FalconFly wrote:

Currently, this Linux dual 2000+ System comes in at about 20 Minutes
slower than the Win2000 dual 1700+, hence my disappointment :(
That observation is based off 0.426 AR Units, which went through in 4h59m
so far. I know that's about worst-case Angle Range for Linux, but still
slower than what I expected.

The Linux S@h clients have historically been slower than the Windows
counterparts. That's not Linux's fault, but the way they are compiled. As a
proof, the combination Linux/Wine/WinNT client is actually a faster way to
process WUs than using native Win2K systems.

What's more, the 3.08 client suffers from a large performance hit. So, if
you are running the 3.08 client, consider switching back to the 3.03 client
if security isn't such an issue to you.
 

I'll leave it running or a few days.
(after it took so long to setup, and I even managed to use the completely
insane Console Text Editor "vi" successfully, which is more complex to use
all by itself than managing an entire Windows Cluster :p )
So I'll will give it a chance since I'm tired of working on it anyway *g*

If you don't like vi, there are tons of other console editors which might be
more acceptable to you (nano, joe, pico). And if you can't live on the
console, why don't you install one of the many graphical desktop
environments available for Linux. Sure, you would loose a few CPU cycles,
but the same would be happening if you installed Win2K.

Gordon