Best version of Linux for Seti?

[4GHZ_or_bust]

Currently I have 2 i5 rig with similar configuration and both running at stock speed. One is running Windows 7 and other running Ubuntu. Both has optimized apps but there's a little discrepancy:

On the average rig with Windows 7 has nearly twice the RAC as one with Ubuntu.

I figured I didn't do something right with Ubuntu but I'm wondering if you know what are the best Linux OS + optimized apps that could perform better than on Ubuntu? If I could greatly improve RAC, then I wouldn't need to buy 8x Win7 licenses for my farm :shock: (about $450 total with multi-pack license)

[HankB]

BOINC downloads the executables so Linux distro shouldn't matter. They also run similar kernels so it's hard to see where that would make a difference. (Of course not all distros are on the same kernel version.) There are optimized apps but again, I think that would be the same for any distro.

I'm surprised by the difference in RAC between the Windows and Linux systems. How do they differ? Are they both running 64 bit versions of the S/W? Actually, I think the SETI (Linux) executables might be 32 bit. Another possibility could be the compiler used to generate the SETI executables. There might be considerable difference in optimization between the two.

As far as what's easiest, I've been using Ubuntu for a while now and it mostly works pretty well. I'm not familiar eI'm not aware of any optimized Rosetta processors for Linux. Do thenough with others to compare. On any of them I think you just need to install BOINC and sign up for SETI. There's additional work if you want to use optimized WU processors. At least Ubuntu 10.10 packages (I think) the current version of BOINC - 6.10.58.

[4GHZ_or_bust]

I didn't think about 32 bits vs 64 bits, I'd have to check my Linux box as it's not running atm.

[QuietIce]

I'm not sure if it's still true but it used to be the SETI Win apps would run on Win98 - but you had to make sure you were using a certain version of IE, IE6 I think. You might look into the situation as it stands now. Win98 is easy and cheap to come across, at least it used to be. Pretty sure Win2k still works with it, too, which would also be much cheaper to get your hands on.

Just a thought ... ;)

[Tyrinon]

Well, I do not know much about Linux (I know, missing out), but wondering if anyone has been able to notice any crunching difference between xp and w7? 32 or 64b, pro versions, if that matters. Just happened to wonder about this after reading the posts above.

[heezer7]

I haven't messed around with seti and linux in about a year, but I can say back then it sucked. I had/have a i7 @ 4ghz and a GT240 and I would get no where near what others were reporting. I was running optimized apps and CUDA (back then only the 64bit version of the cuda apps worked under linux). It is still set up here on my desktop but I rarely have it running as the GPU processing would not disable when the computer was in use and it was unusable. I got tired of turning it off and on all the time. I am still surprised the linux versions are not more popular. For all the people running farms of barebone machines PXE booting a slim linux would be the way to go.

[4GHZ_or_bust]

Yeah I would think Linux would be more popular. Free OS + cheap PC farming set = lots of credits but if Linux version remained anemic compared to Windows version, I may need to shell out some extra money.

[HankB]

I can dual boot Vista (32 bit) or Linux on my Thinkpad with a Core 2 Duo T9400. Would it be suitable for a comparison between SETI on Windows vs. Linux? How much time would be required to run each configuration in order to establish any difference?

I'd have to boot a 32 bit Live CD to test 32 bit vs. 32 bit since I ordinarily run 64 bit Linux.

-hank

Edit:

Curses, foiled again!
3/11/2011 10:57:32 PM SETI@home Sending scheduler request: To fetch work.
3/11/2011 10:57:32 PM SETI@home Requesting new tasks
3/11/2011 10:57:34 PM SETI@home Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks
3/11/2011 10:57:34 PM SETI@home Message from server: Project has no tasks available

:(

[HankB]

I'm running a 32 bit live CD boot (Ubuntu) and got two astropulses since last night. I've just shut down further work units and will let those run to completion. I'll save the logs so that I can track clock time (start and finish) as well as the CPU time and credit. (Hmmm... WUs processed on February 22 are still pending.)

I would like a more representative data set, but this should provide something.

[CryptokiD]

i've been using ubuntu 64 bit and windows 64 bit and i can tell you that windows is way faster, almost 100% faster.

this is with identical set-ups, and both running fully optimized sse3 apps.

when i am in windows i simply get significantly reduced times compared to ubuntu. i don't know why this is, but if you look at the list of top seti individual computers that crunch, they virtually ALL are running some flavour of windows.

actually, the top 100 computers crunching for seti are all running some flavour of windows, and they are virtually ALL using the 64 bit version of windows as well. I'd say about half of the top 100 are running windows 7. maybe 30% are running xp and the rest are different version of win2000, server, and a few on vista.

but make no mistake, windows is a lot faster. these top 100 crunchers probably know a thing or 2 about optimizing the pc for max performance, and without question they all chose windows to run seti on.

i like ubuntu, but seti is just so slow on it, and its a real pain the the ass to get cuda up and running with ubuntu AND get seti and boinc to detect cuda and actually use it. that is the only reason i went back to windows. just for seti. otherwise ubuntu had progressed and matured enough that i consider it to be an equivalent replacement for win2000, xp, and vista. windows 7 is still nicer then ubuntu in my opinion, but i dont buy operating systems :) so i don't have 7, yet.

i do use ubuntu wherever i can. i really enjoy it's gui, and the cost can't be beat. it feels good to finally have legit computers running here. my laptop runs ubuntu exclusively, with no other operating system. but my laptop doesn't crunch seti, or anything else for that matter.

Anyone know if you can install the windows version of boinc and seti + optimized apps on ubuntu or another flavour of linux using the programme called WINE? maybe we could regain the lost performance that way. i don't even know if it's possible though.

here is the link for the top producing seti crunchers.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/top_hosts.php


notice how every one of them is on windows 64 bit, also the overwhelming majority are using some flavour of nvidia card with cuda, and not using ati. only 3 of the top 60 crunchers are using an ati card. that must tell ya something no?

nearly all of them are also using intel cpu's as opposed to amd. wonder why that is. maybe intel generally gives a higher RAC per dollar then amd?

[Eroc]

This is kind of a side note, but I run the 32bit version of Lunatics optimizations in 64bit Windows. It says that it is actually faster than the x64 versions during the Lunatics installation and I read it somewhere on their site, too, I believe.

I guess it is just more optimized atm. Maybe if they do more with the x64 version it will be faster...?