"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message 
news:jjo4p1tr1b8pabu7fff24qa2ngfkcndht1@4ax.com...

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 12:11:36 +1100, "Lee Rieger" <leer@iinet.net.au>
wrote:

Hi All,

I'm now in the process of doing the transition. I hope it all ends up nice
and transparent like Seti Classic. I was using SetiQueue. It basically ran
itself with hardly any intervention from me.

So far got one up and running. Got to get another 9 machines sorted out.

Being new to the BOINC project, I wonder if one can set up a server and 
then
feed the other machines from it? This is in case the server at Berkeley
throws a pinkie!

That's what I liked about SetiQueue. If the server at Berkeley threw a fit
you could still crunch units, even if it was down (like the Classic is 
now)
I was still cruncing work units. That's why I heaps of them waiting to get
uploaded.

Cheers,
Lee.

Yes but you will have to put in a second network card and a router.
The first network card will talk to the modem, the second network card
will talk to a routher and then each machine will talk to the router.
In Boinc each machine must have its own connection to the net. So in
your case ICS, Internet Connection Sharing, which is built into
Windows will do the job.
You could also just put a router between the modem and all machines
like most people do and then you will have a "normal" setup. Then all
machines will go thru the router to the modem. This will cut down alot
of overhead on the first machine, making it faster.

This already has a router and a hub for the machines. I have completed 
installing BOINC in the machines and they are working okay, so far. I am 
keeping my eye on them and they are downloading several units themselves. 
(similar to SetiQueue).

Like evrything else, it will probably need a bit of fine tuning. I guess 
I'll just have to write off the 110 plus that are in SetiQueue, but we'll se 
what happens.

Cheers,
Lee.