Jump to content


Active Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Hampshire

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

XtremeModifier's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. Anyone able to get the FreeDOOM working that was shown in the latest Hak5 episode??? I follwed the url and was able to download and install the FreeDOOM, but it is complaining about missing iWAD and wont run without it. FreeDoom was suppose to have a free open source iWAD available, but it is nowhere to be found. Anyone have the link to the iWAD or a (Legal) iWAD for download? Thanks, Dave
  2. Hey, I noticed that the HAK.5 Team seems to be losing some ground in regards to past WU production. I am trying to turn HAK.5 around from a trend of inactivity that would cause the team to lose ground in ranks. I have 22 computers ranging from P3 to P4 flavor systems crunching (folding) 24/7. The P3 systems take about 3 to 4 days each to complete a work unit and the P4 systems can crank out about 1 per day to 1 per day and a half. BUT, when a training room is no longer needed for intercompany training, I will have to shut down ( 8 of 22 ) of my better performance systems and my production will decline from its current 700 to 1200 pt daily production. Question I have is, does anyone have any ideas on how to get more of the HAK.5 team members involved or gain new members??? Being that most users may only produce 1 or 2 WU per day, I was almost wondering if people have turned away from activity in this team because they may feel as if they are pissing in the ocean, where what little they add to the whole is not a big difference to the whole amount. BUT in fact the little bit between a few users can turn into a good number of crunched work units. It may also be people discouraged by the fact that we would never make it to #1, since there are power house crunchers out there that we may never pull up on the rear to pass since they are in a constant extreme of production, either by number of users or powerful mainframes. What does everyone think? Is there any interest in pulling the team ahead or just running as we are? Does anyone feel discouraged by the fact that we may never to make it to #1 over all other teams? Does anyone feel as if they are pissing in the ocean, so they have been turned away from being active? Does anyone have any good ideas on how we can get more involved with our team both prior inactive members and new team members? Thanks, DaveLembke (FAH Hak.5 Team Member) aka XtremeModifier
  3. Thanks for the info .... Neat that more than one instamce is possible as rpimonitrbtch states, and interrestin that 50% is actualy 100%, so there would be no benefit I guess to trying to run 2 or more instances, since it would really mean that it could casue work units to take 2 or more times longer to complete. Dave
  4. Hey, I am running FAH on about 20 systems, mostly P4 and P3 systems, and I noticed that with the P4 HT systems, they only max out at 50% CPU utilization per Thread. So i am trying to find a way to get the CPU to 100% for both the core and virtual HT core. When setting the priority of the service to Realtime in task management under Windows XP Pro, it sets the HT (virual core) to 0 to 10% activity, and pegs the primary core to 100% for the P4 2.8 Ghz HT CPU, when setting it back one setting to Highest priority before realtime priority, I get 50% utilization on the primary core and the HT (virtual core). What I was thinking is if there is a way to get both to 100%, possibly by running two instances of FAH using Virtual PC to crunch/fold in the virtual environment which may take advantage of the HT, and the the local install of FAH taking advantage of the real core to crunch/fold 2x as much work. I am also wondering if a dual core CPU runs at 50% in which it would be beneficial to peg at close to 100% per core to get 2x as much work completed, and quad cores to have 4 instances running each on a seperate core to get 4x as much work completed in about teh same amount of time as before. I remember SETI being a single core data cruncher and being frustrated at not being able to utilize the second idling CPU in my dual processor servers that I was using.... Maybe pegging the HT processor at 50% for both the actual and virtual core is all I can squeeze out of it! Has anyone else seen this 50% utilization for HT Processors and found ways to crank out more productivity from a CPU to get it closer to 100% for both actual and virtual cores??? Thanks, Dave
  5. This may sound crazy, but, below is all the systems I have FAH Running on and posting contributions to 51258. I created a excel spreadsheet to track how fast each system can on average fold(crunch) the data. Just put this together and still adding to the time it takes for each system on average to complete 1% of each work unit, and each work unit etc. Data is be contributed to Hak5 through FAH Contributor DaveLembke .... Hopefully all these systems will bring Hak5 closer to #1 from its current #266 BTW: The Pentium 3 systems take about 6 or 7 days per work unit to complete, and the Celerons are even worse at around 10 days lol... every little bit helps to get our numbers up as a team. I even tried it on a P-II 333 Mhz old HP NetServer box with 256MB Ram ( 36-bit 72-pin DIMMS ) running 2000 Server SP4, but it said it would take like 30 days, so instead of pegging the CPU at 100% for 30 days for just 1 work unit completed, I shut off the FAH Console on this system... lol Dave HOME System CPU CPU CPU CPU Ram OS "Boost" Per 1% Per Unit 1 Compaq AMD AthlonXP 2800+ A 2.08 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE 30m x 2 PC Intel Pentium 3 370 733 Mhz 256 MB 2000 SVR SSE 1h 30m x 3 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 1.5 GB XP Pro SSE 28m x 4 PC Intel Pentium 4 HT 775 2.80 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE2 13m x 5 HP Intel Celeron x 370 700 Mhz 384 MB 2000 Pro x x x 6 HP Intel Celeron x 370 500 Mhz 256 MB XP Pro x x x Work System CPU CPU CPU CPU Ram OS "Boost" Per 1% Per Unit 1 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 2 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 3 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 4 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 5 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 6 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 7 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 8 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.60 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 9 PC Intel Pentium 4 HT 478 3.00 Ghz 2 GB XP Pro SSE2 x x 10 PC Intel Pentium 4 HT 478 2.80 Ghz 1 GB XP Pro SSE2 x x 11 PC Intel Pentium 4 478 2.80 Ghz 1 GB XP Pro SSE x x 12 PC Intel Celeron x 370 733 Mhz 256 MB 2000 SVR x x x 13 Compaq Intel Pentium 4 478 2.00 Ghz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 14 PC Intel Pentium 3 370 850 Mhz 512 MB XP Pro SSE x x 15 HP Intel Pentium 3 370 733 Mhz 384 MB 2000 Pro SSE x x
  6. Cool... I am going to have to try these methods on one of the many ""Personal"" systems Currently have used Live Linux Tools to change the admin password for 2000 and XP, and then I am in in about 3 minutes or so. Great for users who lock themselves out of their own systems .. ha ha
  7. Hey, Between two sites, I have a Linksys Wireless AP with latest flash (patches) and Bridge, and the antenna's are stuck in a hole in the bottom of the coffee cans to concentrate the wireless radio waves in a linear controlled direction in which the cans are a distance appart of about 100 feet and on the roofs of both buildings pointed directly at each other by use of a laser pointer to align. I am using the most secure method of wireless with WPA and No SSID Broadcast, and of course changed the password from its default. The cans work pretty good at focussing the signal between sites and a site survey from the ground before and after the coffee cans shows that it does weaken the signal to unwanted guests at the ground with dead areas, however even with the coffee cans to focus the waves point to point, there is still some stray wave affect. I am guessing either its bleeding through the metal of the can due to amplitude in a confined space or bouncing eradically our the end of the can in a somewhat linear, but spanned out vector direction at possibly 45 degrees from the lip of the cans. Anyone have any suggestions to better focus the signal point to point so that the 45 degree spanning of the waves from the cans wont occur. This spanning is causing a potential 1 to 4mbps connection at a point directly between sites and where both 45 degree angles from each of the cans meet. Maybe I need t do away with the coffee cans and try to find two dishes with a controllable focal point for a connection at 100 feet appart without the stray affect like the coffee can. Too bad I couldnt run cat5 from point to point. Boss probably wouldnt like that strung from building to building . . . ha ha AND... I would get nervous during storms that it could blow out hardware at both ends even with transorbs or MOV's to surge supress a direct hit. Thanks. . . Dave
  • Create New...