C.P.U. suggestions.

[C Wakefield-2]

Greetings all.

I'm planning to build my next power machine, this time I
may go with a Core Duo, but I looking for some suggestions
and CPU stories from Y'all....

To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the scheduler
with the default debian compile that seems to effect the
performance, but it's certainly nothing to write home
about.
.....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
(the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU
I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.

So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is
best for the desktop?
(I've built about 3 machines for clients with these CPU's
and they seem very snappy.  I'm even talking about the 1.8
MHz variety).

I'm also wondering about alternate CPU's as well and what
suggestions anyone has about those as well?

Any Suggestions?

Thanks,
Chris W.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Dean Hamstead-2]

intel cpus are smashing AMD cpus except in the very low end market

you are best off buying an intel quad core... sadly.

Dean

Chris Wakefield wrote:

> Greetings all.
>
> I'm planning to build my next power machine, this time I
> may go with a Core Duo, but I looking for some suggestions
> and CPU stories from Y'all....
>
> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
> been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the scheduler
> with the default debian compile that seems to effect the
> performance, but it's certainly nothing to write home
> about.
> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
> (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU
> I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
>
> So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is
> best for the desktop?
> (I've built about 3 machines for clients with these CPU's
> and they seem very snappy.  I'm even talking about the 1.8
> MHz variety).
>
> I'm also wondering about alternate CPU's as well and what
> suggestions anyone has about those as well?
>
> Any Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris W.
>
>

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[C. Ahlstrom]

++++++++ Dean Hamstead 18:28 Thu 12 Jun      ++++++++

> intel cpus are smashing AMD cpus except in the very low end market
> you are best off buying an intel quad core... sadly.
>
> Chris Wakefield wrote:
>>
>> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has been a ho-hum
>> experience; don't know if it's the scheduler with the default debian
>> compile that seems to effect the performance, but it's certainly
>> nothing to write home about.
>> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+ (the one with
>> 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU I ever had and I think just
>> as capable as my X2.
>>
>> So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is best for the
>> desktop?
>> (I've built about 3 machines for clients with these CPU's and they seem
>> very snappy.  I'm even talking about the 1.8 MHz variety).

I've had the opposite experience (AMD being a bit faster).  However,
three things:

    1. Tweak and build my own kernel, setting scheduler parameters.  (Any
       apparent performance increase may be dumb luck, thouhg.)

    2. The Core Duo is on a DELL laptop, so that may cripple it a bit
       (chuckle).

    3. Due to problems running Win 2000 in a virtual machine, I doubled
       the RAM to 4 Gb.

In general, the AMD system is a tiny bit faster, but at generating ISO
files it absolutely smashes the Core Duo systems (again, with the above
provisos).

Anyway, let us know your experience.  Since I just upgraded, it will be
awhile before "family considerations" will permit the purchase of a quad
core and 24 Gb of RAM <grin>.

Chris

--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you from doing clever things.
                -- Doug Gwyn


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:20:25PM -0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:

> Greetings all.
>
> I'm planning to build my next power machine, this time I
> may go with a Core Duo, but I looking for some suggestions
> and CPU stories from Y'all....
>
> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
> been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the scheduler
> with the default debian compile that seems to effect the
> performance, but it's certainly nothing to write home
> about.
> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
> (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU
> I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
>
> So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is
> best for the desktop?
> (I've built about 3 machines for clients with these CPU's
> and they seem very snappy.  I'm even talking about the 1.8
> MHz variety).
>
> I'm also wondering about alternate CPU's as well and what
> suggestions anyone has about those as well?

I use a Core 2 Q6600 in one of my machines.  What an amazing amount of
processing power for about $200 (for the CPU).  I use an Asus P5K board
with it.  I ahve been very happy with it for running Debian so far.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 07:15:09AM -0400, C. Ahlstrom wrote:

> I've had the opposite experience (AMD being a bit faster).  However,
> three things:
>
>    1. Tweak and build my own kernel, setting scheduler parameters.  (Any
>       apparent performance increase may be dumb luck, thouhg.)
>
>    2. The Core Duo is on a DELL laptop, so that may cripple it a bit
>       (chuckle).
>
>    3. Due to problems running Win 2000 in a virtual machine, I doubled
>       the RAM to 4 Gb.
>
> In general, the AMD system is a tiny bit faster, but at generating ISO
> files it absolutely smashes the Core Duo systems (again, with the above
> provisos).
>
> Anyway, let us know your experience.  Since I just upgraded, it will be
> awhile before "family considerations" will permit the purchase of a quad
> core and 24 Gb of RAM <grin>.

