Ivoshiee wrote:You are first to report about it.
Try to run
Code: Select all
echo $(grep "vendor_id" /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l)
from your terminal window. What number do you get?
pfarrell@www:~$ echo $(grep "vendor_id" /proc/cpuinfo | wc -l)
1
pfarrell@www:~$ grep "vendor_id" /proc/cpuinfo
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
Ivoshiee wrote:
But if somehow it is failing on you then you have 2 options for getting 4 client operation out of finstall/folding under any type of system:
1. If you have existing FAH client installation from finstall then as the finstall will check CPU named directories first and operate on them then manually create all remaining 3 sub-directories (CPU2, CPU3 and CPU4) under ~/foldingathome/ directory and relaunch finstall;
I can't see any difference in doing this, or just manually copying the CPU1 contents to three new directories and setting the machineid.
I've tried it both ways
The result of 'folding start' is discouraging:
Code: Select all
./folding start
['folding' ver. 6.1]
Starting up FAH client(s) on 1 processor(s):
Starting FAH client at CPU1...
FAH client #1 startup: OK
Starting FAH client at CPU2...
FAH client #2 startup: OK
Starting FAH client at CPU3...
FAH client #3 startup: OK
Starting FAH client at CPU4...
FAH client #4 startup: OK
Starting of FAH client(s): OK
top - 00:33:08 up 25 days, 20 min, 1 user, load average: 2.87, 1.64, 1.72
Tasks: 162 total, 6 running, 156 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 4.0%us, 0.3%sy, 95.3%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 906792k total, 793380k used, 113412k free, 162716k buffers
Swap: 6144820k total, 84k used, 6144736k free, 312316k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
29883 pfarrell 39 19 15844 1976 1032 R 24.0 0.2 0:18.39 FahCore_82.exe
29892 pfarrell 39 19 17560 3548 1080 R 24.0 0.4 0:18.36 FahCore_82.exe
29895 pfarrell 39 19 15840 1976 1032 R 24.0 0.2 0:18.36 FahCore_82.exe
29901 pfarrell 39 19 15844 1972 1032 R 24.0 0.2 0:18.35 FahCore_82.exe
23783 filter 15 0 41712 38m 2548 S 3.3 4.4 0:35.25 spamd
Note that there are four copies, each using a bit under 25% of the CPU, which is what you would expect with four copies and one CPU. I expect to see four running at 98% or so. But its not happening.
I assume that four @ 25% is no faster than 2 @ 50% or one at 100%