I was afraid of that!! Thanks!
I was hoping that the 64 bit would somehow let 2 processes occur..

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:19:32 GMT, "Michael D. Ober"
<obermd.@.alum.mit.edu.nospam> wrote:

I agree with Martin that 512Kb L2 cache is insufficient to run multiple WUs
simultaneously.  The problem is that the client requires close to 500Kb of
working memory.  Increasing this requirement will incur a major penalty in
L2 cache misses.

Mike Ober.

"f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kknvh0daekiul9kpg63f4mopcc98r80dq3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:56:34 GMT, Martin 53N 1W
<ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> wrote:

f/f george wrote:

Mike I have a question for you.....I just got an AMD 64 3200+ system
that I am running Seti on. I am running version 3.03 of the CLI and of
course Seti Driver, should I have 2(or more) in the "maximum
processes" box? I would like to get the most out of this machine. It
is doing 1 unit in just about 2 hours when I have it set to 1 in the
box. I only have the 512k L2 cache chip, the 1 and 2 meg L2 cache

[...]

One way is to just try it and see what you get.

On a 512k cache CPU, I would guess that you would see little improvement
and quite likely an overall slowdown of 'total WUs per day'. This is due
to the way the cache gets used for the s@h FFT calculations.

For CPUs with more than 1MB of cache, you do get an improvement in WU
throughput when running more than one s@h process on the CPU.

Intel's HT idea is a bit of a 'special case' to best utilise the CPU
execution units.

I did try it but didn't give it long enough of a try out. I was hoping
Mike Ober would have an answer before I tried it and made things
worse.