Joined: 31 Aug 00
Given; the Linux client seems to be about 35% slower than the windows client.
|ID: 13596 ·|
UWP (Udo Wolter)|
Joined: 28 Oct 02
Yes, Linux ist faster but it depends on how good the program is written. It seems that the seti client itself is not really optimized, even compiling with optimization brings just 5% more speed. There is one thing you can do. As you said right, the credits are calculated by the speed but it's not the only thing. There's also the integer & floating point measuring which comes into this calculation too. In this case you can optimize the boinc client by just compiling it from source and using as much optimization as possible. I doubled my floating points and increased my integer calculations about 50%. In this case the work unit might last as long as before until it's finished but the calculation gets up straight. At least linux machines are hanging only 25% behind the windows machines if you use this method. But this 25% less speed is something what should be done in the seti client. As long as it is that poor optimized we will stay behind the windows machines...:(
|ID: 13716 ·|
Joined: 15 Apr 99
That´s true I also recognised that after compiling boinc and the core client with the gcc flags CFLAGS="-O3 -march=athlon-tbird -fomit-frame-pointer -mmmx -m3dnow -fexpensive-optimizations" increased performance.
|ID: 13804 ·|
©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.