Really, one of these years I'm gonna have to try to start learning Linux myself. Probably when the last alternative I have is Vista.

Depending on how much time, motivation, and desire you have for making the jump, you might start out by converting a single system and playing around with it.

I will admit it...I have begun to take baby steps toward the Dark Side. I have taken this system and converted it to run dual boot as this box; tagged, appropriately as 'Linux1'. The ultimate goal being, to convert this AMD 4600+ X2 box, to a 64bit OS (I don't want to spend $ on XP Pro 64 and I'm NOT going to install Vista either!). Being a dual-boot system, I can shift back to XP Pro as needed/desired. I've got the Linux Chicken-app installed and it runs as good as or better than the Windows counterpart.

You start by downloading and burning a LiveCD Linux distribution (I'm using Ubuntu and it works for me...YMMV).

When you're comfortable with it, make some space on one of your drives (partition resizing software is readily available) and do a Linux dual-boot install. Then you can move as fast or as slow as you want, to a full conversion to the Dark Side. And nothing says you can't keep a Windoze box or two laying around either.

Is this actually one of those trick questions.
If there is a best OS for Seti, but you don't know how to use it and/or you don't have time to learn this best OS, or it is not compatible with programs you use. Then this best Seti OS, for you, is a total waste of time.

Example, I use a program that costs ~£1000, and last update cost nearly £400, it is only available for Windows and Solaris. I use Windows version at home and both in the office. As the office only has one supervised, independent, non-networked computer connected to the internet, guess which OS is best for me on Seti.

Ahhhh........It's the AntiGates himself! We are not suffering boredom here, what with all the reboots to keep us entertained...LOL. ...

I thought that title went to this man:

Steve Jobs: Apple's Anti-Gates

Meanwhile for the Halloween time of year, I must admit that some of the Microsoft stuff has come a very long way:

Coding Horror: Bill Gates


;-)

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Really, one of these years I'm gonna have to try to start learning Linux myself. Probably when the last alternative I have is Vista.

Why wait until then? (You don't have to quite wait until Hell freezes over... ;-) )

Take a look at this review from one of the leading PC mags:

PCWorld - First Look: Ubuntu 7.10 Desktop Linux

(I'd suggest taking a look at Kubuntu if you're more familiar with the 'Windows-esq' look of things. Ubuntu has a desktop that is styled more similarly towards the Mac.)

Have fun,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In case anybody wants to know:

NT 4 Workstation - 2 CPUs
NT 4 Server - 4 CPUs
NT 4 Server OEM - 32 CPUs
Windows 2000 Pro - 2 CPUs
Windows 2000 Server - 4 CPUs
Windows 2000 Advanced Server - 8 CPUs
Windows 2000 Datacenter - 32 CPUs

Windows XP Home - 1 socket, any core
Windows XP Professional - 2 sockets, any core

Windows Vista Home Basic/Premium - 1 socket
Windows Business - 2 sockets, any core
Windows Ultimate - 2 sockets, any core

Windows Server 2003 Web - 2 CPUs
Windows Server 2003 Standard - 4 CPUs
Windows Enterprise Edition - 8 CPUs
Windows Datacenter - 32 CPUs

You forgot some:
Windows XP Professional x64 OEM - 2 sockets, any core
Windows XP Professional x64 Retail - 2 sockets, any core

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

... Really, one of these years I'm gonna have to try to start learning Linux myself. Probably when the last alternative I have is Vista.

Why wait until then? (You don't have to quite wait until Hell freezes over... ;-) )

Take a look at this review from one of the leading PC mags:

PCWorld - First Look: Ubuntu 7.10 Desktop Linux


Have fun,
Martin

As time permits.....but it's already getting chilly in here....

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

... Really, one of these years I'm gonna have to try to start learning Linux myself. Probably when the last alternative I have is Vista.

Why wait until then? (You don't have to quite wait until Hell freezes over... ;-) )

Take a look at this review from one of the leading PC mags:

PCWorld - First Look: Ubuntu 7.10 Desktop Linux


Have fun,
Martin

As time permits.....but it's already getting chilly in here....

Don't say that, Harley 2 Paws might, Never mind I don't think You know of Him. :D He's a Frog living up in Alaska.

For Me It's all Sails unfurled.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

[quote]... Don't say that, Harley 2 Paws might, Never mind I don't think You know of Him. :D He's a Frog living up in Alaska.

So he's a very good cook?

Baked Alaska anyone?...


(Ouch! :-p )

Foe Me It's all Sails unfurled.

Hopefully into warmer waters!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In case anybody wants to know:

NT 4 Workstation - ...
... Datacenter - 32 CPUs

Got to add:

Linux: As many CPUs/cores as you wish
BSD: As many CPUs/cores as you wish

and that number is certainly well above 128 cores. Anyone know what the current limits are for whichever kernels?

To answer my own question for the standard installs for the standard Linux kernel:

Latest Linux Kernel Is A One-Stop Solution

The answer then is: 64 cores.

However, that article is from wayback in 2004. A limit of 128 cores is mentioned more recently for SUSE Linux. I'm sure there's scope for more if there's any hardware out there that has more than 128 cores as a single unified CPU-memory-IO system! (As opposed to some form of cluster.)

Any really exotic systems out there?


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In case anybody wants to know:

NT 4 Workstation - ...
... Datacenter - 32 CPUs

Got to add:

Linux: As many CPUs/cores as you wish
BSD: As many CPUs/cores as you wish

and that number is certainly well above 128 cores. Anyone know what the current limits are for whichever kernels?

To answer my own question for the standard installs for the standard Linux kernel:

Latest Linux Kernel Is A One-Stop Solution

The answer then is: 64 cores.

However, that article is from wayback in 2004. A limit of 128 cores is mentioned more recently for SUSE Linux. I'm sure there's scope for more if there's any hardware out there that has more than 128 cores as a single unified CPU-memory-IO system! (As opposed to some form of cluster.)

Any really exotic systems out there?


Happy crunchin',
Martin

Well, I'm gonnn have to save up a bit for 32 Penryn quads then....LOL.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

[quote]... Don't say that, Harley 2 Paws might, Never mind I don't think You know of Him. :D He's a Frog living up in Alaska.

So he's a very good cook?

Baked Alaska anyone?...


(Ouch! :-p )

For Me It's all Sails unfurled.

Hopefully into warmer waters!


Keep searchin',
Martin

Yeah, As to a cook I don't know, His PCs are hidden and His total RAC in Seti is: 20,183.5 right now.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I like the idea to compile a "linux from Scratch" to the own hardware. I think with the knowledge we have now and the right compiler optimizations it is possible to produce a optimized OS for crunching with not such a big overhead as other distros have.

heinz ;-)

I like the idea to compile a "linux from Scratch" to the own hardware. I think with the knowledge we have now and the right compiler optimizations it is possible to produce a optimized OS for crunching with not such a big overhead as other distros have.

heinz ;-)

Appears to make "logical" sense. One might need a couple 2-3 flavors of the O.S. however to cover a wider range of user needs.

1) Ultra-light w/ minimal services. Just enough to "connect & crunch" for command-line gurus.
2) Light w/ a minimal desktop & basic browser (DSL 4.0 uses such. Maybe xfce or E17?)
3) Full install w/ featured desktop (gnome or kde ) and common range of basic useful aps

I'm sure there are several well experienced/qualified persons in this community that could help design an OS w/ just the right packages/support to optimize for S@H.

---

... One might need a couple 2-3 flavors of the O.S. however to cover a wider range of user needs.

1) Ultra-light w/ minimal services. Just enough to "connect & crunch" for command-line gurus.
2) Light w/ a minimal desktop & basic browser (DSL 4.0 uses such. Maybe xfce or E17?)
3) Full install w/ featured desktop (gnome or kde ) and common range of basic useful aps

That sounds exactly like what Gentoo Linux strives to achieve. Tweak a few settings and you can have any of those three (and more) all custom compiled.


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... One might need a couple 2-3 flavors of the O.S. however to cover a wider range of user needs.

1) Ultra-light w/ minimal services. Just enough to "connect & crunch" for command-line gurus.
2) Light w/ a minimal desktop & basic browser (DSL 4.0 uses such. Maybe xfce or E17?)
3) Full install w/ featured desktop (gnome or kde ) and common range of basic useful aps

That sounds exactly like what Gentoo Linux strives to achieve. Tweak a few settings and you can have any of those three (and more) all custom compiled.


Happy crunchin',
Martin

Ultra=light? It's a pain to install, but Arch Linux sets up nicely. It installs with the absolute minimum, and is as "bleeding edge" as it gets. You can install KDE (or Gnome), just don't use them unless you need them (init run level= 3).

---

Boinc Button Abuser In Training >My Shrubbers<

Just to swing back to the Microsoft world...

