Re: AMD64 chipset Linux support ....
"William A. Mahaffey III" <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:40:23 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.amd64 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============1428847823==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------050805000305040806020801"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050805000305040806020801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:27 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>
>
>>.... I am looking at the Asus A8V Mbd (Via K8T800 chipset,
>>~$62.00 on pricewatch) for a hypothetical Opteron box, lightweight
>>LAN server.
>>
>>
>
>You don't want to buy a desktop chipset for a server. People do this
>all-the-time, even for Intel (e.g., i845/i865), and pay the price in I/O
>limitations and stability.
>
>Paying $200 for an entry-level, but true _server_ mainboard instead of
>$100 for a desktop mainboard is well worth the added $100.
>
>The entry-level ServerWorks HT1000 is a nice solution with a single
>PCI-X channel for Socket-939 for under $200. Adding a HT2000 typically
>brings up the cost over $300 to what the nVidia nForce Pro with 40 PCIe
>channels plus the AMD8131/8132 dual-PCI-X typically costs.
>
>Intel's entry-level 72xx series (based on a license of the ServerWorks
>IV/Grand Champion) starts with dual PCIe x8 I/O in the 7230 for under
>$200 (sometimes under $150) and you can add an ESB6x00 series for PCI-X
>for under $300.
>
>Again, _never_ use a desktop chipset for server duties. And especially
>_not_ a "consumer" rated/tested (e.g., i865 instead of i875).
>
>
>
>>How is Linux support for this chipset ?
>>
>>
>
>ViA typically has ATA controller issues (long story).
>Off-chipset is recommended in many cases.
>
>
>
>>I have an older (S370 PIII) box, this one as it happens, w/
>>a Via 694 chipset & love it.
>>
>>
>
>The 694 had many performance and stability issues. Especially early
>revisions. Latter 694X versions fared better, but were still _not_ a
>_server_ chipset.
>
>E.g., the 694 still had only 1/4-1/8 the I/O of a ServerSet IIILE which
>started at $250 when they were new (and under $200 later on). I
>replaced many i440BX/GX and 693A/694X dual-processor systems with the
>IIILE and file server performance was instantly 3x (literally, +200%).
>
>
>
>>Can I look forward to the same great performance & reliability under
>>Linux (FC5 most likely) w/ the K8T800 ? TIA ....
>>
>>
>
>I guess if you're idea of performance and reliability is low, yes. ;->
>
>-- Bryan
>
>P.S. William -- you're not going to believe this, but I wrote this and
>was just about to send and just realized you posted it. I honestly
>wrote it _before_ I noticed it was you.
>
>P.P.S. Lay off the desktop chipsets -- seriously. I'll loan you an
>Intel 72xx (or even a 75xx) series -- you'll see what I mean! ;->
>
>
>
Oooohhhhhhh, you're just too kind :-). When I say lightweight, I *mean*
lightweight. NO public access, NO apache, NO DNS, NO several dozen users
at any 1 time, just CPU, RAM, & code to run ad nauseum. It *will* live
at runlevel 3, but the server traits end there, for the most part. I was
mostly asking about reasonably complete/stable Linux support for that
chipset, decent %-age of full speed for RAM-intensive calculations, etc.
e.g. good OS/chipset interaction for my somewhat truncated requirements.
Someone else (another list) indicated all was well, care to dispute that ?
--
William A. Mahaffey III
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
ever devised by man."
-- Gen. George S. Patton
--------------050805000305040806020801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
<blockquote
cite="[email protected]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:27 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">.... I am looking at the Asus A8V Mbd (Via K8T800 chipset,
~$62.00 on pricewatch) for a hypothetical Opteron box, lightweight
LAN server.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
You don't want to buy a desktop chipset for a server. People do this
all-the-time, even for Intel (e.g., i845/i865), and pay the price in I/O
limitations and stability.
Paying $200 for an entry-level, but true _server_ mainboard instead of
$100 for a desktop mainboard is well worth the added $100.
The entry-level ServerWorks HT1000 is a nice solution with a single
PCI-X channel for Socket-939 for under $200. Adding a HT2000 typically
brings up the cost over $300 to what the nVidia nForce Pro with 40 PCIe
channels plus the AMD8131/8132 dual-PCI-X typically costs.
Intel's entry-level 72xx series (based on a license of the ServerWorks
IV/Grand Champion) starts with dual PCIe x8 I/O in the 7230 for under
$200 (sometimes under $150) and you can add an ESB6x00 series for PCI-X
for under $300.
Again, _never_ use a desktop chipset for server duties. And especially
_not_ a "consumer" rated/tested (e.g., i865 instead of i875).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">How is Linux support for this chipset ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
ViA typically has ATA controller issues (long story).
Off-chipset is recommended in many cases.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have an older (S370 PIII) box, this one as it happens, w/
a Via 694 chipset & love it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The 694 had many performance and stability issues. Especially early
revisions. Latter 694X versions fared better, but were still _not_ a
_server_ chipset.
E.g., the 694 still had only 1/4-1/8 the I/O of a ServerSet IIILE which
started at $250 when they were new (and under $200 later on). I
replaced many i440BX/GX and 693A/694X dual-processor systems with the
IIILE and file server performance was instantly 3x (literally, +200%).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can I look forward to the same great performance & reliability under
Linux (FC5 most likely) w/ the K8T800 ? TIA ....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I guess if you're idea of performance and reliability is low, yes. ;->
-- Bryan
P.S. William -- you're not going to believe this, but I wrote this and
was just about to send and just realized you posted it. I honestly
wrote it _before_ I noticed it was you.
P.P.S. Lay off the desktop chipsets -- seriously. I'll loan you an
Intel 72xx (or even a 75xx) series -- you'll see what I mean! ;->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Oooohhhhhhh, you're just too kind :-). When I say lightweight, I *mean*
lightweight. NO public access, NO apache, NO DNS, NO several dozen
users at any 1 time, just CPU, RAM, & code to run ad nauseum. It
*will* live at runlevel 3, but the server traits end there, for the
most part. I was mostly asking about reasonably complete/stable Linux
support for that chipset, decent %-age of full speed for RAM-intensive
calculations, etc. e.g. good OS/chipset interaction for my somewhat
truncated requirements. Someone else (another list) indicated all was
well, care to dispute that ?<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="0">--
William A. Mahaffey III
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
ever devised by man."
-- Gen. George S. Patton
</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------050805000305040806020801--
--===============1428847823==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline