Seti Times on Linux vs Windows

[Beelzebub]

Ok, I have a desktop workstation that I dual-boot Mandrake Linux 8.1 and Windows XP and the Seti times are pathetic on the Linux machine.

I have been tracking them with SetiQueue as different clients on one user account, and the Linux OS crunches them in 8:42 while Windows XP does it in 7:48 (yes that is hours). All the hardware is exactly the same since I am only dual-booting. The only difference is the hard drive (same make, just physically different).

I was wondering if anyone out there has noticed the same thing, or are my numbers are just an anomoly. I would prefer to use Linux with the GNOME desktop, but I also want to crunch as many units as possible.

I am using the clc for both OS's, but how can it be that much different?!?! An hour's worth of crunching difference? The AR's on the units have all been pretty close to .400, so it doesn't look like that is the factor. Anyone out there who is experiencing the same thing, lemme know.

 

[Lonely Raven]

I was hoping to do the same test, but I've had too many
system boards failing on me lately, and I'm starting in on a
race this Friday.

If I can build a "spare machine", I'll see if I can do the same test.
But I'm a total Linux newb.

 

[Basher]

I think you have to tweek linux to improve time, ask zouo he know a lot bout linux.

 

[LuKE]

you might wanna double check to see at what "nice" level the client is running under in linux. "Nice" is similiar to priority in windows.

 

[Beelzebub]

The Nice level is set to 19... as low a priority as you can get. I run it on my Windows computer at low priority too.

 

[Yodums]

I've heard lots that, priority doesn't matter in Windows with Seti, it still eats everything cycle...

 

[{PMS}fishy]

Those times are lame. I would reformat and see if that helps. My celeron does them in 6 hours and the amd in 4 hours. Yours should be doing high 3's I would imagine. SOmething is deff worng. Also linux is slower on any machine, thats just how it is. Oh im running w2k on the amd and xp on the celly.

 

[Beelzebub]

Those were my times on the P3 866. I just got a new AMD 1700+ today and am running at 1900+

 

[TC]

What I've been told is linux is slower with a default installation because it has to be tweaked. People that are somewhat new to linux will likely choose a typical install and you end up with a lot of overhead that you don't necessarily need. BUT - your times are way off to begin with. You may have something else going on. If you can't get it tweaked then you might want to start from scratch.

 

[Beelzebub]

You mean to tell me 7 hours and 48 minutes is a horrible average time for a Pentium III 866?

 

[Basher]

You mean to tell me 7 hours and 48 minutes is a horrible average time for a Pentium III 866?

Think they are seeing the xp and thinking about that. That seems about right. My PIII667@700 does them in 8-9 hours or so.

 

[deez]

my cele 566@850 did a WU in about 8.5 hours so that sounds about right for a P3 866

 

[TC]

You mean to tell me 7 hours and 48 minutes is a horrible average time for a Pentium III 866?

Oh - no I was looking at the XP 1700+ in your sig...

 

[Beelzebub]

I was gonna say... i have over 200 crunched units and if my times stink at this point, I am gonna throw in the towel

 

[Team Roper]

Ok, a tweaked Linux box is slightly faster than a windows box. This is becase the 3.X client was optimized for a windows system.

However, if you know what you are doing in Linux then try this:

Run a Core install on linux, include the kernel source, x-lib, glibc, windowmaker, netscape, and various compilers, & network functions. This will be a quick load, because there is very little installed by the package manager. Next, everything else that you use, download the source code & compile it with your system settings. Try to avoid Gnome (Big Resource Hog) Also, don't load apache, telnet server, or ftp server deamons unless you plan to use them.

Compile your kernel with modular support for everything that you won't use on a daily basis. (ie. USB printers, scanners, etc..) Also, double-check & make sure that you have the correct processors & chipsets listed in your kernel config files before you build the new kernel.

Those steps should cut your WU time down at least by an hour or so. If you have problems running the linux version of the client, try running the windows version in wine... the scary thing is.. I run the seti CLC in wine & it's faster on my system... Go figure!

Hope this helps! Good Luck!

 

[Beelzebub]

Dude! Thanks for the tips! I am gonna try it out and see what I come up with. I will let you know what happens...

I cannot believe that it is faster on you linux box using Wine. That's craaaaazy!

My farm is slowly growing...

AMD 1700+
Intel P3 866
Intel P3 500
soon to be Cely 300A @ 450

 

[Beelzebub]

I dumped Gnome for Blackbox as my Window Manager and Seti runs sub-4 hour WU's on my XP 1700+ now rather than 4:20+.

The entire system is pretty slim compared to what I was using but I am happy with my Seti times. Now all I have to do is figure out how to compile my own kernel. Thanks Team Roper!