Message boards :
Number crunching :
Windows - Linux performance
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 21 Feb 15 Posts: 46 Credit: 926,538,317 RAC: 0 |
For example the duration takes on an AMD Athlon 5350 with windows 8.1 ~5h and on linux (the same device) ~7h (40% longer duration!). Even with other cpu's there is that difference. Are long-term planning optimization? |
Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 847 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 |
Yes, I know the difference (but on my hosts this difference is smaller, on E3-1230v2 between Windows 7 and Debian Wheezy about 10%). I have tested stronger optimisations for Linux on test server but with 300% faster computations we get bit different results for app and this need to be investigated more deeply in future... Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 21 Feb 15 Posts: 46 Credit: 926,538,317 RAC: 0 |
Ok thanks for the information. |
Send message Joined: 21 Feb 15 Posts: 46 Credit: 926,538,317 RAC: 0 |
The new Universe X-ray sources v2 v0.03 app is as 2,5 faster as the old one exclusive on linux! |
Send message Joined: 27 Mar 15 Posts: 6 Credit: 2,967,538 RAC: 0 |
The latest Linux application is performing quite well. 2x Intel Westmere x5690 3.6 GHz No HT - Linux - 4932 seconds averaged 20 samples My newer Intel Haswell 5960x 4.1 GHz No HT in Windows 10 is running at 6257 seconds per task averaged. I would like to test this host with Linux for a better Windows to Linux application comparison. |
Send message Joined: 27 Mar 15 Posts: 6 Credit: 2,967,538 RAC: 0 |
5960x No HT 4.1 GHz Windows: 6254 seconds, 20 samples averaged Linux: 3393 seconds, 20 samples averaged That is a nice performance boost for the Linux application. |
Send message Joined: 15 Mar 15 Posts: 3 Credit: 3,549,717 RAC: 0 |
The new Linux speed is so scary! ! When Windows pulls after ? |
Send message Joined: 13 May 15 Posts: 87 Credit: 4,320,738 RAC: 0 |
Not quite Apples to Apples. The windows client is a 32 bit while Linux is 64 bit. While I don't know performance increases in GENERAL (not just here), I think comparing a Win64 to a Lx64 would be a better comparison. On that topic, if you have the time when you return, krzyszp, would you make a 32 bit Linux client please? Thanks in advance. :) |
Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 847 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 |
I don't have any 32bit Linux machine at the moment. I will try to do it on virtualbox but can't tell you when at the moment as I have some other more important tasks on my list... Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 13 May 15 Posts: 87 Credit: 4,320,738 RAC: 0 |
I don't have any 32bit Linux machine at the moment. My other notebook is 32 bit and has a shot hard drive so I'm running Lubuntu off a flash drive at the moment. |
Send message Joined: 7 Jun 15 Posts: 5 Credit: 1,364,444 RAC: 0 |
What ratio in productivity of appendices between windows and Linux? Earlier version 0.03 for Linux was much quicker. |
Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 847 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 |
Now we have new application where computation time is much longer then before. Unfortunately, all tests I have made on Linux machine and I don't know yet what is performance ratio between Linux and Windows. I think in next few days some results shows what difference is between systems... Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 6 Mar 15 Posts: 13 Credit: 20,214,952 RAC: 0 |
Are there already some figures available on how the runtime of the new application differs between Linux and Windows? I'm currently contemplating to migrate another one of my crunchers back to Linux, so I wonder if this will have any "negative" impact on how much I can contribute to this project? |