Low performance under Linux?


log in

Advanced search

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
Poland
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.

Profile Gundolf Jahn
Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 19
Germany
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.

Gruß,
Gundolf
____________
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

SETI@home classic workunits 3,758
SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8270
Credit: 4,071,566
RAC: 333
United Kingdom
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

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

n3mo
Send message
Joined: 27 Jan 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 50,090
RAC: 0
Poland
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.

Profile Gundolf Jahn
Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 19
Germany
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.)

Gruß,
Gundolf
____________
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

SETI@home classic workunits 3,758
SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours

Loki
Send message
Joined: 3 Jan 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 24,554
RAC: 0
United States
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.)

Gruß,
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.

Profile Gundolf Jahn
Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 19
Germany
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.

Gruß,
Gundolf
____________
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

SETI@home classic workunits 3,758
SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours

Profile Gundolf Jahn
Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 00
Posts: 3184
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 19
Germany
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.

Gruß,
Gundolf
____________
Computer sind nicht alles im Leben. (Kleiner Scherz)

SETI@home classic workunits 3,758
SETI@home classic CPU time 66,520 hours

n3mo
Send message
Joined: 27 Jan 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 50,090
RAC: 0
Poland
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.

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

Copyright © 2014 University of California