A Core Duo is nothing like a Core 2 Duo.  The Core Duo is a much older
architecture and not a match for the AMD.  The Core 2 Duo (and Quad) on
the other hand are almost always outperforming the AMDs.

I really hope AMD comes out with a new CPU to beat intel soon.  I like
to see the competition.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[C Wakefield-2]

On June 11, 2008 11:20:25 pm Chris Wakefield wrote:

> Greetings all.
>
> I'm planning to build my next power machine, this time I
> may go with a Core Duo, but I looking for some
> suggestions and CPU stories from Y'all....
>
> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
> been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the
> scheduler with the default debian compile that seems to
> effect the performance, but it's certainly nothing to
> write home about.
> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
> (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best
> CPU I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
>
> So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is
> best for the desktop?
> (I've built about 3 machines for clients with these
> CPU's and they seem very snappy.  I'm even talking about
> the 1.8 MHz variety).
>
> I'm also wondering about alternate CPU's as well and
> what suggestions anyone has about those as well?
>
> Any Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris W.

Thanks for the replies so far.

Don't want to start a war, but I'd like to hear about your
filesystem suggestions....:^)

Seriously thinking of going with Reiser4.  I've been a fan
of Reiser3.6 for quite a while now.  Now that I finally
managed to find the pure patch against various kernel.org
http://chichkin_i.zelnet.ru/namesys/
Of course you gotta use lilo to boot Reiser4, which is fine
with me.

Truly have found ext3 to be ho-hum, but I guess that's the
point....;^)

Chris W.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Damon L. Chesser]

On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:05 -0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:

> On June 11, 2008 11:20:25 pm Chris Wakefield wrote:
> > Greetings all.
> >
> > I'm planning to build my next power machine, this time I
> > may go with a Core Duo, but I looking for some
> > suggestions and CPU stories from Y'all....
> >
> > To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
> > been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the
> > scheduler with the default debian compile that seems to
> > effect the performance, but it's certainly nothing to
> > write home about.
> > .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
> > (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best
> > CPU I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
> >
> > So, I'm wondering about the Core Duo family and which is
> > best for the desktop?
> > (I've built about 3 machines for clients with these
> > CPU's and they seem very snappy.  I'm even talking about
> > the 1.8 MHz variety).
> >
> > I'm also wondering about alternate CPU's as well and
> > what suggestions anyone has about those as well?
> >
> > Any Suggestions?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris W.
>
> Thanks for the replies so far.
>
> Don't want to start a war, but I'd like to hear about your
> filesystem suggestions....:^)
>
> Seriously thinking of going with Reiser4.  

Not a chance with me!  I mean Reiser is/will be in jail.  Where is the

dev comming from?
>
--
Damon L. Chesser
damon@...
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dchesser

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:28AM -0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:
> Thanks for the replies so far.
>
> Don't want to start a war, but I'd like to hear about your
> filesystem suggestions....:^)

I use ext3.  I might go to ext4 the day it is done.

> Seriously thinking of going with Reiser4.  I've been a fan
> of Reiser3.6 for quite a while now.  Now that I finally
> managed to find the pure patch against various kernel.org
> http://chichkin_i.zelnet.ru/namesys/
> Of course you gotta use lilo to boot Reiser4, which is fine
> with me.

I will probably never again touch reiserfs.  I don't like silent data
corruption, which reiserfs 3.6 has done to me numorous times.  I also
like a filesystem with reliable repair tools, which reiserfs has never
had, and probably never will (it is too complex and with not enough
redundandy).

> Truly have found ext3 to be ho-hum, but I guess that's the
> point....;^)

It's reliable, the performance is decent.

I tried XFS for a while, but that was around 2.6.10, and there were some
serious bugs at the time that would cause system crashes and abysmal
performance when working with lots of small files (like say gcc source
code or something).  It would take hours and often crash if you did rm
-rf on the gcc source dir or a kernel source.  I switched to ext3 again
after that.  If the bugs have indeed been fixed it may actually have
been a better choice for my mythtv box since it has lots of large files,
but I use ext3 there as well.

