Linux benchmark ?!?!?!


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Linux benchmark ?!?!?!

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
WerK
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 02
Posts: 26
Credit: 204,105
RAC: 0
Czech Republic
Message 6060 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 11:50:01 UTC

OK I'm running Linux-2.6.7 so i DLed the CLI client 3.18 for linux, works ok. I have AMD Barton 3200+ processor and the benchmark results are ~1100 floating, ~2400 integer. Then I tried to run the 3.19 windows boinc binary boinc_cli.exe ( the boinc_gui.exe was screwing up ) using wine emulation facility. I was very very surprised about the results, because even it was emulating windows environment i was getting around
2600 float and 4600 integer ( you can have a look @ http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/hosts_user.php?userid=100170 , trust me, its really the same machine ). So I'm asking : why Linux machines are getting 2x lower benchmark results ??. Is it compensated (will be?) or Linux users are really getting almost 2x lower credit?

P.S. : I'm getting around 25 cobblestones claimed from 1 WU crunched, somebody with same processor as me & windows please post your claimed credit average, thanks

WerK

Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6064 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 12:02:12 UTC

Windows is better, more sexy, faster, secure, ;-) OOOPS a little flame war tread ;-)))
[/url] [/url]

WerK
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 02
Posts: 26
Credit: 204,105
RAC: 0
Czech Republic
Message 6072 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 12:26:11 UTC

No problem ;-). If thats right and Berkeley are windows-oriented guys, i will experiment with optimal config and run boinc under wine emulation like I was doing with Seti@Home Classic ( the 3.08 linux was horribly slow - about 3hr/WU, emulated 3.03 windows was doing ~2:20h/WU ). Its proven that wine is faster than native windows because of "cleaner" implementation of API. But i hope that BOINC is really "multiplatform" :)))

Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6083 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 12:50:03 UTC

allright you unterstand a joke have a nice weekend and if i see good stuff for linux on the web i post it on the board here
[/url] [/url]

Zorous
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Sep 01
Posts: 7
Credit: 890,196
RAC: 211
United States
Message 6099 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 13:38:38 UTC

I am finding the exact thing happening on my P4 laptop that I dual boot with XP Pro and Suse 9.1...the performance (according to the benchmarks) seems to be more than double on XP!! That is messed up.

Alex
Send message
Joined: 26 Sep 01
Posts: 260
Credit: 2,327
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 6101 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 13:45:46 UTC - in response to Message 6099.

> I am finding the exact thing happening on my P4 laptop that I dual boot with
> XP Pro and Suse 9.1...the performance (according to the benchmarks) seems to
> be more than double on XP!! That is messed up.
>
I found the same thing

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=61773
Machine running windows client under wine.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=37586
Machine running linux client.
Results

Linux
Measured floating point speed 132.98 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 245.24 million ops/sec

Wine
Measured floating point speed 315.06 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 524.11 million ops/sec

Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6151 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 15:46:38 UTC

[/url] [/url]

Grant
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 4
Credit: 9,600
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6168 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 16:42:44 UTC

I was skeptical about this until I tried it myself. I'm running on Fedora Core 2, Kernel 2.6.6 on a Pentium 2 333:

Linux Command Line Client:
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=59887
Measured floating point speed 172.39 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 359.18 million ops/sec

Windows GUI Client (using wine, Win95 emulation):
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=62037
Measured floating point speed 396.51 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 680.06 million ops/sec

Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6172 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 17:04:06 UTC

[/url] [/url]

markkuk
Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 00
Posts: 6
Credit: 792,266
RAC: 669
Finland
Message 6195 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 18:24:03 UTC - in response to Message 6168.

> I was skeptical about this until I tried it myself. I'm running on Fedora
> Core 2, Kernel 2.6.6 on a Pentium 2 333:
>
> Linux Command Line Client:
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=59887
> Measured floating point speed 172.39 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 359.18 million ops/sec
>
> Windows GUI Client (using wine, Win95 emulation):
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=62037
> Measured floating point speed 396.51 million ops/sec
> Measured integer speed 680.06 million ops/sec

The Windows client is compiled with Microsoft Visual C++, the Linux client is compiled with GCC 3. GCC sacrifices performance to gain portability. It would be interesting to compile the client from source using the Intel C++ Compiler for Linux to see what kind of benchmarks it gets.

Chris Bosshard
Send message
Joined: 5 Jun 99
Posts: 86
Credit: 3,474,583
RAC: 0
Switzerland
Message 6198 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 18:34:29 UTC

I absolutely agree....

Already the old client had the same issue. It underperformed when comparing with the same box runing under Windows.

The good thing about the new version is that it is open source and optimizations can be done....

Anybody that is working on optimization of the code for better performance?
Is there someone that can compile the original code with the intel compiler?

