Message boards :
Number crunching :
Windows vs. Linux
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
So that's a "No", then. I've never emphasized about how Linux is "cheaper" than Windows, in whatever way. From your message 690682: I think that Microsoft has garnered a powerful EVIL status due to the extreme aggression shown towards everything that is not Microsoft. I would say (and the courts have demonstrated) that Microsoft have gone way beyond 'normal acceptable business practices'... And their 'war' continues... Including against their very own customers! (my emphasis) See, research doesn't take very long, does it? |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21241 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
So that's a "No", then. You can easily do a game of nit-picking. Reread that little quote and look at the emphasis. The important aspect is still that it is not that Linux comes at no cost in terms of money. You get great freedom that is of very high value... Does that make it expensive? There are other more important aspects than just "how many pennies/cents"... Good luck, Martin ps: Hint: The emphasized "expense" there is describing 'time and effort'... See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21241 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Just another example from another user: Why is Linux faster than Windows? As ever... It all depends on what you're measuring and how... Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21241 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
General comment: Whether and how you have graphics enabled can make a big difference to how quickly a WU is run. Obviously, fastest is to have the graphics disabled and to have no other 'screensavers' running. Faster still is to use a client that doesn't even include any graphics. Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Just another example from another user: Yes, that's a valid and useful counter-example. Going back to the original poster's message 713319, we see that the computer is "an older Dell Inspiron 6k, 1.86MHz Celeron processor. 1 GB DDR, came with XP SP2" - that's a laptop. So are you saying that Linux is faster on old kit? or on mobile kit? The other thing that is interesting about the post, if you enlarge the screen-shots, is that all the work was done at VHAR. So we have a new possibility: the Linux app is better at VHAR, and the Windows app is better (much better) at the ARs DeMus has been crunching recently. And notice that in every case on the six pages, Berto was granted exactly 16.00 credits, significantly more than the (variable) amount of credit he claimed, on both Linux and Windows. The shots were only taken less than a month ago, so quorum was two: what's going on there? This is the sort of analysis I was hoping you would engage in in the first place. Let's carry on like this. |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
General comment: That's a good question for DeMus. Can you think of any difference in the 'experimental setup', like the graphics Martin picks out, that could account for the difference? OEM tuned graphics driver for Windows, generic driver for Linux, perhaps? |
DeMus Send message Joined: 5 Jan 08 Posts: 238 Credit: 1,765,862 RAC: 0 |
General comment: Hi, It seems to me a few of you are fighting about this subject in order to proof they are right. Don't do that guys: it's not worth it. To answer the question addressed to me I have to look into that. I am now running the Windows version since I crunched all the WU's I had in the Linux version. I stopped using Boinc on Linux. I expect the settings to be the same but I have to compare them before I can give you an answer. In both versions I don't see graphics, I use the accessible view. In Windows I use the latest nVidia driver for the GPU, in Linux I use the driver installed by the OS. I have no idea which one that is. Sorry. I will come back when I have the answer about the different settings between Linux and Windows. ______ DeMus |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
... Berto was reporting a comparison of TSP@home work. Joe |
Gerry Green Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 13 Credit: 3,034,952 RAC: 0 |
General comment: A few posts back I put some detail on my config -- it's similar to yours except I'm running openSUSE. I'm observing the same relative performance difference between the two platforms that you saw. I spend most of my time on linux. I start the client via "run_client" not "run_manager" so I don't even see the gui management screen. In Vista I start the boinc manager and minimize it to the tray. I use no graphics or screen savers in either Vista or linux. I doubt the graphics drivers matter that much since we're not viewing the graphics but in my case I have the latest driver from Nvidia for Linux while in Vista I use whatever MS put in. Note that as of tonight I'm experimenting with the optimized clients so some of my stats may change from what I reported above. |
DeMus Send message Joined: 5 Jan 08 Posts: 238 Credit: 1,765,862 RAC: 0 |