A little OT but:

I've just upgraded an old WinXP-Home system with an AM2 motherboard and AMD X2 CPU. To my pleasant surprise, Windows booted up, did the new hardware juggle and multiple reboots, and even survived a WGA 'reactivation'. So far so good.

So what's the quick trick to get it to dedect and use BOTH cores of the CPU?

Oh... And trying a reinstall gave the message that the installed version of Windows was more recent than the version on the CD... Is it worth trying a reinstall regardless? Or is there a quicker fix?

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Just to swing back to the Microsoft world...

A little OT but:

I've just upgraded an old WinXP-Home system with an AM2 motherboard and AMD X2 CPU. To my pleasant surprise, Windows booted up, did the new hardware juggle and multiple reboots, and even survived a WGA 'reactivation'. So far so good.

So what's the quick trick to get it to dedect and use BOTH cores of the CPU?

Oh... And trying a reinstall gave the message that the installed version of Windows was more recent than the version on the CD... Is it worth trying a reinstall regardless? Or is there a quicker fix?

Cheers,
Martin

Check this:

start>control panel>system>hardware>device mamger

Click on computer.

It should say ACPI Multiprocessor PC

If it doesn't, you have to 'repair' the copy of XP to see the 2 cores. I had the same problem a while back with a system I rebuilt. You should have the option of repairing XP if you just insert the CD when the system is running.

---

Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

I've just upgraded an old WinXP-Home system with an AM2 motherboard and AMD X2 CPU. To my pleasant surprise, Windows booted up, did the new hardware juggle and multiple reboots, and even survived a WGA 'reactivation'. So far so good.

XP Home edition only supports one physical CPU, any number of cores. Did you have a single core, single CPU motherboard previously? If so, then you have the "single processor kernel" installed. In order to use both cores, you have to install the "multiprocessor kernel".

I know you can do this under special circumstances on Windows 2000, but I'm only guessing if it will work for XP.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234558

You should Google search for more info. Perhaps someone else has done this already.

...
This is clearly not on indicator of OS speed. One glaring example is Vista vs XP. One of my Q6600 has Vista and another XP. The XP out performs the Vista machine. I belive that the reason that the table lists Vista so much higher than XP is that XP has been around for quite some time now and is installed older/slower systems. Vista being newer is installed on newer/faster systems. In fact Vista requires it. No one is going to install vista on a P3 or P4 computer. If you have an older computer you have to use XP. The result is that the average is going to be dragged down considerably.

My observation is that XP32 is the best for Seti units. XP64 is faster on some of the other Boinc projects such as ABC.

Which 2 PCs you compared?


XP 3824784

[b]CPU time 6407.140625[/b] 
stderr out <core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
   Version: Windows SSSE3 32-bit based on S@H V5.15  'Noo? No - Ni!'
  Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
     CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU           @ 2.40GHz 
     Speed: 4 x 2448 MHz 
     Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
  Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 
 
Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is:  2.85
WU True angle range:  0.407483

Spikes Pulses Triplets Gaussians Flops
   8      1       1        1     16436020212453

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Vista 3641952

[b]CPU time 7140.056569[/b] 
stderr out <core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
   Version: Windows SSSE3 32-bit based on S@H V5.15  'Noo? No - Ni!'
  Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
     CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU           @ 2.40GHz 
     Speed: 4 x 2430 MHz 
     Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
  Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 
 
Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is:  2.85
WU True angle range:  0.407395

Spikes Pulses Triplets Gaussians Flops
   3      2       0        2     16436392898470

</stderr_txt>
]]>

733 seconds different.
What could be the reason?

---

The answer then is: 64 cores.

However, that article is from wayback in 2004. A limit of 128 cores is mentioned more recently for SUSE Linux. I'm sure there's scope for more if there's any hardware out there that has more than 128 cores as a single unified CPU-memory-IO system! (As opposed to some form of cluster.)

Any really exotic systems out there?

Well according to "make menuconfig":

(8)   Maximum number of CPUs (2-255)

In the "help" it also says this interesting fact:

 This is purely to save memory - each supported CPU adds approximately eight kilobytes to the kernel image.

Sooo... find me a 255 core computer and I'll run linux on it :)

EDIT: also, it looks like the biggest linux computer that is active on seti right now has 32 CPUs. There are some with 64 but none of them are active. Link

---

A member of The Knights Who Say NI!
For rankings, history graphs and more, check out:
My BOINC stats site