I have never used JFS, although it seems support for it may be going
away and it might get dropped.  Not sure, but perhaps it isn't worth
trying if the situation is that unclear.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Allan Wind]

On 2008-06-12T08:05:28-0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:
> Don't want to start a war, but I'd like to hear about your
> filesystem suggestions....:^)

I use ext3 and have no reason to consider anything else.  reiser is the
only file system that I have lost data with.


/Allan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Dean Hamstead-2]

Im running XFS on my desktop and laptop

So far so good.

Dean

Allan Wind wrote:

> On 2008-06-12T08:05:28-0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:
>> Don't want to start a war, but I'd like to hear about your
>> filesystem suggestions....:^)
>
> I use ext3 and have no reason to consider anything else.  reiser is the
> only file system that I have lost data with.
>
>
> /Allan
>
>

--
http://fragfest.com.au


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:20:25PM -0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:
> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
> been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the scheduler
> with the default debian compile that seems to effect the
> performance, but it's certainly nothing to write home
> about.
> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
> (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU
> I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
>

What software do you run that stresses your current CPU?  Do you not get
I/O bound?

How much memory do you need?  Intel shares the memory controller with
each CPU whereas AMD gives you a memory controller built into each CPU
(core?).

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:04:32PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
 

> > Truly have found ext3 to be ho-hum, but I guess that's the
> > point....;^)
>
> It's reliable, the performance is decent.
>
> I tried XFS for a while, but that was around 2.6.10, and there were some
> serious bugs at the time that would cause system crashes and abysmal
> performance when working with lots of small files (like say gcc source
> code or something).  It would take hours and often crash if you did rm
> -rf on the gcc source dir or a kernel source.  I switched to ext3 again
> after that.  If the bugs have indeed been fixed it may actually have
> been a better choice for my mythtv box since it has lots of large files,
> but I use ext3 there as well.
>
> I have never used JFS, although it seems support for it may be going
> away and it might get dropped.  Not sure, but perhaps it isn't worth
> trying if the situation is that unclear.
>

I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told
by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore.  

I use ext3 with data=journal mode since the power goes out here and I
don't have a UPS.  With default mode, only the metadata is journaled and
you can lose data on power-failure.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Brian Oborn]

Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:20:25PM -0700, Chris Wakefield wrote:
>  
>> To my dissappointment my 'AMD 64 X2 Dual Core 3800' has
>> been a ho-hum experience; don't know if it's the scheduler
>> with the default debian compile that seems to effect the
>> performance, but it's certainly nothing to write home
>> about.
>> .....I actually found my original AMD 64 Processor 3200+
>> (the one with 1 MiB L2 cache) to be probably the best CPU
>> I ever had and I think just as capable as my X2.
>>
>>    
>
> What software do you run that stresses your current CPU?  Do you not get
> I/O bound?
>
> How much memory do you need?  Intel shares the memory controller with
> each CPU whereas AMD gives you a memory controller built into each CPU
> (core?).
>
> Doug

AMD has a dedicated memory controller for each CPU, but that memory
controller is shared between all cores on the same CPU. Intel x86-64
CPU's generally have one memory controller shared between all the CPUs
in a system and can get into memory bandwidth starvation with multiple
CPU systems, especially with 4-sockets. None of this matters for
single-CPU, multiple core desktop systems though.

Also, for what it's worth, I use XFS on several large storage machines,
the head node for a Beowulf cluster, and all my desktops.


Brian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Dean Hamstead-2]

UPS's are way cheap. You should just grab a generic one from somewhere.
Chances are NUT will support it. It supported one I bought as an impulse
by from a local supermarket!

Dean

> I use ext3 with data=journal mode since the power goes out here and I
> don't have a UPS.  With default mode, only the metadata is journaled and
> you can lose data on power-failure.

--
http://fragfest.com.au


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Karl Schmidt]

Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

>
> I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told
> by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore.  

Could that be that they want you to use something they make that you have to pay for? IBM isn't
supporting it, but it is supported by the kernel team - battle hardened and completely stable. I've
had less trouble with jfs than ext3.

http://www.linux.com/feature/119025
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Journaled_File_System_2_(JFS2)




----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schmidt                         EMail Karl@...
Transtronics, Inc.                     WEB http://xtronics.com
3209 West 9th Street                    Ph [phone]
Lawrence, KS 66049                     FAX [phone]

Ask any politician in private, It's a blast
spending other peoples money.

