what is the most perfectest OS for running EINSTEIN@HOME?

Pandaschnitzel
Pandaschnitzel
Joined: 5 Mar 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 12970
RAC: 0
Topic 188907

my opinion:

WINDOWS.

reason: 98% of the world pupolation (5,7 billion peoples) uses windows. this got to say somethin about it´s:

- efficiency (and speed)
- stability (and comfortablitiy)
- profesionalty (and mutli tasking ability)

however i am open minded and lookin forward to hear other argumentative reasons to consider another OS (but i am heavy to convince).

greeetings,

ps.

P.S. by the way: my first OS i use was GEM from ATARI 1040 STFM. but i prefer windows because it has more colors (red green blue yelow) and the garbage gets full when i throuw something in it...like in reality. unless there is a SwweeeiEet+t+E hiddden micky mouse in the garbage who likes to eat some cherry cake crumbles or cheeese pieces (my favorit foods) which i put in the garbge.

gravywavy
gravywavy
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 392
Credit: 68962
RAC: 0

what is the most perfectest OS for running EINSTEIN@HOME?

This question seems to me to miss the point. Choosing an OS for a particular DC is like buying paper just to fill the recycling bin. The whole point of a Distibuted Computing project is to re-use whatever you've got.

That is my point in a nutshell, but because I like the sight of my own typing, I'll say it all again in much more detail.

In a Grid computing project, that is a project which owns its own productive machines there would be 100's or 1000's of identical machines all running the same code and all with the same operating system. There it would make sense to ask which OS is best. Given that Grid projects depend on networking, they have sometimes gone for the Unix/Linux variants due to the fact that these tend to be more efficient at networking and easier to set up for it; however other criteria including the ones you mentioned may push the choice in another direction.

However, this is not a Grid project but a distributed computing project: the computers are owned by a diverse bunch of donors who all own their computers for some other purpose. It might be games, surfing, TV recording, word processing, spreadsheets, science, whatever. The DC element is secondary for any specific user. The DC client is designed to run as unobtrusively as possible. This means it should disrupt the real work of the machine as little as possible, and ideally not at all.

This means that the most perfectest OS for running a DC project (in BOINC or elsewhere) is whatever OS you already have. Anything else is a mistake. To waste time thinking about OS's is a mistake within the context of donating to a DC project, important though that choice is elsewhere.

For a project designer the best OS's to support are the ones (plural) that seem to them to have the widest base of potential donors. That is not a technical point but what might loosely be called a marketing one, and does not affect the fact that from a donor point of view the best OS is one they already have.

Put it this way: if someone did not already have a Windows licence, would you really expect them to pay money just to be allowed to donate time to E@H? If their hardware does not run Windows (Mac, say) should they change their hardware too?

Or should they pirate the OS and risk jail just to donate to a DC project?

And if someone else does have a Windows licence no doubt they thought before they made the purchase. They decided it was worth the investment compared to a free OS and I expect they had a good reason for paying all that money, or at least a reason that seems good to them. Would anyone expect them to sacrifice that investment just for a DC project? Of course not, they will use what they've already got.

The only exceptions I can think of are if you dual-boot or have a tool which lets you run one OS's code on another OS, then you choose between one and the other, probably on the basis of performance. It does not (in my opinion) make sense for anyone else to even think about it.

I see your question has already been downrated to -27, and I will be adding another -1 to that score. I felt I'd like to let you know why (though I can't speak for the other critics of course).

~~gravywavy

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715454
RAC: 0

Hello, First, not sure why

Hello,

First, not sure why your post got rated to a negative 29, someone here must not like your windows theme :)

Anyways, I would say running the windows binary under Linux using Wine has shown the best results for me. Even though it crashes a few times, it seems to process the Workunits quicker than any other configuration I have tried.

Thanks!
Jordan Wilberding

> my opinion:
>
> WINDOWS.
>
> reason: 98% of the world pupolation (5,7 billion peoples) uses windows. this
> got to say somethin about it´s:
>
> - efficiency (and speed)
> - stability (and comfortablitiy)
> - profesionalty (and mutli tasking ability)
>
> however i am open minded and lookin forward to hear other argumentative
> reasons to consider another OS (but i am heavy to convince).
>
>
> greeetings,
>
>
> ps.
>
> P.S. by the way: my first OS i use was GEM from ATARI 1040 STFM. but i prefer
> windows because it has more colors (red green blue yelow) and the garbage gets
> full when i throuw something in it...like in reality. unless there is a
> SwweeeiEet+t+E hiddden micky mouse in the garbage who likes to eat some cherry
> cake crumbles or cheeese pieces (my favorit foods) which i put in the garbge.
>

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

Cochise
Cochise
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 38
Credit: 3717
RAC: 0

Windows XP on a modern

Windows XP on a modern machine...

case closed

Count von Count
Count von Count
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 55
Credit: 6729
RAC: 0

> my opinion: > >

> my opinion:
>
> WINDOWS.

hihihihihi, me finding precioussss with calculator. me don't know about opparating systems. me only looking for preciousssss.

