Posts by Jet
|
1)
Message boards :
News :
Low available work.
(Message 2030452)
Posted 2 Feb 2020 by  Jet
Post: Understand the explanation and rationale given by "Mr Kevvy." - Thanks! However, has there been published an estimate as to how long the work unit outage may last? |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Welcome to the 12 year club
(Message 1104583)
Posted 9 May 2011 by Jet
Post: Yesterday for me. |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Welcome to the 11 year club
(Message 1015256)
Posted 13 Jul 2010 by Jet
Post: Like most everybody else - turning over the Galactic Rocks looking for ET |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Early SETI contributors - who's still around?
(Message 971489)
Posted 19 Feb 2010 by Jet
Post: Long Ago and Far Away - May 8, 1999, 7:22 am for me with a Mac IIfx |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pi just got a little bit bigger
(Message 961275)
Posted 6 Jan 2010 by Jet
Post: Pi is an irrational number. It cannot be resolved, it is endless and non-repeating. Other irrational numbers are, for example, sqrt(2), e, the square root of any prime number. Irrational means it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two numbers. No...Pi is fine. It is the people that are irrational |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Welcome to the 10 year club
(Message 939474)
Posted 12 Oct 2009 by Jet
Post: Wasn't paying attention to mine: 0722 Hrs GMT, 8 May 1999 Long...long..ago...in a Galaxy far, far away...we were listening |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Connical Result Determination - How is it done?
(Message 878648)
Posted 23 Mar 2009 by Jet
Post: Just finished an AP workunit and was looking at the results. I found this WU specified as the 1165285175=Connical Result Which is way different from what my result was:1187765590 How can a WU which doesn't appear to return any result be declared the Connical result? Inquiring minds and all that stuff - Thanks |
|
8)
Questions and Answers :
Macintosh :
Astropulse on the Mac
(Message 875100)
Posted 13 Mar 2009 by Jet
Post: I am just looking for some info ... and maybe just a little reassurance... I have two macs that I have recently set back up to run Astropulse along with MB's, I am using Arkyn's (sorry if I misspelled it) all-in-one package of apps. Mac 1 - My desktop unit is a Dual 2.7 GHz G5 w 2 Gb memory Mac 2 - My laptop, a Macbook with a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo and 4 Gb memory Both machines now have AP WU's. What I am looking for is if the time to complete the AP WU is "right or reasonable." Mac 1 is says it is about 6.7% through at 14 hours elapsed time with 57 Hours to go; an the hours to go is still upcounting. Mac 2 is 48% though at 16 hours with 18 to go and has never upcounted - it started with roughly 35 hours total estimated and it is holding that +-. The question that I have is - "are the G5's really that 'bad' when it comes to WU's or are the AP / MB Applications for the G5's really that inefficient?" When comparing RAC's - Mac 2 is almost twice the RAC of Mac 1. All of that is MB WU's as they are just starting their first AP WU's. I'm interested is finding out if there is something, besides the optimized apps, that can be done to increase efficiency of the G5. Thanks for any help. |
|
9)
Questions and Answers :
Macintosh :
extremely poor network performance when running boinc/setiathome
(Message 819834)
Posted 17 Oct 2008 by Jet
Post: I have two machines, a Dual G5 @ 2.7 GHz and a MacBook @ 2.2 GHZ. I haven;t had any ethernet failures or anything like that. But the throughput on basic network up/down load is generally half of normal when BOINC is running. Both processors in each machine indicate that they are maxed out at 100%. Beside BOINC, I am using the optimized G5 and Intel MultiBeam apps. I have sort of accepted that this is what happens while crunching. It would be nice to get the network performance back. |
|
10)
Questions and Answers :
Macintosh :
Astropulse Optimization for Mac's
(Message 818375)
Posted 14 Oct 2008 by Jet
Post: Has anyone optimized the astropulse application for the G5 or Intel Mac's? I have been running the MB enhanced apps with good results on G4's, G5's and a MacBook. The G5 is a 2.7 GHz and the MacBook is 2.2 GHz. The MacBook is about half-again greater in RAC than the G5. My poor ole G4 is a 1 GHz QuickSilver that struggles along. Thanks |
|
11)
Questions and Answers :
Macintosh :
choosing optimal functions
(Message 812091)
Posted 26 Sep 2008 by Jet
Post: I recently upgraded to OX 10.5.5 on my PPC G5 2.7. Since then, SETI has frequently hung up with the screensaver showing some work, then stopped with a "choosing optimal functions" comment in the upper-left corner--even though it's been running for over 24 hours (when it usually takes about 4). Just info for you - I have an identical Mac running 10.5.5 and no problems. I do not use the graphics. I started originally with the "stock" multi-beam application and thing worked fine. I have since implemented the optimized MB app and no problems. The optimized app has no graphics capability. I don't have the links immediately available for the optimized G5 app - I will get them and post later. Just wanted to let you know that everything will work. |
©2025 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.