So I'm thinking about getting a couple spare computers to do nothing but fold with, and I'm really curious: Given the same hardware, is there an operating system that's faster / more efficient than the rest as far as folding goes? Since I won't be using the computers like... as computers, it doesn't really matter what it is. I would guess that Linux is best, but I honestly have no real answer ^^.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Best OS for folding?
- Thread starter ethraax
- Start date
I guess the first question is what type of computers are you getting? If they are dedicated folders and are capable of running the LinuxSMP it's kinda' a "no brainer" to fold in Linux with the LinuxSMP client. It's been proven time and again that the LinuxSMP client is the way to go. (at least for Intel E series chips, dual core)
The Intel "E" series dualies (E6320, E6420, E6600) fold better for SMP'ing than the AMD dualies I believe because the Intel chips have more L2 cache and OC' better.
I don't know off hand what, if any, advantage you'll get from running a non SMP client in Linux vs a non SMP clent in Windows. I do know the Affinity Changer program tightened up the ppd's between LinSMP and WinSMP.
Sorry I couldn't help more with answers, but there are some very knowledgeable folders on this forum that are "experts" in both Linux and Windows. They all seem nice enough to answer any questions and they're usually "correcto moondo".
Crazy Larry
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,137
I have 2 machines with the same specs (E6400 stock, 1gb dual channel). One uses XP Pro and Affinity changer, the other is the diskless client. The diskless client has about a 150ppd advantage over the XP boxen. (XP 1400ppd vs. Diskless 1550ppd)
Basically anything that supports the SMP client and doesn't cost you money. About the only option you have in this regard is Linux. Which distro you want to use is up to you.
Personally, I do not care for "live CDs" for folding. With a hard drive installed I mostly do not have to worry about losing a work unit from a power outage, a reboot or anything like that. Besides, I usually find other uses for the systems which require having a hard drive and a full blown OS.
Personally, I do not care for "live CDs" for folding. With a hard drive installed I mostly do not have to worry about losing a work unit from a power outage, a reboot or anything like that. Besides, I usually find other uses for the systems which require having a hard drive and a full blown OS.
Great answers. Yea, I'm thinking about getting the "cheap" quad-cores from Intel, the 2.4GHz ones (Q6600?). Anyway, I'll look at that LinuxSMP thing. Sounds like a good deal 
.
About the diskless client, I'm not sure quite how much trouble that's going to be. Just for fun (since I had some spare time) I set up a diskless folder on one of my old computers. It didn't get any PPD because it was such a bad computer (450MHz lol), but it did push through a 10-point WU in a day, which uploaded fine. I'll try the same for SMP I guess.
.About the diskless client, I'm not sure quite how much trouble that's going to be. Just for fun (since I had some spare time) I set up a diskless folder on one of my old computers. It didn't get any PPD because it was such a bad computer (450MHz lol), but it did push through a 10-point WU in a day, which uploaded fine. I'll try the same for SMP I guess.
Another vote for linux If you're going to overclock, you'll probably want to load Windows first... that's what I usually do Load Windows, get it stable, and wipe the drive / install Linux.
I've found that it's usually faster to do it that way, but YMMV.
If you're going to overclock, you'll probably want to load Windows first... that's what I usually do Load Windows, get it stable, and wipe the drive / install Linux.I've found that it's usually faster to do it that way, but YMMV.