Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Vanity) Free Republic Folding@Home Project update - We're in the TOP 850!!!
systematic ^ | 1-2-2006 | systematic

Posted on 01/02/2006 9:53:26 AM PST by systematic

New thread for this week.

Congrats to all new members who joined this week!

We've made excellent progress so far and have smoked the DUmmies and Kossacks. Let's keep folding!


TOPICS: Computers/Internet; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: computernerds; computers; cpu; cureforcancer; du; dummies; fah; folders; folding; foldinghome; geeks; kos; proteins; seti; software; spyware; stanford; technology; techs; worthwhilecauses
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-672 next last
To: Petronski

I find that that is essentially true.


621 posted on 01/03/2006 5:55:17 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Most windows users have a couple dozen frickin-useless doodads in their system tray sucking up cycles.




Apple users only have half a dozen.


622 posted on 01/03/2006 5:56:10 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Klutz Dohanger

FReepFolders...Unchained!

FReepers, gone wild!

Ex-communicated FReepers.

FReepFolding, for fun and profit.

FReep'd from disease

FReepers, kinder, gentler...NOT!

FReepers saving the world, one protien ata time.








O.K., anybody in a better mood now?


:O)


P


623 posted on 01/03/2006 5:57:01 PM PST by papasmurf (Help beat the DUmmies...Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home Team# 36120)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
I will oblige your flame bait, might it have to do with the complete lack of applications to run on Linux causing alot of idle time on those CPU's.

:)
624 posted on 01/03/2006 5:59:16 PM PST by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Sure, because they're running the exe under VM or WINE. LOL


:O)

P


625 posted on 01/03/2006 6:01:27 PM PST by papasmurf (Help beat the DUmmies...Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home Team# 36120)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: dfwddr
I thought this thread started out quite well before self important troll-like FReepers appeared claiming to have never seen most of those posting here.

The funny thing is that I've never run into these particular Luddites before either.

I can understand JR's lack of interest in somthing relatively divergent from the basic function/mission of the website.

626 posted on 01/03/2006 6:02:08 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Think you'd better check your math. Try dividing the number of active CPUs by the current number of teraflops, to find how many CPUs of each type it takes to add up to 1 teraflop. I get:

Windows: 1052 CPUs per teraflop
Linux: 821.5 CPUs per teraflop
Mac: 1762 CPUs per teraflop

I.e., it takes twice as many Macs as it does Linux machines to produce the same amount of work. Not that this really means much - it probably reflects how well optimized each client is, rather than real raw performance.

627 posted on 01/03/2006 6:03:12 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

I don't think refusing to participate is bad PR.


But taking part definitely would be good PR.





I guess if PR is not a priority, it doesn't matter anyway.


628 posted on 01/03/2006 6:04:00 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Maybe I'd better check my reading comprehension - upon re-reading your post, it looks like we said the same thing, in two different ways. LOL. I'm on a roll, what can I say? ;)


629 posted on 01/03/2006 6:07:20 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Daus
I'll respond by indicating that I'm currently primarily a Windoze user but am running ~50x the normal processor hours/day to support this team effort. The vast majority of my cpu cycles are NOT "spare".

I'd guess that the average Linux user has faster hardware than the average Windoze user. I shouldn't really speculate about the Apple users beyond noting that they may have [had] excess money.

630 posted on 01/03/2006 6:08:11 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

I believe we've done the same math only using inverse divisions. Linux computers do twice as much useful work as do Apples. Linix is stwice as good as Apple.


631 posted on 01/03/2006 6:12:29 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

Where were you when the Krauts attacked Pearl Harbor? LOL


632 posted on 01/03/2006 6:14:50 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
I'd guess that the average Linux user has faster hardware than the average Windoze user

I would imagine there are some large, acedemic, Linux based clusters in the mix here as well.

Apple users beyond noting that they may have [had] excess money.

On that we can agree. :)
633 posted on 01/03/2006 6:20:26 PM PST by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2; Senator Bedfellow
Client statistics by CPU type

Type Active Active % All All %
Pentium 21 0.0 1276 0.0
Pentium MMX 66 0.0 3103 0.2
Athlon 56131 26.4 409036 30.4
Unknown ** 30403 14.3 212404 15.8
Pentium 2 or 3 26721 12.5 290016 21.6
Pentium Pro 35 0.0 993 0.0
Pentium 4 98907 46.5 424791 31.6
Total 212284 100 1341619 100


Client statistics by OS type

Type Active Active % All All %
Windows 181998 85.7 1164961 84.6
Mac OS X 10574 4.9 65298 4.7
Other 0 0.0 0 0.0
Linux 19716 9.2 146075 10.6
Total 212288 100 1376334 100


Client statistics by Windows OS subtype

Type Active Active % All All %
Win 95 59 0.0 3122 0.2
Win 98 344 0.1 13241 1.2
Win 95_OSR2 9 0.0 410 0.0
Win ME 649 0.3 24577 2.2
Win 98_SE 2632 1.5 62925 5.7
Win 2000 23142 13.2 251674 22.8
Win NT 454 0.2 16081 1.4
Win XP 147789 84.4 730224 66.2
Total 175078 100 1102254 100



Last updated at Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:53:41
DB date 2006-01-03 16:13:33
Active CPUS have returned WUs within 50 days.
** CPU Type is not detected for OSX or Linux

634 posted on 01/03/2006 6:20:38 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Yes, it seems to run pretty much the same speed that way. Just set your screen-saver to go to a blank screen and not spend cycles drawing pictures. :-)


635 posted on 01/03/2006 6:21:03 PM PST by ken in texas (Can't afford a tagline... please send money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
D'oh!

:^)

636 posted on 01/03/2006 6:22:05 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas

My only screensaver is a "sleep mode" for the monitor. So I'm golden.

I did shut down the nightly antivirus scans....I haven't found a virus in years anyway.


637 posted on 01/03/2006 6:24:16 PM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Paladin2

I don't know exactly why, but they've intentionally limited their x86 clients by not compiling in SSE2 optimizations, instead sticking to SSE only. If they chose to, they could boost the performance of their Windows and Linux clients quite easily - maybe something similar is playing into the relative slowness of the Mac clients.


638 posted on 01/03/2006 6:25:25 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 634 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow

I'm with you, let's go!


639 posted on 01/03/2006 6:26:07 PM PST by Paladin2 (If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
As I understand it, if I run the graphical version, but I close the window that does all the drawing, it runs as fast as the command line version. Is that true

It's "estimated" by what, I don't know, that the command line version might get you up to 5% performance increase, but I don't think anyone has stopped folding, long enough to benchmark that, and prove it right or wrong. If you've got a powerhouse video card, that offloads some of the processing from the cpu, I wouldn't think that there would be much difference at all.

And yes, closing the drawing window, removes a lot of overhead from the client, and is "close" to the speed of the command line version. But all computers are not alike, so actual mileage may vary :) But I would think that a 5% increase, would be the MAXIMUM performance gain you could expect, and realistically, a lot less.

640 posted on 01/03/2006 6:26:31 PM PST by Klutz Dohanger (*ouch*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620621-640641-660661-672 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson