Using windows client version with wine on Linux, great results!

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715,454
RAC: 0
Topic 188222

The time for doing two with native linux binary:

1375838 390738 24 Feb 2005 21:27:38 UTC 26 Feb 2005 0:57:53 UTC Over Success Done 84,240.54 92.57 92.57
1369564 389266 24 Feb 2005 17:11:25 UTC 26 Feb 2005 0:51:56 UTC Over Success Done 84,029.23 92.34 92.34

The time for doing two with windows binary emulated in linux under wine:

1404660 397432 2 Mar 2005 21:35:41 UTC 3 Mar 2005 14:26:40 UTC Over Success Done 28,350.92 63.17 pending
1368901 389111 1 Mar 2005 21:40:39 UTC 3 Mar 2005 14:26:40 UTC Over Success Done 28,076.17 62.56 pending

That is a difference of roughly 84,000-28,000 for doing two WU's. I am just amazed.

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

Metod, S56RKO
Metod, S56RKO
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 135
Credit: 754,111,571
RAC: 60,186

Using windows client version with wine on Linux, great results!


> That is a difference of roughly 84,000-28,000 for doing two WU's. I am just
> amazed.

You can't entirely beleive these numberst as you weren't running the two binaries on identical results (and they do differ in amount of work needed to complete), but this is huge difference and it does indicate that windows binary is better optimized than linux binary.

Metod ...

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715,454
RAC: 0

> You can't entirely beleive

Message 6819 in response to message 6818

> You can't entirely beleive these numberst as you weren't running the two
> binaries on identical results (and they do differ in amount of work
> needed to complete), but this is huge difference and it does indicate that
> windows binary is better optimized than linux binary.

I am going to be doing more research into this. Once I have enough, I should be able to find a nice average as to the difference. Maybe I can even find out what is really optimized by looking at an assembly dump of the code.

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 2,262
Credit: 103,278,617
RAC: 16,154

> The time for doing two with

> The time for doing two with native linux binary:
>
> 1375838 390738 24 Feb 2005 21:27:38 UTC 26 Feb 2005 0:57:53 UTC Over Success
> Done 84,240.54 92.57 92.57
> 1369564 389266 24 Feb 2005 17:11:25 UTC 26 Feb 2005 0:51:56 UTC Over Success
> Done 84,029.23 92.34 92.34
>
> The time for doing two with windows binary emulated in linux under wine:
>
> 1404660 397432 2 Mar 2005 21:35:41 UTC 3 Mar 2005 14:26:40 UTC Over Success
> Done 28,350.92 63.17 pending
> 1368901 389111 1 Mar 2005 21:40:39 UTC 3 Mar 2005 14:26:40 UTC Over Success
> Done 28,076.17 62.56 pending
>
>
> That is a difference of roughly 84,000-28,000 for doing two WU's. I am just
> amazed.
>
>
If these results hold up it certainly is an incentive for Linux users to install WINE and use the Windows client. An approximately 3 to 1 speed increase is impressive!

Q. I see the results still have Pending credit. Will they in fact, validate correctly? i.e. They crunched faster, but did they return correct science?

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715,454
RAC: 0

> Q. I see the results still

Message 6821 in response to message 6820


> Q. I see the results still have Pending credit. Will they in fact, validate
> correctly? i.e. They crunched faster, but did they return correct science?

I am waiting to see. Once I know, I will definately post a followup!

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

ADDMP
ADDMP
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 104
Credit: 7,332,049
RAC: 0

> If these results hold up it

Message 6822 in response to message 6820

> If these results hold up it certainly is an incentive for Linux users to
> install WINE and use the Windows client. An approximately 3 to 1 speed
> increase is impressive!
>
> Q. I see the results still have Pending credit. Will they in fact, validate
> correctly? i.e. They crunched faster, but did they return correct science?
>

I just received credit for the first unit I have processed using the Win App runing under wine running under linux. I received about as many points in about 7 hours of crunching as I have gotten in about 24 hours of crunching for previous units processed using the native linux app. So the win app is about three times as fast. And it does produce validated results at least some of the time. Not clear yet whether it can consistently produce validated results.

ADDMP

ADDMP
ADDMP
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 104
Credit: 7,332,049
RAC: 0

> I just received credit for

Message 6823 in response to message 6822

> I just received credit for the first unit I have processed using the Win App
> runing under wine running under linux. I received about as many points in
> about 7 hours of crunching as I have gotten in about 24 hours of crunching for
> previous units processed using the native linux app. So the win app is about
> three times as fast. And it does produce validated results at least some of
> the time. Not clear yet whether it can consistently produce validated
> results.
>
> ADDMP
>

While I was sitting here typing the above reply, my second unit using the Win app running under wine running under linux finished. Validated immediately. Same points & running time statistics as I described above.

ADDMP

Biogenesis
Biogenesis
Joined: 11 Nov 04
Posts: 24
Credit: 140,834
RAC: 0

Hmm, I was using WINE for a

Hmm, I was using WINE for a while, the first WU finished fine but the 2 following it were invalid (only took 10000s, something screwed up big time).

How exactly are you invoking WINE?

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715,454
RAC: 0

> While I was sitting here

Message 6825 in response to message 6823


> While I was sitting here typing the above reply, my second unit using the Win
> app running under wine running under linux finished. Validated immediately.
> Same points & running time statistics as I described above.
>
> ADDMP

One of my results has now been validated as well. Still waiting for the others to come through.

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715,454
RAC: 0

> How exactly are you

Message 6826 in response to message 6824

> How exactly are you invoking WINE?

I use the following:
wine boinc_cli.exe -update_prefs http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/ -return_results_immediately

I haven't even tried using the boinc_gui.exe Maybe that was your problem?

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

ADDMP
ADDMP
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 104
Credit: 7,332,049
RAC: 0

> Hmm, I was using WINE for a

Message 6827 in response to message 6824

> Hmm, I was using WINE for a while, the first WU finished fine but the 2
> following it were invalid (only took 10000s, something screwed up big time).
>
> How exactly are you invoking WINE?
>

I type:
nice -19 wine boinc_4.19_windows_intelx86.exe

I don't know enough about the project to understand why my answer is different from the previous answer by Jordan Wilberding.

ADDMP.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.