Best OS for Seti CLI?

[tomfowler]

I'm new to this whole deal. I have a PIII-450 that is not doing a whole lot (besides SETI) and was wondering if I would get more out of it by running Linux. Seems like Windows 98 / XP have so much other "stuff" going on, that I may see a few percentage points difference running an OS that isn't that busy. Is the Linux version any faster than the CLI-NT version for windows? I'm not talking running X, just a command line (simple). I would use DOS, but networking support is difficult.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Tom F.

 

[Confused]

The fastest way to run Seti is the Win3.03 CLI under Wine in Linux.

There is a couple of mins/WU improvement over the WinCLI in Windows, and also the native Linux CLI

Confused

 

[Robor]

I'd just slap a bare install of Win2000 Pro. I don't think the speed advantage of Linux/WINE is worth the hassle. At least it wasn't for me. I tried a while back and went back to M$!

 

[MoFunk]

I would throw linux on that bad boy and let it run. It can be a hassle but it is very fun to get in there and learn. I loaded my first linux box a few weeks ago and now I have been downloading various flavors to play with those also. Give it a shot and get to crunching!

 

[BadThad]

If you go with win2k, be sure to shutdown all the unnecessary services that run.

 

[Assimilator1]

Like what?

tomfowler
Win2k is the fastest MS OS for SETI ,if I remember rightly, Poof said that SETI was about 5 mins or so faster using WINE in Linux ,is 5 mins worth the extra hassle to you?

 

[Rattledagger]

Well, if I'm not quite mistaken, the MS-part is NT4 is faster than NT5 is faster than NT5.1
I'm not sure for the win9x-part... But I've heard someone say running safe-mode in the fastest of these is faster than NT for normal wu.

I guess the speed-advantage for linux+NT-cmd is for normal angle-range-wu, and that the linux-client is some slower than the windows-client.
For VLAR, the linux-client should therefore be faster than NT and much faster than win9x.

Oh, and for the NT4 faster than win2k-part, for a couple of weeks ago I changed to a new hd and win2k kept spitting out invalid_boot_device, so I tried NT4 instead. For normal wu it seems to be around the same speed, but VLAR's appears to have 1-2 hours lower cpu-time. :Q This is 5-10% decrease for this machine.

 

[Poof]

Originally posted by: Assimilator1
Like what?

tomfowler
Win2k is the fastest MS OS for SETI ,if I remember rightly, Poof said that SETI was about 5 mins or so faster using WINE in Linux ,is 5 mins worth the extra hassle to you?

[rant]
That's because windoze sux!
[/rant]

 

[Soulkeeper]

i did several days of testing and found that running the windows command line client under linux through wine is the fastest way
you could drop to the command line and up the priority on it and the times will be great
running the win32 version in linux saved me over an hour/WU when compared to the regular linux version

 

[tomfowler]

Well, that is funny. Running the NT client under Windows emulation software in Linux. I would have never guessed it would be faster than the native linux CLI. But as Assimilator1 points out, I don't know if 5 minutes is worth the trouble. Right now that client is running Windows 98SE, you think it would be faster with a vanilla NT4 workstation (I happen to have a real copy of that!)

Thanks for all the advice,

Tom

PS, Is there a listing of subteams for the TeAm? Are there some other Shameless recruiting threads for them? I saw a post related to the "Federation".....

 

[Assimilator1]

NT4 will definitley be faster than Win98SE in SETI ,especially for VLAR WU's ,& bit for the others too

I don't think there is any seperate list for the sub teams other than the TA list

Poof
Was I right about it (WINE) being about 5mins faster?

Rattledagger
I didn't even think of NT4! ,10% is quite a bit! ,but I think I'll stick with Win2k
Btw is it possible the intermittent prob you had with Win2k could of affected WU times?

 

[Soulkeeper]

i think running the windows version with wine would yeild better than 5 min time improvements
i'm thinking 30minutes or so over win2k
but i havn't had the chance to compare directly since i don't have windows on my computers
anyone else tryed to compare them ??
and if so did you increase the priority of the process ?

 

[Rattledagger]

Assimilator1, due to hd-problems with my sisters machine, I had to get a new hd. Since her machine is old and very slow, the best was to put the new hd in my machine. The BSOD was happening at the reboot then installing win2k... I haven't experienced any problems before on this machine...
Since the machine most of the time is spitting out wu, only occasionally running an old game, NT4 is good enough. Oh, and since dual, win9x isn't an option.

BTW, 5 minutes faster with wine. Ehm, this doesn't mean anything, since is it 5 minutes faster with a machine using 30+ hours every wu, or a machine spitting out a wu in under 3 hours.

 

[Assimilator1]

Yeah that's true ,I had thought of that but forgot to type it!

I was thinkin of a 5 mins save for a 6 ish hr WU

Now if Poof would pop her head in again I'm sure she'll give more accurate figures

 

[BadThad]

A great website for any of the NT based OSes services/dependencies:

Black Viper

There you go assim!

 

[Assimilator1]

Thanks BT