Hi everyone.

I was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between a system running Windows to one running Linux (same Computer dual boot) any comments, ideas or experience would be appreciated.!

---

> I was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between a system running
> Windows to one running Linux (same Computer dual boot) any comments, ideas or
> experience would be appreciated.!

Actually I just did it today.

It's pain in the a#$%( to measure time for crunching one WU properly under Windows (if you run app standalone, graphics window pops up. You can minimize it, but I'm not sure wether graphics consumes any CPU or not). I also noticed that the speed of official seti crunching app depends greatly upon CPU in question.

Said that, here's the result: windows cruncher is approximately 30% slower than linux cruncher on a HP xw4200 with P4 HT @3.2GHz and 1GB of RAM.

For more results (different machines, different linux binaries) see my page.

---

Metod ...

> It's pain in the a#$%( to measure time for crunching one WU properly under Windows (if you run app standalone, graphics window pops up. You can minimize it, but I'm not sure wether graphics consumes any CPU or not).

You mean the screen saver with graphics? Yes, it does slow down crunching very much. Don't know how much, but in Classic I saw about 50% diference. So, I never use a screen saver.

> Said that, here's the result: windows cruncher is approximately 30% slower than linux cruncher on a HP xw4200 with P4 HT @3.2GHz and 1GB of RAM.

Interesting!
What if you disable the screen saver in Windows? Is it the same 30% then?

---

> > I was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between a system running
> > Windows to one running Linux (same Computer dual boot) any comments,
> ideas or
> > experience would be appreciated.!
>
> Actually I just did it today.
>
> It's pain in the a#$%( to measure time for crunching one WU properly under
> Windows (if you run app standalone, graphics window pops up. You can minimize
> it, but I'm not sure wether graphics consumes any CPU or not). I also noticed
> that the speed of official seti crunching app depends greatly upon CPU in
> question.
>
> Said that, here's the result: windows cruncher is approximately 30% slower
> than linux cruncher on a <a> href="http://www.hp.com/workstations/pws/xw4200/index.html">HP xw4200[/url] with
> P4 HT @3.2GHz and 1GB of RAM.
>
> For more results (different machines, different linux binaries) see <a> href="http://mkx.feridot.com/boinc/">my page[/url].
>

Thanks for the input, I only really look at the average times so if I can see an increase of around OF 20 TO 30% by running Linux I think I will run my machine on Linux overnite when it is idle and at other times when I am watching movies and such until I get a lot more familiar with the Linux platform, my son is a bit of a wiz at it so I am Trying in vain to catch up! (I only just got him to change over to Boinc and he is the team Creator)
Best regards and Greets from West OZ

Lou Manzi

---

> You mean the screen saver with graphics?

No. What I did was to run SETI/boinc science app in standalone mode. This can be done as follows:

- create a new directory.
- copy setiathome-?.??-windows-intel.exe and setiathome-?.??-windows-intel.pdb from your boinc/projects/setiathome.berkeley.edu directory
- get reference_work_unit.sah and rename it to work_unit.sah
- open a command window (start->run cmd) and run setiathome-?.??-windows-intel.exe

It will open a graphics window and I have been said that if you minimize it immediately, no graphics processing will take place.

When the setiathome app finishes, you get the time it took in init_data.xml. I compared this number to the one from linux obtained the same way (more or less).

---

Metod ...

It's a little surpricing that Linux is more efficient on BOINC, because many people here in the forum seems to think that Windows is better optimized for BOINC.

See here for instance: Optimum os to run Seti on

---

> It's a little surpricing that Linux is more efficient on BOINC, because many
> people here in the forum seems to think that Windows is better optimized for
> BOINC.

Indeed. I was surprised too. But might be that it's due to large L2 cache (1M) of this processor. I've compiled a set of optimized seti binaries for linux which show something like 45% of speedup on P4 comparing to official linux binary. On this machine, speedup was miserable 15%, so it seems that official linux seti binary really does its best on this configuration.

My test is by no means definitve. And I don't intend to run tests on other machines (well, one perhaps) as the rest of my boxes are not dual-boot.

A side note: I also tried to run windows seti cruncher with wine in linux and it performed similarly as natively. This might open more room for comparision of windows vs. linux binaries.

[edit]
I did briefly follow the discussion you're mentioning. The problem with it is that it's based on feelings and assumptions (like mean time for processing some tens of WUs which depends very much on WUs themselves). My case is a bit more scientiffic as the exactly the same amount of work had to be done.
[/edit]

[edit 2]
From what I wrote above I could conclude that normally windows and linux binaries should perform similarly on the same hardware.
However, you have a choice of optimized binaries for linux for different processors (Ned built some for AMD CPUs, I built some for Intel CPUs) so the odds for beating Windows in time per WU with linux on any hardware are good.
[/edit 2]

---

Metod ...

