John Heritage <xebec@home.com> wrote:
> -- Anyone run this off of Linux ?.
Sure. I have various instances running on:
I've refrained from putting it on machines that will probably take a
week to process a single work unit.
> I understand Linux is significantly faster than NT (like a factor of
In the context of seti@home? Why should it be?
Typically, on a Unix box you have setiathome running in the background
with its niceness set to the maximum (20), so it will only gobble spare
CPU cyles no other process wants. If the machine is otherwise idle,
that's easily 99%. The Unix version could only be faster than the NT
one, if NT kept drawing large amounts of cycles for other purposes. I
don't know NT, but it can't be that broken, can it?
- i386-freebsd
- alpha-linux
- i386-linux
- sparc-solaris
> 2-3x ?).
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de
100+ SF Book Reviews: <URL:http://home.pages.de/~naddy/reviews/>