----------------------------------------------------------------


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:41:05PM +1000, Dean Hamstead wrote:
> UPS's are way cheap. You should just grab a generic one from somewhere.
> Chances are NUT will support it. It supported one I bought as an impulse
> by from a local supermarket!

I (and many others) have gotten the APC SU1500VA on sale for $200
from Dell (they normally want $500 or $700 for it).  It seems to go on
sale every 3 months or so.  And with free shipping its amazingly nice
to have.  Its one of the few things I will buy from Dell.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Karl Schmidt wrote:

> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>
> >
> >I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told
> >by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore.  
>
> Could that be that they want you to use something they make that you have
> to pay for? IBM isn't supporting it, but it is supported by the kernel team
> - battle hardened and completely stable. I've had less trouble with jfs
> than ext3.

No.  The email is in the debian-user archives.  It was in one of those
"which fs is best" threads that come up from time to time.  In the midst
of that thread, I received a private email from the jfsutils maintainer
who forwarded me an email he received from the one person IBM has
remaining to support JFS in Linux.  IBM has cut the team from a few
full-time to one half-time assignment.  It is IBM's official positition
that they don't recommend JFS on Linux for new projects.  Note that the
kernel team aren't the ones who have to maintain the tools, and its the
tools that have to do the fscking.

The only problem I had with JFS was what I have with all
metadata-journal-only: I don't have a UPS and some files would go
missing.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Karl Schmidt]

Douglas A. Tutty wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> I had great success with JFS except that I switch away from it when told
>>> by the maintainer that IBM didn't recommend using it anymore.  
>> Could that be that they want you to use something they make that you have
>> to pay for? IBM isn't supporting it, but it is supported by the kernel team
>> - battle hardened and completely stable. I've had less trouble with jfs
>> than ext3.
>
> No.  The email is in the debian-user archives.  It was in one of those
> "which fs is best" threads that come up from time to time.  In the midst
> of that thread, I received a private email from the jfsutils maintainer
> who forwarded me an email he received from the one person IBM has
> remaining to support JFS in Linux.  IBM has cut the team from a few
> full-time to one half-time assignment.  It is IBM's official position
> that they don't recommend JFS on Linux for new projects.  Note that the
> kernel team aren't the ones who have to maintain the tools, and its the
> tools that have to do the fscking.

OK - IBM only has one person supporting a reliable, well tested, and quite mature file system -
sounds Ok to me. (I don't really care what IBMs 'official' position is). It would be nice if IBM was
advancing the jfs, but because it is GPL, it isn't that important if IBM supports it or not. In
fact, looking at the names of the authors of the current package, it appears that many working on it
are not from IBM.

Again, some bean counter in IBM might see jfs as competition to products that they sell (they get
money for jfs2) or you may be getting fud for some fan-boy of an other fs.

There is no such thing as a 'best' fs - they all have trade offs. (see
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html)  That being said, if stability is an issue, I've found jfs
to be the best all around fs for Linux use - as of today. There are new FS that can out-preform jfs
in specific tasks, but as my first pick fs I'm not interested in using a bleeding edge fs.

The latest version of jfs 1.1.12 was released August 2007.  The project is hosted at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jfs/ and is listed as Production/Stable - not as depreciated.
It is actively supported to fix bugs dealing with new kernels.

Someone on a mailing list dumping some fud on jfs does not make it a poor choice. There may come a
day when the lack of active development leaves jfs a poor choice, as other fs become battle hardened
and offer better all around performance (ext4?).  I would also read between the lines of the FUD,
and wonder if they have a reason to grind this particular ax?  There are people that will profit (in
$$ and other ways) if a particular fs catches on over others. Fine tune your BS filter.

>
> The only problem I had with JFS was what I have with all
> metadata-journal-only: I don't have a UPS and some files would go
> missing.

?? simply turn on autosave in your application.. or dig through /tmp (there are ways to preserve
files there on start-up).


>
> Doug.
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schmidt                         EMail Karl@...
Transtronics, Inc.                     WEB http://xtronics.com
3209 West 9th Street                    Ph [phone]
Lawrence, KS 66049                     FAX [phone]

Life does not consist mainly, or even largely, of facts and
happenings. It consists mainly of the storm of thought that is
forever flowing through one's head.--Mark Twain

----------------------------------------------------------------


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...