Message boards :
Number crunching :
Linux slower than Windows
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 11 Credit: 341,028 RAC: 0 |
Hi, Now that I've got all the Linux proponents all worked up, here's my story: During the past week, I upgraded my main PC on which I run Win2K. According to BoincView I got about 11.2 credits/hr running W2K on the pre-upgrade machine (AMD64 3000+). After the upgrade I used the AMD64 3000+ mobo and chip to build a machine on which I installed Fedora Core 4. Now BoincView shows that the credits/hr dropped to about 6.7. Why this dramatic drop? The only differences are going from a 160GB to 40GB HDD and from 1.5GB RAM to 256MB. Surely that can't be the cause of such a dramatic drop in performance? It's more depended on the CPU than anything else if my logic isn't flawed? I've seen this drop in actual credits/hr processed as well. Any suggestions for a Linux novice? Thanks! V7 **Free Windows Software** 
|
 scsimodoSend message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 12 Credit: 54,554 RAC: 0 |
<blockquote>Hi, Now that I've got all the Linux proponents all worked up, here's my story: During the past week, I upgraded my main PC on which I run Win2K. According to BoincView I got about 11.2 credits/hr running W2K on the pre-upgrade machine (AMD64 3000+). After the upgrade I used the AMD64 3000+ mobo and chip to build a machine on which I installed Fedora Core 4. Now BoincView shows that the credits/hr dropped to about 6.7. Why this dramatic drop? The only differences are going from a 160GB to 40GB HDD and from 1.5GB RAM to 256MB. Surely that can't be the cause of such a dramatic drop in performance? It's more depended on the CPU than anything else if my logic isn't flawed? I've seen this drop in actual credits/hr processed as well. Any suggestions for a Linux novice? Thanks! V7</blockquote> Linux Core Clients are not well optimized. The Benchmark results are much lower that under windows (on the same computer). Try to install an optimized Linux client, this may help you: http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2307 scsimodo |
|
Send message Joined: 30 Sep 04 Posts: 21 Credit: 50,260 RAC: 0 |
It could also be because Linux is 64-bit, while Windows is, most likely, 32-bit. Bigger is not better if the LHC Linux client is optimized for 32-bit (it'd have to use emulation). |
|
Send message Joined: 29 Sep 04 Posts: 196 Credit: 207,040 RAC: 0 |
<blockquote>It could also be because Linux is 64-bit, while Windows is, most likely, 32-bit. Bigger is not better if the LHC Linux client is optimized for 32-bit (it'd have to use emulation).</blockquote>That may not be true, from his computers' prior XP experience no XP-64 was in use and we can't tell from his Linux Kernel version wether or not it's a 64-bit one or not. In either case, BarkerJr, this topic has been covered before in regard to "what's better, 32 or 64 bit?" and the answer is "32/64 bit is more or less irrelavant, sixtrack uses 80-bit floating point calculations. Just because the processor can do 64 bit integer calculations doesn't mean it will do 80-bit FPU calculations any faster. If you want faster FPU, buy a faster CPU (read: Megahertz matters)." To put things in perspective, the FPU's registers have been 80-bits long as far back as the Pentium cpu (w/o MMX) IIRC. And scsimodo has a good suggestion about linux optimized BOINC clients. Sixtrack is 'optimized' per se with Linux via CERN's Fortran compiler. 
|
©2024 CERN