|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Linux port of Alex Kan's? (Read 2779 times)
|
|
UncleVom
|
Hi,
I don't mean to drag anybody away from the important stuff.
I was just wondering how things were progressing with this port?
UncleVom
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jason G
|
Hi UncleVom,
There is testing of builds going on behind the scenes, mixed results so far in terms of compatibility with different distros. If I understand what's going on properly (which I probably don't as I'm not directly involved with that build, or that familiar with Linux development either) then it will take longer to obtain satisfactory release builds ... but it is progressing, and it is getting me more interested in Linux development myself. So you and me both are wanting to see what comes of this.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UncleVom
|
Hi Jason,
Thanks for the update.
Be careful with your Linux uptake, I hear it can become addictive. :-)
UncleVom
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dsh
|
Just so UncleVom does not have to ask twice in a row, any word - good, bad, indifferent on the Linux port. It has been almost two weeks since the last update and inquiring, impatient minds would like to have any small crumb of information if available from time to time.  Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jason G
|
Hi there,
there are several builds in testing, and it seems to me (being not overly familiar with Linux) there are difficulties with library compatibility across distros at the moment. This is being ironed out and performance results look promising.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dsh
|
Thanks for the update. I am a Slackware user myself so I can appreciate them taking the time to make sure it works with more than one flavor of Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UncleVom
|
Thanks for the update.
I think ensuring easy installation across distros is very important, there are a lot of Linux newbies out there these days.
Sorting out package dependencies and varying file locations can be trying enough for veteran users.
On the other hand I'm pretty sure there are some who would more than willing to hack the distro to fit the app. ;-)
UncleVom
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UncleVom
|
Special thanks to Alex Kan, Crunch3r, Jason G, Raistmer, JDWhale and anybody else I missed. :-D
This seems very fast.
UncleVom
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 03 Jun 2008, 09:29:57 pm by UncleVom »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ajs
|
Impressive work guys, many thanks to all involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raistmer
|
On T2330 SSSE3/SSE3 32/64 bit linux versions were slower than corresponding x86 Windows ones.
The same picture (for SSE3) was observed on AMD Venice.
So linux versions preferable for linux guys only IMHO. No need to switch to linux only to run SETI for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sunu
|
On T2330 SSSE3/SSE3 32/64 bit linux versions were slower than corresponding x86 Windows ones.
The same picture (for SSE3) was observed on AMD Venice.
So linux versions preferable for linux guys only IMHO. No need to switch to linux only to run SETI for now.
I would say it's exactly the opposite, linux app seems faster than the windows version. My machine is a Q6600 G0 OCed to 3.11GHz (345 FSB) and DDR2-1150 with ubuntu 8.04 64 bit. This is my working machine, not a dedicated cruncher and I'm always running a massive 25000 file torrent in the background. In all workunits mentioned below, my wingman also has a Q6600. Take a look in these workunits: 271702837, 272171135, 272059004, 271665803 (all Win32). Taking into account my overclock (even with 100% scaling), linux is faster than windows. In this workunit, 272124897, with Win64, still linux is faster. Finally in workunit 271664596 (Win32) my wingman has a bigger overclock than me, but still my linux machine is faster. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 04 Jun 2008, 09:56:14 pm by sunu »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jason G
|
Glad to hear it's working well for you sunu. We'll keep an eye on performance figures to find out if this applies to other machines as well.
Cheers, Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UncleVom
|
It is working great! :-D
I'm finding a similar situation.
Q6600 box 9x333mhz.
I did a comparison on the same machine (sample size of one) between the Win32 ssse3 client run as a service and the Linux64 ssse3 client in user space, kde3 desktop and the Linux client seems around 3 minutes faster on a 73 credit work unit. Sadly I don't have a copy of Win64 to use for a comparison.
I'm wondering if the testing referred to on the T2330, which I take to be a laptop, took place with the default power saving and freq daemons running.
UncleVom
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
|
Quote!
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.- Franklin D. Roosevelt
|
 |  |  |
| |
| Site Statistics |
| Total Members: | 1,014 |
| Total Posts: | 9,018 |
| Total Topics: | 421 | | Downloads |
| Apps |
| Windows R-1.x | 25,059 |
| Windows R-2.0 | 20,284 |
| Windows R-2.2 | 36,379 |
| Linux 32bit 1.x | 6,522 |
| Linux 32bit 2.2 | 4,293 |
| Linux 64bit 2.2 | 1,709 |
| Alpha/IA64 | 185 |
| FreeBSD | 577 |
| HPUX | 320 |
| Subtotal: | 94,246 |
| Source packs: | 4,058 |
| Tool/WU packs: | 7,650 |
| Total: | 149,980 | | GBs dl'd: | 278.81 | | Pages served |
| Today: | 285 |
| Total: | 3,071,511 |
| (since 6/26/2006) |
| 173 Donations to S@H |
| U.S. Dollars: | 3,196.59 |
| Euros: | 863.90 |
| Last 24h: | $ 0.00 |
| Avg./24h: | $ 7.63 |
| Estim. total: | $ 4,319.66 |
Latest Member:
kflory |
| |
 | |  |
| | |
| |
Online users/last 15m
21 Guests, 0 Users
19 Members/last 24hJason G, KWSN - jonnyv, Gecko_R7, msattler, Geek@Play, Yin Gang, Archangel999, Urs Echternacht, Josef W. Segur, clk, Gelirhil, ajs, Devaster, brimur, Haselgrove, Raistmer, fad, _heinz, Radiohead
| |
| | |
|
