5 ms·

I don't get how this point is debatable. I did this when I worked as a network administrator for a new school campus. It was folding@home vs. SETI but same con

I don't get how this point is debatable. I did this when I worked as a network administrator for a new school campus. It was folding@home vs. SETI but same concept. Once the administration realized all the computers were running folding@home they compared the bills after turning it off and it was tens of thousands of dollars difference (granted this was 2001 and full-size desktops). Now, one could say they overreacted, sure, in my case I just got reprimanded and told to uninstall it off all the computers. But firing for costing the district significant amounts of money isn't some testament to the ignorance of the South, unlike the "bomb" clock.

nadams 11y ago
> tens of thousands of dollars difference I still don't believe that - unless this was 10k computers+. I'll bet that if you used watts up on an idle computer, then used it on a computer running seti@home I'll bet the difference would only be 100 watt difference at the max (probably more like 50 depending on what is running on the computer).
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  5k is easily within an order of magnitude of what you would find believable, and he's only expressing an order of magnitude. I think your dispute is rather academic.
- vacri 11y ago
  "compared bills after turning it off" is a direct measure of costs.
- acqq 11y ago
  See my other post here for details, 5000 desktop computers using 100% CPU all the time can cost some 18000 USD per month (1) more versus keeping them idle. 1) if 1 KWh costs 10 cents, which is reasonable to expect, and the load increases just 50 W. And for this guy here it's even much more: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54609&postid=918308#918308 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54609&pos... His single computer uses 490 Watts when turned on and calculating Seti, and he's keeping it on for 18 hour more per day just for Seti. Only 500 of such computers and such usage patterns make 14000 dollars more per month.

nadams 11y ago

> tens of thousands of dollars difference I still don't believe that - unless this was 10k computers+. I'll bet that if you used watts up on an idle computer, then used it on a computer running seti@home I'll bet the difference would only be 100 watt difference at the max (probably more like 50 depending on what is running on the computer).

TallGuyShort 11y ago
5k is easily within an order of magnitude of what you would find believable, and he's only expressing an order of magnitude. I think your dispute is rather academic.
vacri 11y ago
"compared bills after turning it off" is a direct measure of costs.
acqq 11y ago
See my other post here for details, 5000 desktop computers using 100% CPU all the time can cost some 18000 USD per month (1) more versus keeping them idle. 1) if 1 KWh costs 10 cents, which is reasonable to expect, and the load increases just 50 W. And for this guy here it's even much more: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54609&postid=918308#918308 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=54609&pos... His single computer uses 490 Watts when turned on and calculating Seti, and he's keeping it on for 18 hour more per day just for Seti. Only 500 of such computers and such usage patterns make 14000 dollars more per month.