I believe that would be because... for the BP6, it takes longer to do 1
packet on the bp6 because you are running 2 separate seti's, 1 for each
processor, they do not both work on the same packet. So you do 2 packets
in 10 hours...and as for the other one going faster, its gotta be the
higher bus speed.
Mike
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, ramses wrote:
> I do believe the SMP issue is over rated with socket 370 processors
> w/128k cache, and I do believe there are still several problems to
> work out with the BP6 (mainly the HPT/66 controller). I took the BP6
> /dual 500's out of my main system and replaced it with a P3-750/100
> Slot 1, and was going to get rid of the BP6 all together.
>
>
> I had a change of heart though and decided to keep it to replace my
> firewall/workstation (which was a celeron 400), and make it a firewall/work
> station/overclocking toy/seti cruncher and to see if kernel 2.4 adds better
> SMP support.
>
> I still to this date do not understand why my wife's 300a overclocked to
> 464mhz (slot 1) w/128mb ram does a seti packet in 8 hours 20 mins
> (this is avg time with over 5000 packet hours), while it takes my BP6 with
> dual 500's/66mhz w/ same memory 10 hours 45 mins.. (and I know seti
> only supports single proc's, but you can run two seti's).
>
> I know it can not be the FSB issue, so I was thinking it has to do with
> slot 1 versus socket 370, but that still doesn't sound right.. at anyrate
> I am sure I will still enjoy the BP6 for sometime now.
>
>
>
> --
> =- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -=
> =- body of "unsubscribe linux-abit". -=
>
--
=- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -=
=- body of "unsubscribe linux-abit". -=
