> that!

Pdb file of 4.05 is 5.211kB, with 4.07 it is only 4.755kB.

---

Read the News at the homepage
Have a look at the Technical News
Look if your question is not answered at the Boinc Wiki

Best greetings, Thierry

Rom or Matt posted somewhere that a compiler had produced more executable than it should have done, so I guess getting rid of that extra code fixed the problem.


www.Support-Aurora.org.uk - Put Europeans On Mars!


S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club ©
[/url]

Hi,

Just got a 4.07 WU on my Pentim M 2.2GHz.

The WU is 40% complete at 50 minutes...

I notice there is no User info, ie. name, team or total anmd the colour scheme is not correct.

---

73 de Peter VK3AVE

Hi,

im possible to bad to found it, but who can i download 4.07 ??

Zodi

---

@zodiac
when your download new WU s it comes with it

> Hi,
>
> im possible to bad to found it, but who can i download 4.07 ??
>
> Zodi

You don't have to download it yourself. Boinc will do that. Together with the 4.07 wus.

> It would have been a little more helpful if they would have specified what OS
> this was for. I stopped my Mac from processing, tossed the client and reset
> boinc only to have it download 4.0.2 again. I looked in the message boards and
> in one of the unix threads someone stated that it was only a new windows
> client.
>
> Jon
>

The currently available science-applications is listed if you looks under "Participate in SETI@home". ;)
Direct-link:
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/apps.php

Using HT, I have 1 Wu still crunching with v4.05. The graphics for this WU are using my prefered settings. I have 1 other WU crunching with v4.07. What's amazing is the graphics of this last one is using the general preferences of the graphics and not my user defined ones.

Any suggestion ?

I have my downloads set at 3 days, so it will be a while before I see any 4.07 WUs. I am wondering, with the credit system based on computer time, will you actually get more credit per day with 4.07? If a 4.05 WU took 5 hrs and received 45 credits, will you still receive 45 credits on 4.07 if it processes in 3 hours? I see a lot of posts here from people rushing to get 4.07 WUs, but will it really improve their avg daily credits?

---

http://www.setiusa.net

Hi

The credits for each WU will go down with 4.07 because it needs less time.
With 4.03 it was around 40.

greetz Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

> in 3 hours? I see a lot of posts here from people rushing to get 4.07 WUs,
> but will it really improve their avg daily credits?

That's a great question. Off the top of my head, I'd say no, not for S@H, but I could very well be wrong.

---

> The credits for each WU will go down with 4.07 because it needs less time.
> With 4.03 it was around 40.

If people understood this, I don't think they would be resetting their project to get 4.07 WUs right now.

Thanks!

---

http://www.setiusa.net

> > The credits for each WU will go down with 4.07 because it needs less
> time.
> > With 4.03 it was around 40.
>
> If people understood this, I don't think they would be resetting their project
> to get 4.07 WUs right now.
>
> Thanks!
>

That's not correct,

if 2 results are crunched with 4.05 and 1 result ist crunched with 4.07,
you will get more credits in less time, because the median is still crunched
with the 4.05 and the granted credit is the claimed credit for the 4.05
crunched result. But with your 4.07 you need less time.

Ok this works just while more 4.05 WUs are outside.
So in 2 weeks you will have no advantage.

---

Then why do people care if the unit processing time goes down?

Credit given is still the same. (either longer unit time or shorter time it still equals out the same).

Some people are weird.....

"I uploaded 50 billion units and got 200 credits"

"I uploaded 5 units and got 200 credits"


Whatever floats your boat?

---

credit is one thing, crunching through wus another one. do not get me wrong, I like to receive credits and this won't change cause an hour of cpu time will get the same credit under 4.05 and 4.07. but with the new version, we will finish more wus in the same period of time, thus having more science done.
average credit stays the same, wus are crunched faster and more scientifical output gets produced. traditional win-win situatuion IMHO.

---

> Then why do people care if the unit processing time goes down?
> Credit given is still the same. (either longer unit time or shorter time it
> still equals out the same).

Believe it or not, some people are actually doing this for the science, not just the credit. Faster processing = more work done = more science done in the same period of time.

> Some people are weird.....

And some people are selfish. I'm not pointing at anyone in particular here, but if all you're worried about is credits, this new fix won't mean anything to you.

---