Is linux cruncher much slower than windows cruncher?
11 Apr 2005 21:06:16 UTC
Topic 188935
(moderation:
I just began Einsten@home (I began SETI@home a while ago) on my two machines; P4 2.4G WinXP SP2 and P4 2.8G HT Linux 2.6. SETI@home takes about 3.5 hours on WinXP machine, while it takes 4 hours on Linux machine (because it's a HT, 2 thread machine.) Anyway it means Linux box is a bit slower on SETI@home cruncher.
I began Einsten@home yesterday and found WinXP finished one unit about 9 hours. But Linux box is expected to finish one unit longer than 20 hours (has not finished yet). Is this a kind of feature? If so, I remove Einsten@home from my Linux box and let my Windos box crunch Einstein@home at a high priority. Or am I making any mistakes?
I use Einsten@home 4.79 on Windows, while 4.80 on Linux.
TIA.
Is linux cruncher much slower than windows cruncher?
)
I was running E@H on several linux boxes with the native linux client. It was very slow. I switched over to run the windows client on the linux boxes using wine and the performance increased dramatically. I have an xp2500 clocked at 2.2 ghz that completes E@H work units in under 6 hours. When running the linux boxes under wine the operating system is identified as either win 98 or win 95.
There is a long thread about this in this forum. just search for linux wine.
Thanks for your reply. I
)
Thanks for your reply.
I also confirmed it with the second working unit.. I don't want to run wine because I often log off X Window...instead I have another computer running Windows. So I erase Einstein@home on my Linux box and run it on my Windows box with a high priority. SETI@home is already running on my Linux box. I may join other projects...
> I don't want to run wine
)
> I don't want to run wine because I often log off X Window
Simply run a VNC server! This is what I do, and it works great, especially if you have a headless machine.
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
Or instead VNC run Xvfb. I do
)
Or instead VNC run Xvfb. I do it myself and works for me.
> Or instead VNC run Xvfb. I
)
> Or instead VNC run Xvfb. I do it myself and works for me.
>
>
oh..I've never thought of Xvfb. I won't use Xvfb for boinc (because I will run E@H on another box running Windows) but Xvfb is useful for another use (run vmware)!! Thank you for the idea!!
btw I compiled seti@home from the source for linux and made an optimized faster client, which is faster than the Windows equivalent. I wish Einstein@Hone also released the source code...
May the source be with you!