Low performance under Linux?

Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Low performance under Linux?

Author	Message
n3mo Send message Joined: 27 Jan 09 Posts: 3 Credit: 50,090 RAC: 0	Message 871919 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 3:22:22 UTC Last modified: 4 Mar 2009, 3:23:58 UTC
	Hello. I'll get straight to the point: I have two exactly identical machines, one runs XP SP3 and one runs Linux (Mint and Debian, depending on type of work I do). Windows machine does each WU in ~2.5-3 hours while Linux machine takes three-four times more (around 7-11 hours). Both have same CPUs, RAM and so on, all power savings are disabled. Boinc "CPU benchmark" shows similar numbers for both. Both work only on Seti@home. There are no other resource hungry processes, indexing, nothing. All drivers are okay. I triple-checked everything and still can't find any answer. Why the difference then? Every answer will be much appreciated. It is extremely annoying.
	ID: 871919 ·

Gundolf Jahn Send message Joined: 19 Sep 00 Posts: 3100 Credit: 344,263 RAC: 91	Message 871974 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 9:20:50 UTC - in response to Message 871919.
	It would be easier for us if your computers were unhidden. At least you should post links to them. GruÃŸ, Gundolf ____________ Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz) SETI@home classic workunits 3,758 SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours
	ID: 871974 ·

ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 7210 Credit: 3,703,390 RAC: 728	Message 872030 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 14:07:58 UTC
	Have you got power saving enabled on the Linux system? You'll need to set the power saving to "Performance" to keep the CPU at it's maximum clock speed. Happy crunchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)
	ID: 872030 ·

n3mo Send message Joined: 27 Jan 09 Posts: 3 Credit: 50,090 RAC: 0	Message 872095 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 17:17:14 UTC Last modified: 4 Mar 2009, 17:18:27 UTC
	Sorry, I set "Should SETI@home show your computers on its web site?" to "yes", but they still seem to be "hidden" Both run Semprons LE-1200, overclocked to 3000MHz (tested and 100% stable, difference in computing time remains even at stock speeds), each has 1GB of RAM. Windows machine runs XP Pro SP3 Corporate Linux box runs 2.6.27-11-generic As I said, no power savings enabled.
	ID: 872095 ·

Gundolf Jahn Send message Joined: 19 Sep 00 Posts: 3100 Credit: 344,263 RAC: 91	Message 872123 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 18:21:53 UTC - in response to Message 872095.
	Yea, that can take some time. Could you post in the meantime the links to your computers here, from the Your computers web page. (I'm interested in the completed tasks and what BOINC recognises from your configuration.) GruÃŸ, Gundolf ____________ Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz) SETI@home classic workunits 3,758 SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours
	ID: 872123 ·

Loki Send message Joined: 3 Jan 09 Posts: 10 Credit: 24,554 RAC: 0	Message 872209 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 21:53:14 UTC - in response to Message 872123.
	Yea, that can take some time. Could you post in the meantime the links to your computers here, from the Your computers web page. (I'm interested in the completed tasks and what BOINC recognises from your configuration.) GruÃŸ, Gundolf I've also had some performance issues with Linux. I don't have any windows boxes but FreeBSD is doing WU in two to three hours that would take Linux Linux 5 to 6 hours. Same computers on the same hardware/boxes. Computers aren't hidden so you can have a look.
	ID: 872209 ·

Gundolf Jahn Send message Joined: 19 Sep 00 Posts: 3100 Credit: 344,263 RAC: 91	Message 872227 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 22:27:15 UTC - in response to Message 872209.
	I've also had some performance issues with Linux. I don't have any windows boxes but FreeBSD is doing WU in two to three hours that would take Linux Linux 5 to 6 hours. Same computers on the same hardware/boxes. Computers aren't hidden so you can have a look. Sorry, but the tasks still in your list have all comparable runtimes, save for one on a linux box with a very short one. However, the linux boxes both have only one completed entry, so it's difficult to compare. But are you aware of different types of MultiBeam WorkUnits (angle ranges)? On my XP laptop, the one type needs about 6 hours, whereas the other needs only 2. GruÃŸ, Gundolf ____________ Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz) SETI@home classic workunits 3,758 SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours
	ID: 872227 ·

Gundolf Jahn Send message Joined: 19 Sep 00 Posts: 3100 Credit: 344,263 RAC: 91	Message 872237 - Posted: 4 Mar 2009, 22:45:20 UTC - in response to Message 871919.
	... Why the difference then? Every answer will be much appreciated. It is extremely annoying. I can't see such a big difference in the listed tasks. linux box 15000-20000 s winXP box 14000-19000 s For you too the question: Are you aware of different angle ranges? And those types seem to come in batches. On my laptops that makes a difference of: 2 versus 6 hours and 6 versus 18. That would roughly match your difference of a factor of 3. GruÃŸ, Gundolf ____________ Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz) SETI@home classic workunits 3,758 SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours
	ID: 872237 ·

n3mo Send message Joined: 27 Jan 09 Posts: 3 Credit: 50,090 RAC: 0	Message 872288 - Posted: 5 Mar 2009, 1:53:50 UTC
	The problem was most visible on my previous account (I couldn't remember on which email I registered it so I started this one. It only has a few thousand points for now until I hook my folding farm, but I was concerned with performance issues) I seem to have fixed the problem though - when I changed the "use no more than 100% of cpu time" setting to "99.9%" the "remaining" times instantly dropped from ~11.5 hours to ~4 and match the winbox average. Weird, but seems to work. "different angle ranges"? Funny, I used Seti@home for quite some time (actually, almost all the time since the project started) but never had time or remembered to read into the details. I have to make up for that now. Thanks.
	ID: 872288 ·

Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : Low performance under Linux?