Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by SATAN

21) Message boards : Number crunching : ZDnet overclocking tool for Macs (Message 15392)
Posted 14 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Just one comment: ony use it for cunching with Mac Pros 2008 and 2009.

With the 2006-2007 model, the FSB clock is directly linked to the Real Time Clock and the time is then wrong, which can cause problems if you use automated jobs (crons) like Time Machine.


The FSB clock is also directly linked on the 2008 Mac Pro. SO after 6 hours, your computer is 1 hour ahead.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : ZDnet overclocking tool for Macs (Message 15244)
Posted 13 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
I take it, if you've had the same experience as me, you end up with Kernel panics as soon as you try to set the speed. I do not know any way around this apart from keep trying, I know that isn't the answer your looking for but it is the best one I know.

I have managed to have My Mac Pro running constantly at 3.241GHz. Using SmcFanControl, I set the CPU-Mem to 1000rpms along with IO and Exhaust.

One thing I did try was to run the machine at 3.0GHz for a few days, then gradually build up the over clock.

Over all though it seems that each machine is different.

23) Message boards : Number crunching : No work (Message 15208)
Posted 13 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
About to run dry here in Cornwall!

Nevermind, will turn the machine for a few hours. Seti can go and swivel!
24) Message boards : Number crunching : ZDnet overclocking tool for Macs (Message 15206)
Posted 13 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Alberto, I have used the ZDnet tool for most of the past year on my MacPro, same config as you, you can put the fans down to 1000rpm and everything is fine. One word of warning remove the dust bunnies every 8 weeks or so and you shouldn't have any problems.
25) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 15047)
Posted 12 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Paul, i'm running a Dual Quad 2.8 with 10GB of mem, so nothing to worry about on that from. I'll stick to cruncging more in Bootcamp for now.
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14950)
Posted 11 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Paul, they were all 20's. So yes they were very similar. If anyones crunching times are reduced due to Jedirocks work then that is something positive.
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14914)
Posted 11 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Okay, having let some of the run, I have found times have actually increased. Something I was not expecting. Although not for me at the minute. All the effort is very much appreciated.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14901)
Posted 11 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Jedi, I think your machine was just very slow. There is an improvement, but nothing like you first thought. On My Mac Pro times have come down by a couple of minutes at most. Don't get annoyed though. Any improvement in crunching times is always most welcome. Thank you for your efforts in speeding things up.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14897)
Posted 11 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Will empty boocamp of units, will then install on leopard.
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14702)
Posted 10 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Jedi, no need to apologise for taking your time. Your doing this off of your own back. The many of us mac users are very grateful for your efforts.
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Losing my BOINC manager (Message 14326)
Posted 8 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Your not alone Ice, it seems to happen once in a while for me as well.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : been sick (Message 14262)
Posted 7 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Get Well Travis,

Mark just let the units come slowly. Good things come to those who wait. I'm still ******* waiting though!
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Coprocessor info in xml stats (Message 14134)
Posted 6 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Seti could have used an ATI card about a year ago, but at that time the memory on the actual cards wasn't big enough to use reliably. At that time, the biggest cards had 128MB at a reasonably slow speed, not very useful.


Please don't tell me to go and do research when you haven't even got this fact correct. The Mac Pro from January last year shipped with the HD2600 XT which was already 6 months old at that point, this had 256MB. So I am sorry Sir but you are incorrect.

As for my opinions regarding DA and Boinc development, they are just that, my personal opinions, gathered from 2.5 years of crunching Seti on Windows and Mac OSX. Lets leave any arguements out of here. Enough mud has been slung over at Seti regarding, DA, Cuda, etc, lets not sling anymore.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Coprocessor info in xml stats (Message 14120)
Posted 6 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
DA and ATi have been pussyfooting around for over a year regarding ATi support. After the debacle that was the Seti release of Cuda, I think it will be a long time before ATi cards are officially supported for Boinc. Going on the rate of development at the minute, I reckon it wil be at least 12 months away.

The first anyone will know about it will be when Seti gets support, as DA and the Boinc development team seem to use Seti as their testing play pen at the minute.
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Lower spec ATI cards (Message 14118)
Posted 6 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Would like to add to this.

I know the HD2600 isn't a top end card, but it could still be useful. I can get Boinc to recognise it and read the card correctly, however tasks finish in compute errors.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized OS X Applications (Message 14058)
Posted 6 Mar 2009 by SATAN
Post:
I've already PM'd jedirock. Hopefully he wants testers. Would be nice to get a little closer to the windows apps.
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Returned Invalid Result WHY?? (Message 13323)
Posted 28 Feb 2009 by SATAN
Post:
Although I only started crunching yesterday, it seems approximately 20% of units are giving invalid results.

The latest of mine gave this output file:

13100011
Name ps_s20_10_276033_1235824656_0
Workunit 12786412
Created 28 Feb 2009 12:37:40 UTC
Sent 28 Feb 2009 12:38:39 UTC
Received 28 Feb 2009 15:22:16 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 52343
Report deadline 3 Mar 2009 12:38:39 UTC
CPU time 1025.5
stderr out
<core_client_version>6.2.18</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>
Validate state Invalid
Claimed credit 8.22933575814657
Granted credit 0
application version 0.18


Previous 20

©2024 Astroinformatics Group