Best OS for seti?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Best OS for seti?

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next
Author Message
sweede
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 01
Posts: 1
Credit: 339,846
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 666488 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 20:11:55 UTC
Last modified: 25 Oct 2007, 20:46:32 UTC

Hi!

Which OS is the best for calculating WUs as fast and good as posible?

According to statistics on Boincstats OS page it seams to be Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2".

Anyone that got a different awnser to my question or just can confirm that I have read the list as it should be read?

//sweede

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
Message 666537 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 21:36:19 UTC - in response to Message 666488.
Last modified: 25 Oct 2007, 21:38:42 UTC

Which OS is the best for calculating WUs as fast and good as posible?

According to statistics on Boincstats OS page it seams to be Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2".

Anyone that got a different awnser to my question or just can confirm that I have read the list as it should be read?

A quick look for the top computers for s@h shows "Darwin 8.10.1" (Mac) to be favourite.

The Windows may well be fine for performance if you are NOT running any antivirus.

My strong preference is for a Linux or BSD based system.

If you are really looking for maximum performance, then you should be looking at a minimal Linux system, or even a minimal Gentoo system.

But then again, any good OS takes so little percentage of the CPU that the OS overhead should be negligible.

The latest (tickless) Linux kernels should offer the ultimate in minimising OS overhead.

And then again, what is most important is whatever is most reliable for you.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
Message 666541 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 21:46:06 UTC

Wow! I never realised that Linux was so far ahead of Vista!!

Aside: Note that those stats will be heavily skewed by what hardware the various OSes are running on. Older OSes may well be on older (slower) hardware. Server OSes will likely be on high performance hardware.

And Linux...? That can be on anything from your washing machine and mobile phone all the way up to the world's fastest supercomputers.


Happy crunchin',
Martin


____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7025
Credit: 59,270,434
RAC: 20,624
Germany
Message 666554 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 22:21:17 UTC
Last modified: 25 Oct 2007, 22:23:04 UTC



To my knowledge..
Windows 32 Bit is faster than 32 Bit Linux and..
Windows 64 Bit is faster than 64 Bit Linux and..
Linux 64 Bit is faster than 32 bit Windows..

..all opt. apps..


____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 4920
Credit: 72,621,001
RAC: 1,902
Australia
Message 666560 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 22:32:00 UTC

LOL, from those Boincstats OS numbers it looks like I'm not the only one sticking with 32 bit Win XP for a while. :D
____________
"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."
Charles Darwin

Profile TeamDGC
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 99
Posts: 19
Credit: 7,091,042
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 666576 - Posted: 25 Oct 2007, 23:07:16 UTC

I suspect this would be quite fast! http://blog.schreiter.info/boincpe-livecd-for-boinc/

W2003 Server is most likley the fastes couse it's mostly run by fast Xeon CPUs!
____________
All time #1 M.U.R.C. Cruncher!

zombie67 [MM]
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Apr 04
Posts: 753
Credit: 15,893,862
RAC: 322
United States
Message 666763 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 4:05:54 UTC

Is anything faster than OSX with alexkan's app?
____________
Dublin, CA

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
Message 666944 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 12:32:23 UTC - in response to Message 666554.
Last modified: 26 Oct 2007, 12:36:56 UTC

To my knowledge..
Windows 32 Bit is faster than 32 Bit Linux and..
Windows 64 Bit is faster than 64 Bit Linux and..
Linux 64 Bit is faster than 32 bit Windows..

..all opt. apps..

Is that for the s@h science applications?


As for the actual OSes, I don't know that there are any reliable numbers for either OS being faster than the other, anyway around.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7025
Credit: 59,270,434
RAC: 20,624
Germany
Message 666961 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 13:39:06 UTC - in response to Message 666894.
Last modified: 26 Oct 2007, 13:45:30 UTC

There are a lot of other threads that handles this issue more seriously.
...
Kiva



Please could you tell us/me this threads?


____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Profile [seti.international] Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7025
Credit: 59,270,434
RAC: 20,624
Germany
Message 666963 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 13:43:02 UTC - in response to Message 666944.
Last modified: 26 Oct 2007, 13:46:30 UTC

To my knowledge..
Windows 32 Bit is faster than 32 Bit Linux and..
Windows 64 Bit is faster than 64 Bit Linux and..
Linux 64 Bit is faster than 32 bit Windows..

..all opt. apps..

Is that for the s@h science applications?


As for the actual OSes, I don't know that there are any reliable numbers for either OS being faster than the other, anyway around.

Happy crunchin',
Martin



This infos are from the optimizer-COOP..

OOppss.. I forgot..
I thought only to the 'normal' PCs.. ;-)
I think Alex's opt. apps for MACs are the fastest apps around..


____________
BR



>Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.<

Gecko
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 99
Posts: 440
Credit: 5,880,501
RAC: 2,388
United States
Message 667121 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 19:55:13 UTC
Last modified: 26 Oct 2007, 20:32:36 UTC

There has never been a definitive conclusion to this question that has been asked several times and discussed in several threads the past few years. The reason simply is that conditions don't easily allow for an apples-apples test.

Per Zombie's comment: Yes, OSX + Alex's V8 is the fastest current combo, as V8's predecessors have been for the past couple of years. Of course as most know, this is primarily because of Alex's ap code, not OSX, and not always dependent on the CPU arch. It wasn't long ago when PPC G5s at 2.5GHZ running Alex's aps would still handily out-perform the fastest Netburst-based chips....all this w/o Intel compilers, large L2s, or 3GHZ+ clock freq. GCC, FFTW, & VMX (Altivec) optimizing performed quite admirably until the new sheriff, Core2 came on scene.

Reminiscing aside, a logical way to truly answer the question would be to compare an identical application build that was ported to identical hardware running in same 32bit or 64bit mode on common public OS distros as XP or Vista, OSX, and comparable Linux i.e. RedHat, Suse, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora etc...pick your flavor.

This could provide an answer from a "level" playing field perspective, though one might be able to un-level the field w/ Linux to an extent and completely build their own "optimized OS" from the ground-up to compliment a specific CPU, custom BOINC client and S@H application optimized to the CPU.
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
It's possible that one might claim they had the "best" possible combo this way, IF...Linux, OSX and Windows "X" are comparatively close in basic performance to start.

It appears like ALOT of work to reach a credible answer.
____________

Profile Tklop
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 May 03
Posts: 175
Credit: 613,952
RAC: 0
United States
Message 667178 - Posted: 26 Oct 2007, 22:14:09 UTC

Though this is probably not much use to anyone here (with the majority of posters using modern fast crunching equipment) I can testify to a definite improvement in RAC when I switched some older machines (500MHz P3, 450MHz Celeron, etc.) from Windows XP Pro to Linux Debian.

Maybe if I'd been running Windows 98 on those old boxes, it might not have made much difference, I don't know one way or another. Still, it seems to me that those old and slow boxes really weren't up to the overhead that XP Pro required...

But I'm no expert at these things--this is only my rather non-technical observation...
____________
Keep on crunching, all...
SETI@Home Forever!


___Tklop (Step-Founder, U.S. Air Force team)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
Message 667228 - Posted: 27 Oct 2007, 0:02:01 UTC - in response to Message 666537.
Last modified: 27 Oct 2007, 0:03:05 UTC

... But then again, any good OS takes so little percentage of the CPU that the OS overhead should be negligible.

The latest (tickless) Linux kernels should offer the ultimate in minimising OS overhead.

And then again, what is most important is whatever is most reliable for you.

An interesting (non-technical) spin on the "tickless kernel" innovation in Linux is described in:

Linux coders tackle power efficiency

Maybe you'd be better off if you didn't spend so much time looking at your watch.

That, loosely speaking, is the rationale behind a significant change at the heart of Linux that programmers hope will make the open-source operating system more efficient. New versions of the operating system are being endowed with a "tickless" kernel that forsakes traditional computer time-keeping in an effort to keep the processor in a somnolent, low-power state.


The other aspect of that is that there is less overhead by not maintaining the kernel clock ticking every thousandth of a second. Rather nice!


But then again... As mentioned, the OS overhead should be a long way below 1% of the CPU overheads. Other applications, especially those that do a lot of disk accesses or 'busy waits', are much more of a problem.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

DJStarfox
Send message
Joined: 23 May 01
Posts: 1040
Credit: 540,292
RAC: 561
United States
Message 667270 - Posted: 27 Oct 2007, 0:36:40 UTC - in response to Message 667228.

