Wackage: 2 versions of F@H run simultaneously?

[NoEcho]

Recently installed version 3.24 at the same time I upgraded my cpu. Installed it to default, figured it would automatically overwrite version 3.10.

Ran 3.24 with no probs for a day or two. (Really like it, BTW; couldn't use the 'forceasm' and 'advmethods' before). Decided to power down today, was contemplating a 15.5 multiplier lock mod on the new tbred (before I got lazy and started surfing forums). Rebooted and my computer fired up version 3.10 and 3.24 simultaneously.

?!

They both appeared to be getting ready to get to work so I nuked the 3.10 session before it generated a useless/forgotten WU. But, I'm wondering, is it possible/faster to run these two sessions at the same time?

[JBELL]

definitely not faster but should be possible....

[NoEcho]

Thanks for the prompt reply!

I was hoping that they'd each run at about 65% their normal speed thus giving me an aggreggate of 130% output. Not going to happen?

[Tweaked!]

You can run more than one client on a single cpu rig as long as they're in different folders and your machine id is set within the clients advanced properties to 1 and 2. You won't see any production boost from it, but it will run a hair more efficient because you're not losing the downtime it takes one client to submit and redownload work units. If you don't seperate the clients in different folders though, they'll appear to be working fine, but they'll actually be processing the same wu and that will corrupt the results and you won't get the credit.:)

[jmke]

good points there Tweaked

i have access here to 1600x 1.8Ghz P4
but the firewall blocks F@H

DAMNiT! :(

[Tweaked!]

Originally posted by jmke
good points there Tweaked

i have access here to 1600x 1.8Ghz P4
but the firewall blocks F@H

DAMNiT! :(

Whew, don't that just make your teeth chatter.....;)

[NoEcho]

Originally posted by jmke
good points there Tweaked

i have access here to 1600x 1.8Ghz P4
but the firewall blocks F@H

DAMNiT! :(

Firewall at work blocks me from folding too. Damn shame. PC just sits there 16 out of 24.

Thanks for the leads on the technical aspects of multithreading F@H on AMD's. It's a no go.