I see. Well, I have only two licenced Windows XP Pro, so if I were to set up a SETI farm, I'd have no other choice but to use Linux. Otherwise I'd be ruined just by purchasing operating systems...

---

> I see. Well, I have only two licenced Windows XP Pro, so if I were to set up
> a SETI farm, I'd have no other choice but to use Linux. Otherwise I'd be
> ruined just by purchasing operating systems...

Indeed. Most of my machines are not dual-boot as they are Linux only. Most of my machines are Windows as I'm forced to do things which I can't do on linux in a company-compatible way :(

---

Metod ...

I saw your page with binaries and timings, and I may have to go there to get optimized Linux binaries if I need one later.

My current setup is AMD 2500+ (Barton), Windows XP Pro SP2 and 1 GB PC2700 (333 MHz) RAM. It performs decently well and WU's land in about 12-13000 secs average. So I'm about 200 BOINC credits average per day. I use BOINC v4.19 and CLI v4.09.

---

I "lost" about 100 MIPS float and integer when I went from OS X.3.8 to YDL 4.

I haven't crunched actively under Linux, so I can't produce any corroborating evidence.

---

Hello everone- I just built a new P-4 3.0 hpt, 1 gig mem, I have dual loaded win xp home and red hat 9 ver 2.4.20-6smp, linux ver 4.27 boinc and win ver 4.19.
The linux kernel and boinc are just as they came , same with the win ver.

For 10 work units linux had a mean of 3.8 hr and the win xp had a mean of 3.2 hr. I ame looking forward to getting an optimized ver of linux ver 4.27 if one becomes available.

---

From my experience, the native Windows client is 10-20% faster than the native linux client. But I only have experience of AthlonXP processors and it might vary for different processors/cache levels.

However, there are now optimized seti clients available for linux (it's far easier to compile your own custom optimised client for linux) that are faster than the windows client on the same hardware.

I would say if you're running a dual boot system with the native clients, leave it running in windows for best performance unless you know your own optimized linux client is faster.

Ned

---

*** My Guide to Compiling Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients ***
*** Download Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients for Linux Here ***

Hello all.

I think we can try two different kind of comparison.
We can compare STANDARD crunchers on the same hardware. Usually this
will sort up Windows as winner.

We can compare, over the same hardware, the BEST cruncher can be build
for. I must admit that will again have Windows as winner. Take note an
optimized cruncher can be as fast to cut in half times. Mine are both.

This is my story, I do have both Windows & Linux optimized clients up.
A friend built up Windows one and I built Linux lol, based on fftw3 and icc.
They're both really aggressive but Windows is faster, grrrrrr :)

Paolo, iw6dak (at arrl.net)


> > It's a little surpricing that Linux is more efficient on BOINC, because
> many
> > people here in the forum seems to think that Windows is better optimized
> for
> > BOINC.
>

---

I have tried a comparison with 2 machines. one with windows and one with optimized linux on Boinc and I'm sad to say that the windows soooo far has beat it.
BUT Boinc is new just as SETI@Home classic was new and in the end we beat it!!!!!!
I have all the confidence in the world that we will again.
@ MS people: what are or can you do to speed up the processes of your computers operating system? wait on Bill?
He has a lot of VERY well payed programmers but they have goals others than SETI.
There are a lot of programers for windows out there but as this thread asks... can they stand up to Linux programmers? I don't think so. Human will will win!

Before we drift too far in Tux Vs. Bill discussions, I would like to throw in my experiences:

Generally the original Linux Seti client is around 10% slower than the original Windows version. Most of the machines I have access to are AMD and a few Intel machines. The Intel based machines are also slower on Linux than on Windows, when looking at the average of real results.

The picture changes when you start to compile your own clients on Linux. You will have the chance to get similar results or even a bit better than the original Windows client.

Fact is that your off the shelf Linux system comes with all the tools to compile your own clients. Windows does not...

---

Chris Bosshard
Visit my homepage
astroinfo SETI page

some other crazy people like me too then. i want to get a copy of sparc/solaris on here too but i would need a memory upgrade for the laptop. 18 gigs between three OS'es would be sorta small.

---

~boinc its not the credit or satisfaction its the screensavers~
S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club ©members

at1839,

> This is my story, I do have both Windows & Linux optimized clients up.

Did you compile the Windows client yourself, or did you find the optimized version somewhere on Internet? If the latter, I'd appreciate a link reference. :)

---

Bjorn,

> at1839,
>
> > This is my story, I do have both Windows & Linux optimized clients
> up.
>
> Did you compile the Windows client yourself
>

the Windows client was built by two Italian guys for team members
of Hardware Upgrade

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=30265

Sorry, but it's reserved to team members :-)

I compiled the Linux one and you can find more info here:

https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1256083&forum_id=422289

Both clients are based on fftw3 libraries thanks to the original
work of Eric Eheien.

Paolo.

---