In article <oii7m01neeqbti8fqsnnjf7d7vfffg347r@4ax.com>, f/f george
<george@yourplace.com> writes

It might be my set-up, but I have to diagree with you on this.

I have a Dual CPU mobo with 2x Xeon 700 MHz each with 1Mb cache.

Using SETI-Driver and Win 2000, I return Classic WU's in around 6 hr 45min
(avg) at a rate of 8 per day.

Thats with 4 processes going on (via SETI driver). Switching back to 2
processes doesn't reduce this through-put.


So, unless I've missed something, your suggestion doesn't work in practice
(though I'm prepared to be corrected if some-one can tell me why I cannot
realise say 16 WU's completed per day.

H.

I don't see where you disagreed? You are running 4 processes, two on
each of two different processors and each processor with 1 meg L2
cache. That makes 4 processes four your machine.

Agreed

What would be really interesting is a dual Xeon system with the new 800
MHz FSB CPUs, at say 3.4/3.6 Ghz, sporting 2 Mb L2 and HT on each CPU.

With this rig, SETI Driver could have 2 WUs set for each of the physical
CPUs, another 2 WUs set for each of the HT virtual processors and at
least another 2 WUs (or perhaps 4) set to make use of the 2 Mb L2 cache.

On such a system I would expect the individual CPU WU times to be about
5 hours. As the system could, potentially, have 8 WUs running at the
same time this would make the daily WU output about 38 from 1 machine.

What would be he price of such a beast?

I believe a more cost effective Intel system would be a 2.25 Ghz Pentium
M Centrino system with 2 Mb L2 cache. I understand these will crunch a
WU in about 2 hours, whether it has multiple WUs on or not. This system
(Laptop) can crunch 4 WUs at the same time, giving a daily output of -

        24/2 x 4 = 48 WUs.

-- 
John Clark

In the "reply to", replace either "fredclark" or "Workgroup" with 
"jonclark" for direct e-mail.