LOL! Man they're behind the 8 ball! We discussed that several weeks ago after someone posted that write up on HT'ing by Pande... I think I was running it for 24 hrs before turning it off after reading the Pande post. Last time I browsed their thread (yea...had Lysol handy), I recall seeing a post where the poster was bragging about pumping out more WU's with HT'ing...hahaha.
I purchased 2 used P4 (2.26GHz and 2.6GHz) motherboards (and needed accessories) on eBay last night to start building that diskless Folding Farm thatI've been jabbering about. Can't wait for the brown truck to show up!
Wow, no wonder you're rolling up the stats ;)
I'm not clear on the point that Pande was trying to make. Sometimes overclocking, and hyperthreading can cause errors in the results files, causing those workunits to be rejected, BUT, if you have a hyperthreaded CPU turning out two good workunits in 3 days, as opposed to that same CPU turning out one good workunit in 2.5 days, which is better for science?
He speaks of speed in turning around workunits, but a half day difference to get two workunits, vice one? Seems to me, HT (IF THERE ARE NO WU ERRORS), is better for the system.
Seems to me that overclocking, and feeding complex workunits to woefully underpowered processors, would be more harmful to the collection results.