Clear Linux

FAH provides a V7 client installer for Debian / Mint / Ubuntu / RedHat / CentOS / Fedora. Installation on other distros may or may not be easy but if you can offer help to others, they would appreciate it.

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
ProDigit
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:23 pm

Clear Linux

Post by ProDigit »

I've read lots of positive praise on the efficiency of Intel's Clear Linux.
In many cases, Clear Linux got a 20% higher performance score than most other distros like Mint or Ubuntu.
The ISO is a mere 250MB in size.

Anyone got experience with Clear Linux?

First I want to see if the live version can run on my netbook.
If it can, I might want to know how to install the deb or RPM package on there.

I assume, that anyone who's running a program like Folding@home on dedicated hardware, would want to run it on an as efficient operating system as possible; and Clear Linux just seems to fit the bill!
Though more server based, some people said it installed fine on their desktops or laptops.
I'll update the thread with my findings soon.
Asgaroth
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:06 am

Re: Clear Linux

Post by Asgaroth »

My understanding is that clear linux has had is binaries compiled with optimizations for intel's cpu's, this is why it has the performance boost. Most linux distro's packages are built with compiler flags that will perform on the majority of hardware.

Weather these tweaks will filter down to fah is another question altogether.

With arch linux (and derivatives), there is a file (/etc/makepkg.conf) that you can edit and set your optimizations, then, when the "makepkg" helper script runs, it will read the file and apply your optimizations for the machine it is compiling the application on.

Note though, that compiler optimizations dont always equal better performance, in some cases, it can result in compiler failures if you dont set it up properly.
Last edited by Asgaroth on Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence.
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
foldy
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:43 pm
Hardware configuration: Folding@Home Client 7.6.13 (1 GPU slots)
Windows 7 64bit
Intel Core i5 2500k@4Ghz
Nvidia gtx 1080ti driver 441

Re: Clear Linux

Post by foldy »

I guess it does not help FAH because the FAH cores for CPU or GPU are compiled at Stanford and not on local machine. But maybe some driver or system kernel speedup in Intel's Clear Linux could help FAH too?
ProDigit
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:23 pm

Re: Clear Linux

Post by ProDigit »

From what I read, though made by intel, for intel chips, it works even better on AMD cores.
The irony...

I'm not sure if the performance spike is only on flatpack applications, or also on the deb and RPM packages.
The fact that the OS is only 250MB in size, could also be the reason.
It's like running Windows 3.11 on a modern system.
I think, looking at the size, that the size of the OS has a lot to say about background tasks (or absence thereof), being one of the reasons for higher performance.
v00d00
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:53 am
Hardware configuration: FX8320e (6 cores enabled) @ stock,
- 16GB DDR3,
- Zotac GTX 1050Ti @ Stock.
- Gigabyte GTX 970 @ Stock
Debian 9.

Running GPU since it came out, CPU since client version 3.
Folding since Folding began (~2000) and ran Genome@Home for a while too.
Ran Seti@Home prior to that.
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Clear Linux

Post by v00d00 »

Years back we had an issue with compiled cores that gave better performance on Intel over AMD, due to compiler optimisations. Basically the core looked for "Genuine Intel" or some other string and then used optimisations like SSE, but if it found nothing it ran without, which is somewhat slower. At the time AMD lagged behind Intel in terms of power and features, but the optimisations being called by FAH were in both cpus, I think it was SSE1. At some point someone worked out how to patch the core so all computers were genuine, which broke the licensing on the compiler. So nowadays I think they just use the best generic options possible to avoid any problems like that occurring again. Also most technologies are now generic to both manufacturers, with the main differences being in certain other features like crypto and cache sizes.
Image
Post Reply