|From||Buzz Burhans <email@example.com>|
|Subject||Re: st: Stata (gllamm) benchmarks for different platforms?|
|Date||Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:17:00 -0400|
I went a somewhat similar route, the 2.2 opteron. A velocity micro box with Raid 0 and 2 GB of memory. However, I stayed with XP Pro.Following this exchange, we both ran a small dataset and the same .do file which ran two almost identical calls to -gllamm-. The difference between Program1 and Program2 is that the exact same model is run in both cases, with the single difference being that in Program1 there are 2 level 2 random effects, and in program 2 an additional random effect was added so there are 3 random effects. The third RE made much much more difference in speed than the difference in processors, which in my opinion supports the idea expressed recently by Philp Ryan and Ronan Conroy that integrating -gllamm- into Stata via either incorporating more into the core code, as was previously done, or by using a plugin, are merited and probably the more important issue than processor differences. I heartily second Ronan Conroy's sentiments that I repeat here: "It's [-gllamm-] a major piece of intellectual work, and is really well supported with a website (www.gllamm.org) documentation etc. Sophia, Andrew and Anders are doing a remarkable job"
You know the usual XP versus Linux arguments. I decided that I needed XP for more general compatability, and I figured I would take a little hit in processing power by not going with Linux.
However, I really don't know how much better, if any, is Linux in running Stata. Perhaps you have a file and program that you have run and timed that you could send to me send to me. I would run here and then we could compare speed. I could run GLLAMM (on your data?)