An interesting (non-technical) spin on the "tickless kernel" innovation in Linux is described in:

Linux coders tackle power efficiency

Maybe you'd be better off if you didn't spend so much time looking at your watch.

That, loosely speaking, is the rationale behind a significant change at the heart of Linux that programmers hope will make the open-source operating system more efficient. New versions of the operating system are being endowed with a "tickless" kernel that forsakes traditional computer time-keeping in an effort to keep the processor in a somnolent, low-power state.


The other aspect of that is that there is less overhead by not maintaining the kernel clock ticking every thousandth of a second. Rather nice!


But then again... As mentioned, the OS overhead should be a long way below 1% of the CPU overheads. Other applications, especially those that do a lot of disk accesses or 'busy waits', are much more of a problem.

Happy crunchin',
Martin


For some reason, I can't use tickless on dual Opterons x86_64, so I just recomplied for 300Hz timer and no kernel preemption. So far, no noticable performance degredation. Maybe that will help squeeze a few more FLOPS out of SETI.

Profile ohiomike
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 04
Posts: 357
Credit: 650,069
RAC: 0
United States
Message 667283 - Posted: 27 Oct 2007, 0:53:54 UTC - in response to Message 667270.


For some reason, I can't use tickless on dual Opterons x86_64, so I just recomplied for 300Hz timer and no kernel preemption. So far, no noticable performance degredation. Maybe that will help squeeze a few more FLOPS out of SETI.

I've had best luck compiling with a 100 Hz timer and Low-Latency (preemptive). Note: Arch Linux or PCLinuxOS run better than most (with Red Hat Fedora I need to turn off 20 or 30 services I don't want (( sendmail, cups, etc- it is a bad as Windoze)) or need).

____________

Boinc Button Abuser In Training >My Shrubbers<

Profile Toby
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Oct 00
Posts: 1005
Credit: 5,622,795
RAC: 1
United States
Message 667360 - Posted: 27 Oct 2007, 2:37:36 UTC

Yeah I was hoping to play with the tickless kernel on my laptop when I upgraded to Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon but the tickless kernel isn't stable on x86_64 (aka amd64) yet. Guess I'll have to wait for Hardy Heron. Or live on the edge and compile my own I guess :)

As for "which OS is better" here is another URL to consider: Comparison of my two 4400+s. These two computers have the same CPU and motherboard. But it really still isn't a good comparison... As you can see by the pie charts, they run different projects and different projects tend to give different credits/hour so... yeah it is virtually impossible to do a good comparison.

Plus, as has been mentioned, the compiler and libraries that are used when building the project application have a much bigger effect on the processing speed than the OS itself.
____________
A member of The Knights Who Say NI!
For rankings, history graphs and more, check out:
My BOINC stats site

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
Message 667597 - Posted: 27 Oct 2007, 12:09:02 UTC - in response to Message 667360.
Last modified: 27 Oct 2007, 12:10:19 UTC

Yeah I was hoping to play with the tickless kernel on my laptop when I upgraded to Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon but the tickless kernel isn't stable on x86_64 (aka amd64) yet. Guess I'll have to wait for Hardy Heron. Or live on the edge and compile my own I guess :)

Thanks for that comment. I'm likely to do an upgrade to try that out later this weekend... Looks like I'll just have to try it out but also have the previous (ticking) kernel to fall back on.

Running on the bleeding edge can be fun. Then again, keeping the latest 'stable' kernel to hand can be very boring but also very useful for the reliability.


... Plus, as has been mentioned, the compiler and libraries that are used when building the project application have a much bigger effect on the processing speed than the OS itself.

Agreed, hence the choice is more of what is most useful/reliable for a particular user.


Here's still hoping for Who? What? Where? Skulltrail? Vendetta? Whatever? coming up with some radical goodies despite the longest Viral Marketing Hype I've known anyone to perpetrate. Hopefully, it might overcome the 'gazillion CPU hours' of performance I've needlessly lost on my systems due to the "Naughty Intel" silliness. Full marks and all good fun but don't rely on any of it!


