Does Linux run SETI more efficiently??

[imhotepmp]

As i said above, is there any advantage to running linux? Can you get more out of your system if its run, ive heard that linux is a way more efficient in handling sytem resources when compareed to windows
imhotepmp

 

[ColinP]

Yeah,

I think its probably between 10 and 20% faster..
And of course, it doesn't fall over all the time...



Col

 

[Ken g6]

Well, I'm not sure. I tried the same SETI WU on Linux and on Windows. It was going to take about 30 minutes longer in Linux than in Win98 at the same point, though I never checked the completed times. 'Course there were several differences:

Linux: Win32 partition
Win98: ramdisk

Linux: V2.4
Win98: V2.0

Linux: priority 19 (lowest)
Win98: priority 8 (normal)

So anybody know what, if anything, went wrong?

 

[Hellburner]

The old Linux S@H 1.x clients were significantly faster than the windows clients. That disappeared in the 2.x clients.

 

[imhotepmp]

The old Linux S@H 1.x clients were significantly faster than the windows clients. That disappeared in the 2.x clients.

so does that mean performace is pretty much equal? i was referring more to the linux's better ability to handle resource's, which should be independent of the seti client? I could be wrong.
imhotepmp

 

[Hellburner]

In a heavy use situation Linux would probably find more cycles for the client than windows. In a typical setting you probably wouldn't notice any difference.

Windows can be configured to handle resources fairly efficiently, unfortunately the default settings out of the box are not those settings. Additionally, windows needs some moderate maintenance to stay efficient.