[quote][quote][quote]General comment: Hi Garry, I do the same as you, no graphics at all and mostly the program is hiding on the tray in both cases. One difference: in Linux I did set a screensaver. Why? I have no idea. Just for fun I guess. When I looked in the system manager of Linux I saw the 4 processes of Seti@home each using 24 (sometimes 23)% of the total cpu power. In Wondows it's 25 (sometimes 24)%. That makes a difference of 1%, which is not equal to 2/3 as far as I can tell. Either the Linux OS is much slower than the Windows, or it's the Boinc crunching software. Since we are having the same kind of crunching results (10.000 - 15.000)I think I didn't do anyhting wrong with the installation of the software, or you have made the same mistake. Just to be accurate: what is the proper way of installing the Boinc software in Linux, what to do, what settings to make, etc? Can somebody please answer me that question in a way that I also understand it. I am not (emphasize NOT) a Linux expert, I am just somebody who is beginning to experiment with Linux to see if it can replace Windows completely.. ______ DeMus |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
... Oooops. Sorry, that's what comes of trying to give Martin the benefit of the doubt at one o'clock in the morning. I shall have to add 'on SETI' to my rubber stamp. Thanks for pointing that out. |
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 15 Apr 99 Posts: 1546 Credit: 3,438,823 RAC: 0 |
... So here's an update of that chart Berto posted. You'll see Windows is fastest on TSP. Join BOINC United now! |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
... But only if you use optimised code. I was trying to get Martin to engage with the like-for-like difference with stock code. |
Crunch3r Send message Joined: 15 Apr 99 Posts: 1546 Credit: 3,438,823 RAC: 0 |
... It is stock code... no changes mage to the source code at all. (the app is not released yet) Join BOINC United now! |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
... Sorry, I was confused by the fastest line (the thick blue one) being labelled "Crunch3r Code". Got to go out now - I'll research it properly later. |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21241 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
...But only if you use optimised code. I was trying to get Martin to engage with the like-for-like difference with stock code. So... Depending on which compiler is used and what compiler options have been set, you get different performance that is dependant on the WU AR and whether your system is FPU or memory bandwidth limited for that AR... The stock app (and all the optimised apps) are compiled differently depending on the target OS. So what's new? Which OS you are using should make a very small (negligible) difference. The one exception to that is if you must run "anti-virus" software that adds additional overhead above and beyond that of the OS itself. Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Anyone know why the stock SETI Linux app is slower than the stock SETI Windows app, on the same hardware? |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21241 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
Anyone know why the stock SETI Linux app is slower than the stock SETI Windows app, on the same hardware? Now that is a good question... Anyone know? Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Brian Silvers Send message Joined: 11 Jun 99 Posts: 1681 Credit: 492,052 RAC: 0 |
Anyone know why the stock SETI Linux app is slower than the stock SETI Windows app, on the same hardware? LOL... Sorry for the distractions... I guess the "answer" is that it's Microsoft's fault for slowing down development of GCC somehow...or that whoever did the coding for the Linux app was "held back" by something in schooling because they spent most of their time learning how to code in Visual Studio because it was forced upon them... ;-) |
DeMus Send message Joined: 5 Jan 08 Posts: 238 Credit: 1,765,862 RAC: 0 |
Hi, it's me again. Remember me: the iniator of this thread who was trying to find out if there are more people having similar results as I have in using the two above mentioned systems. I did NOT want to start WW3, so please don't blame me for that. I found out something on my computer and was trying to see if other users have seen it to, or maybe just the opposite. This thread is realy going the wrong way, maybe I should have known better and shouldn't have started this thread. My apologies for having done so. I have returned to using Windows for crunching since it gives me 50% extra power compared to my installation of Linux, not because I want to. I wanted to get some experiences with Linux and in the mean time do the crunching. Now the experiences will have to come from another machine, which is not used for crunching because of age and computing power: Compaq Armada laptop with a 500MHz pentium 3 processor. I will keep on following this thread, for amusent only, since an answer to my question will be out of the question completely. Thanks for entertaining me. ______ DeMus |
©2024 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.