Elphidieus
Elphidieus
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 245
Credit: 20603702
RAC: 0

> > my opinion: > > > >

Message 10300 in response to message 10299

> > my opinion:
> >
> > WINDOWS.
>
> hihihihihi, me finding precioussss with calculator. me don't know about
> opparating systems. me only looking for preciousssss.
>
>
>
>
my perfect choice would be OSX Tiger on the upcoming Dual-core Powemrmac G5 DP

PickCoder
PickCoder
Joined: 21 Mar 05
Posts: 6
Credit: 598160
RAC: 0

You point is well noted.

Message 10301 in response to message 10296


You point is well noted. However, the *nix einstein binaries are not always compiled to take advantage of current chip technologies where floating point math is most important. This, in itself, steers the project towards Win-Intel or 68K-OSX based operating systems which take the highest advantage of related chip technologies. You can't say that all of the calc binaries run exactly the same across all available O/S's. So, there *is* a preferable calculation platform. Correct? Mac OS running dual-CPU is obviously going to provide the best math performance due to RISC architecture, while a x386 Linux ELF binary is going be the worst. Am I wrong?

> This question seems to me to miss the point. Choosing an OS for a particular
> DC is like buying paper just to fill the recycling bin. The whole point of a
> Distibuted Computing project is to re-use whatever you've got.
>
> That is my point in a nutshell, but because I like the sight of my own
> typing, I'll say it all again in much more detail.
>
> In a Grid computing project, that is a project which owns its own productive
> machines there would be 100's or 1000's of identical machines all running the
> same code and all with the same operating system. There it would make sense
> to ask which OS is best. Given that Grid projects depend on networking, they
> have sometimes gone for the Unix/Linux variants due to the fact that these
> tend to be more efficient at networking and easier to set up for it; however
> other criteria including the ones you mentioned may push the choice in another
> direction.
>
> However, this is not a Grid project but a distributed computing project: the
> computers are owned by a diverse bunch of donors who all own their computers
> for some other purpose. It might be games, surfing, TV recording, word
> processing, spreadsheets, science, whatever. The DC element is secondary
> for any specific user. The DC client is designed to run as unobtrusively as
> possible. This means it should disrupt the real work of the machine as
> little as possible, and ideally not at all.
>
> This means that the most perfectest OS for running a DC project (in BOINC or
> elsewhere) is whatever OS you already have. Anything else is a mistake. To
> waste time thinking about OS's is a mistake within the context of donating to
> a DC project, important though that choice is elsewhere.
>
> For a project designer the best OS's to support are the ones (plural) that
> seem to them to have the widest base of potential donors. That is not a
> technical point but what might loosely be called a marketing one, and does
> not affect the fact that from a donor point of view the best OS is one they
> already have.
>
> Put it this way: if someone did not already have a Windows licence, would
> you really expect them to pay money just to be allowed to donate time to E@H?
> If their hardware does not run Windows (Mac, say) should they change their
> hardware too?
>
> Or should they pirate the OS and risk jail just to donate to a DC project?
>
> And if someone else does have a Windows licence no doubt they thought before
> they made the purchase. They decided it was worth the investment compared to
> a free OS and I expect they had a good reason for paying all that money, or
> at least a reason that seems good to them. Would anyone expect them to
> sacrifice that investment just for a DC project? Of course not, they will
> use what they've already got.
>
> The only exceptions I can think of are if you dual-boot or have a tool which
> lets you run one OS's code on another OS, then you choose between one and the
> other, probably on the basis of performance. It does not (in my opinion)
> make sense for anyone else to even think about it.
>
> I see your question has already been downrated to -27, and I will be adding
> another -1 to that score. I felt I'd like to let you know why (though I can't
> speak for the other critics of course).
>

Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715454
RAC: 0

> > However, the *nix

Message 10302 in response to message 10301

>
> However, the *nix einstein binaries are not always compiled to take advantage > > of current chip technologies where floating point
> math is most important.

Correction, they are _never_ compiled to take advantage of anything it seems.

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

Pandaschnitzel
Pandaschnitzel
Joined: 5 Mar 05
Posts: 49
Credit: 12970
RAC: 0

thanks for your all insights

Message 10303 in response to message 10296

thanks for your all insights information but i will stick to windows becuase never touch a perfectest running system.

all the best and lets find those WAVE! i hope they dont hidden behind the mooon (hiihih**very cütteé*Ü---wave say: "kuck kuck..here I am"kkihi but nobody find me...!hih*)

most kindest regards

ps.

G Thomas Wilson
G Thomas Wilson
Joined: 5 Mar 05
Posts: 21
Credit: 2311944
RAC: 0

> > > > However, the *nix

Message 10304 in response to message 10302

> >
> > However, the *nix einstein binaries are not always compiled to take
> advantage > > of current chip technologies where floating point
> > math is most important.
>
> Correction, they are _never_ compiled to take advantage of anything it seems.

The GNU compiler is to blame. Optimization is *not* its' strong suit.


Jordan Wilberding
Jordan Wilberding
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 715454
RAC: 0

That's why they should use

Message 10305 in response to message 10304

That's why they should use the Intel Compiler. :)

> The GNU compiler is to blame. Optimization is *not* its' strong suit.
>

such things just should not be writ so please destroy this if you wish to live 'tis better in ignorance to dwell than to go screaming into the abyss worse than hell

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.