Happy crunchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

peristalsis
Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 154
Credit: 3,983,816
RAC: 2,800
United States
Message 668071 - Posted: 28 Oct 2007, 8:07:14 UTC - in response to Message 667360.

As for "which OS is better" here is another URL to consider: Comparison of my two 4400+s. These two computers have the same CPU and motherboard. But it really still isn't a good comparison... As you can see by the pie charts, they run different projects and different projects tend to give different credits/hour so... yeah it is virtually impossible to do a good comparison.


I'm also running two 4400's. WinXP machine rac is 954. Linux (PcLinuxOS) rac is 824. Win machine is my general "do everything" (surfing/burning/email/usenet/etc.) machine and runs a p2p program constantly. Its just about 100% seti. The linux box just runs seti and occasional einstein when seti goes down. Only hardware difference between the two machines is that the win box has two gigs of memory and the linux box one gig. Noticed the same disparity between your two machines ref the memory difference. Maybe that extra gig of memory is making that (not inconsiderable) difference in rac?..john

Profile Pilot
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 534
Credit: 5,475,482
RAC: 0
Message 668114 - Posted: 28 Oct 2007, 11:22:52 UTC - in response to Message 666944.

To my knowledge..
Windows 32 Bit is faster than 32 Bit Linux and..
Windows 64 Bit is faster than 64 Bit Linux and..
Linux 64 Bit is faster than 32 bit Windows..

..all opt. apps..

Is that for the s@h science applications?


As for the actual OSes, I don't know that there are any reliable numbers for either OS being faster than the other, anyway around.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

The numbers below do not filter for speed of hardware so it not an absolute proof of OS efficiency. It is probably reasonably good indication though IMHO for the top 5 or 10.
Pos. Name of Operating System Average credit per OS


1 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2" 188.73
2 Microsoft Windows Server "Longhorn" 181.58
3 Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 126.55
4 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 125.08
5 Microsoft Windows Vista 86.30
6 Darwin 37.21
7 FreeBSD 26.14
8 Linux 21.25
9 IRIX64 19.46
10 HP-UX 18.98
11 Microsoft Windows XP 18.35
12 OpenBSD 17.93
13 Microsoft Windows Longhorn 16.86
14 OS/2 15.24
15 Microsoft Windows 2003 14.25
16 SunOS 12.67
17 NetBSD 10.13
18 Microsoft Windows 2000 10.01
19 Microsoft Windows NT 4.37
20 Microsoft Windows 98 2.48
21 Microsoft Windows Millennium 1.97
22 Microsoft Windows 95 0.63
23 IRIX 0.44
24 0.05
25 AIX 0.04

____________
When we finally figure it all out, all the rules will change and we can start all over again.

Fred W
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 13 Jun 99
Posts: 2524
Credit: 11,954,210
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 668126 - Posted: 28 Oct 2007, 11:58:00 UTC - in response to Message 668114.

The numbers below do not filter for speed of hardware so it not an absolute proof of OS efficiency. It is probably reasonably good indication though IMHO for the top 5 or 10.
Pos. Name of Operating System Average credit per OS


1 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 "R2" 188.73
2 Microsoft Windows Server "Longhorn" 181.58
3 Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition 126.55
4 Microsoft Windows Server 2003 125.08
5 Microsoft Windows Vista 86.30
6 Darwin 37.21
7 FreeBSD 26.14
8 Linux 21.25
9 IRIX64 19.46
10 HP-UX 18.98
11 Microsoft Windows XP 18.35
12 OpenBSD 17.93
13 Microsoft Windows Longhorn 16.86
14 OS/2 15.24
15 Microsoft Windows 2003 14.25
16 SunOS 12.67
17 NetBSD 10.13
18 Microsoft Windows 2000 10.01
19 Microsoft Windows NT 4.37
20 Microsoft Windows 98 2.48
21 Microsoft Windows Millennium 1.97
22 Microsoft Windows 95 0.63
23 IRIX 0.44
24 0.05
25 AIX 0.04


Have you really thought about these numbers? I don't believe that Server 2003 is really 10 times faster at crunching than XP!! Is it not far more likely that the Server OS's are running on multi-core hosts which invalidates all of the above? I am sure that optimised / stock App has far more effect on crunch time than OS too.

F.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Best OS for seti?

Copyright © 2014 University of California