GUI vs CLI performance

Questions and Answers : Preferences : GUI vs CLI performance

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
tsservo

Send message
Joined: 12 Jun 99
Posts: 3
Credit: 2,649
RAC: 0
United States
Message 944 - Posted: 24 Jun 2004, 2:00:00 UTC

SETI Classic ran so much quicker as a CLI. Does BOINC suffer the same shortcoming, or are they equivalent speeds?

I've installed the GUI version (CLI failed on install) but I'd like to know if I should attempt to switch it to the CLI in the future...

Thanks.

ID: 944 · Report as offensive
John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24806
Credit: 754,585
RAC: 140
United States
Message 949 - Posted: 24 Jun 2004, 2:07:26 UTC

The GUI will absorb a small fraction of the time in communications that the CLI may not do. That said, the code that does the actual crunching is identical in that the CLI and the GUI call the same executable to do the actual work. So there may be a difference, but it is going to be minimal. However if you want the install as a service, you need the CLI.

On some machines a vast improvement can be gotten by turning off the screen saver.

Which tab is active also affects the processing somewhat. More on slower machines than on faster ones. For best results, select the projects tab, even when the GUI is minimized or hidden.
jm7

ID: 949 · Report as offensive

Questions and Answers : Preferences : GUI vs CLI performance


 
©2016 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.