I would be ready to do some testing... ;-)



Chris Bosshard
astroinfo Team
http://www.astroinfo.org

Grant
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 4
Credit: 9,600
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6202 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 18:44:13 UTC

its worth a try. I'm gonna go get the source code for BOINC and SETI now and see if i can get GCC to optimize it for my CPU and see if that helps at all.

Grant
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 4
Credit: 9,600
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6221 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 19:55:56 UTC

So far I have the current CVS version of the BOINC client recompiled. In order to optimize the compile i set the following environment variables:

export CFLAGS="-O3 -march=pentiumpro -funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations"
export CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS

then ran:
./configure --disable server

I havent recompiled the actual SETI client yet, but I ran a benchmark on just the BOINC client. Here are the stats:

Linux Command Line Client (precompiled distribution client):
Measured floating point speed 172.39 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 359.18 million ops/sec

Linux Command Line Client (optimized and self compiled):
319 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU (floating point speed)
347 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU (integer speed)

The compile time optimizations greatly increased the FPU speed, but didnt do anything for the integer speed. I'll have to see if I can find any more GCC options that will help optimize that as well.



Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6222 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 20:01:46 UTC

OOPS the dark linux force OOPS ;-) hi freaks have a nice sunday
[/url] [/url]

WerK
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 02
Posts: 26
Credit: 204,105
RAC: 0
Czech Republic
Message 6239 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 21:22:48 UTC

thx much for feedback guys, did some RTFM and got first results :

1946 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
2731 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
using:
export CFLAGS='-O3 -mcpu=athlon-xp -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -m3dnow -msse
export CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS

which is much better now :]
I'm going to play with flags more and post the best settings

markkuk
Send message
Joined: 9 Oct 00
Posts: 6
Credit: 792,266
RAC: 669
Finland
Message 6249 - Posted: 10 Jul 2004, 22:00:19 UTC - in response to Message 6195.

> It would
> be interesting to compile the client from source using the Intel C++ Compiler
> for Linux to see what kind of benchmarks it gets.

An initial result: the CVS snapshot boinc-cvs-2004-07-10.tar.gz compiles with ICC after one correction, but the resulting program crashes with SIGSEGV. That makes the version compiled with GCC infinetly faster :-)

Grant
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 4
Credit: 9,600
RAC: 0
United States
Message 6427 - Posted: 11 Jul 2004, 9:02:55 UTC
Last modified: 11 Jul 2004, 9:03:23 UTC

WerK:

Try running "-funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations" as well. It may help bump up your stats a bit more, and i'm interested in seeing by how much.

WerK
Send message
Joined: 30 Jun 02
Posts: 26
Credit: 204,105
RAC: 0
Czech Republic
Message 6433 - Posted: 11 Jul 2004, 9:34:01 UTC - in response to Message 6427.

> WerK:
>
> Try running "-funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations" as well. It may help
> bump up your stats a bit more, and i'm interested in seeing by how much.
>
>
Played with it a bit more and found this setting : export CFLAGS='-O3 -mcpu=athlon-xp -march=athlon-xp -mfpmath=sse -m3dnow -msse
-mmmx -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -s -static'

the ' -fexpensive-optimizations' are already included because use of '-O3', you can find some nice info on this page : http://www.freehackers.org/gentoo/gccflags/flag_gcc3opt.html

So, with this config I have following results :
float - 2558.21 million ops/sec
integer - 3172.54 million ops/sec
(the floating point is now same as in Windows binary, integer increased a bit, but its still much lower than Windows binary)

Profile Guido_A_Waldenmeier_
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 482
Credit: 4,774
RAC: 0
Liechtenstein
Message 6457 - Posted: 11 Jul 2004, 10:59:26 UTC

Ground Control to Major Tom
Ground Control to Major Tom
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

Ground Control to Major Tom
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God's love be with you

(spoken)
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Liftoff

This is Ground Control to Major Tom
You've really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it's time to leave the capsule if you dare

"This is Major Tom to Ground Control
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way
And the stars look very different today

For here
Am I sitting in a tin can
Far above the world
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do

Though I'm past one hundred thousand miles
I'm feeling very still
And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I love her very much she knows"

Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you....

"Here am I floating round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there's nothing I can do."
[/url] [/url]

Chris Bosshard
Send message
Joined: 5 Jun 99
Posts: 86
Credit: 3,474,583
RAC: 0
Switzerland
Message 6470 - Posted: 11 Jul 2004, 11:28:32 UTC

To compile the source with optimizations shows certainly improvements.

Just some critical questions:

Will the results from self compiled clients be accepted by the Project when compared with results calculated with the official clients?

Is there a way to make sure that it will be accepted?
Is there a way to self certify the self compiled clients?

What do you guys think?




Chris Bosshard
astroinfo Team
http://www.astroinfo.org

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Linux benchmark ?!?!?!

Copyright © 2014 University of California