Linux-Hardware Digest #685, Volume #10 Tue, 6 Jul 99 18:13:41 EDT
Contents:
PCI Modem Elsa Microlink 56K-PCI (Eric Santonacci)
Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server? (Whiplash)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (kls)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Jeffrey Karp)
Re: how to setup mandrake 6 for a cable modem (doc)
Re: IDE CDR Writer with RedHat 6.0 (Whiplash)
Re: a quality 3 button mouse (David Ripton)
Re: dual processor setup? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Felger Carbon")
Voodoo Banshee ("jya")
Re: Newbie problems! (athanasius)
Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server? (Brian Vicente)
uniprint < M$ drivers???? (Garry Wright)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Santonacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PCI Modem Elsa Microlink 56K-PCI
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:57:27 +0200
Hello,
Does anybody get experience with this PCI Modem? Technical support of Els=
a told
me it is not a passive modem. I tried to configure it with setserial
Here is my /proc/pci
Bus 0, device 18, function 0:
Serial controller: Unknown vendor Unknown device (rev 1).
Vendor id=3D127a. Device id=3D1004.
Medium devsel. Fast back-to-back capable. IRQ 9. Master
Capable. Latency=3D32.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at
0xe4000000. =20
As you can see, I don't get the ioport that I need for setserial. I tried
anyway with some standart address of COM1 to 4 and some addresses I suppo=
sed to
be free. I also supposed the chipset is compatible with UART 16550 and 16=
550A.
But I can't get an answer of this PCI modem
Is there an other tools than setserial to configure modem?
What about PCI tools?
thanks in advance=20
regards
--=20
=C9ric Santonacci
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Whiplash)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux
Subject: Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server?
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:58:36 -0700
In article <7lrq86$251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <7lrlvf$ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello, I'm new to Linux. I would like to know how powerful of a
> > machine you would need to run Linux as a server? Let's say you had a
> > DSL connection, would you be able to use Linux as a webserver?
> > What would be the best release for me to start with? Red Hat?
>
> As to power of the machine, I set up a Linux server for the training
> room of the company where I work to allow Perl, C++, and web development
> training, and it was only a 25 MHz 486 with 8MB of ram. It continues to
> work fine, and will support file serving, web serving, and some C++
> compiling simultaneously. For what you want, a 486 will be fine, but if
> you can scrounge up 16MB or more of RAM you will get MUCH better
> performance all around. It will run fine with 8MB, but if you can get
> 16MB, you will be hard pressed to tell any speed difference between
> using Linux on a 486 and Windows on a pentium 100 (IMHO).
>
> My personal recomendation for a first foray into Linux would be Red Hat.
> While it is not the end-all be-all distribution, it is well done, well
> known, and well documented. This would be a big help to a newbie.
If you want a good box but want to save some $$$ check out Onsale.com. I
just bought a Compaq Pentium 133 with 24MB RAM and a 1gig drive for $100
that I plan to use for the same purpose.
Dana
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 16:00:33 GMT
In article <7lt7b7$f9q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips kls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: From http://www.cpureview.com/art_kernel_discuss_c.html,
>: k63-400 vs single c400(4x66) k63 23.5% faster(though
>: he gives different results in seperate reviews?).
>
>Yeah, but who is going to actually run their Celeron at the prescribed
>66mhz bus speed? :) Consider a 366 overclocked to 550. Compared to the
>400, the core clock is 37.5% faster, while the bus is 50% faster. I'm
>guessing that would more than accountfor the 23.5% difference you cite.
Oh, I know, & it would, but I'm being generous:) so he can't complain about
oc'ing 'issues'(yeah right, oc'ing p2's is a a real 'issue':) Doesn't matter,
applying the ratio's from the links I give to c400's from cpureview show it
will still beat it even at 66MHz. & then you oc & really kick it's ass!:)
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Karp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 12:24:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
> >In article <7lrrtr$hgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
> >>>& you have a ver poor ability of looking up benchmark results.
> >>
> >>
> >>Where are your benchmark results by the way?
> >
> >not MY benchmark results. Where are YOURS? Couldn't find any eh? That
> >poor look up ability of yours I suppose...
> >
> >>You have not yet answered my other question on your ratios of K6 vs. PII
> >>FPUs.
> >
> >benchmarks, hardware & programming sites. That & I own a dog of a cpu(k6-2
> >300. old core: .55 p2 fpu). On a personal note, if the performance were so
> >ubar compared to p2's, as you keep on insisting, my frame rate wouldn't drop
> >to 16-9fps in warbirds when things get even slightly heavy. I must be
> >dreaming eh?
> >
>
> I gave you an example in one post (you can check
> http://www.combatsim.com for their K6-III review.)
>
> Here is another:
>
> Computer Gaming World, July 1999 issue.
>
> Page 114.
>
> Winbench 99 FPU Mark
>
> K6-III 450 1520
> PIII-450 2280
So what. If you want a gaming machine, then get an Athlon(AMD K7).
The Athlon 550 has 46% FASTER FPU than a Pentium 3 550.
http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon/benchmarks.html
It is also lower priced. I know, you want a new system NOW, and don't
want to wait a few weeks for the Athlon. The K6-3 is a great CPU
for business software, but not so great for games that are not
optimized for 3D now, or for other heavy FPU.
Choose the best tool for the job.
> How does that look like .55, huh? This is more like a .66 ratio at
> least, and this is right on the spot of most other observations of the
> K6 FPU vs. the PII FPU, which is about 33% or 1/3rd advantage for the
> PII.
>
> The 3DGameGauge (a benchmark composite of several games) has the K6-III
> 450 even higher:
>
> K6-III 450 508.8
> PIII 450 462.2
>
> Rgds,
>
> Chris
>
> >
------------------------------
From: doc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: how to setup mandrake 6 for a cable modem
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:57:49 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When 'disabling' PNP, are you doing it on the card or
thru the BIOS???
I am "planning" on a cable modem thru a NetGear 10/100
NIC (err, forget the model, but it is a modified TULIP.o)
and ABSOLUTELY don't want spammers to use my box...
So, will check out these sights...
Thanks for the information
--
Rich "Doc" Colley - MIS Dept.
Huntington Library, Art Collection and Botanical Gardens
Wayne Larmon wrote:
>
> Jean-Michel Dault wrote:
> >
> > I installed a cable modem yesterday and it works great.
> >
> > Once you get your EtherExpress PNP disabled, you should be able to install, and
> > it will ask you for the network parameters.
> >
> > If you need to reconfigure, just start Linuxconf, go to the Network section,
> > then configure your IP address, gateway and DNS.
> >
> > Jean-Michel Dault
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'm also using a cable modem with an Intel EEPro connected to it and it
> also works great. Like Jean-Michel said, disable PNP and it will work.
>
> My EEPro is connected directly to the cable modem. I'm using Mandrake
> 5.3 as a firewall/IP masquerader. (Still shaking out Mandrake 6.0.) My
> second nic feeds a hub and I can connect all the computers I want to it.
>
> If you are using a cable modem then you really should consider
> configuring a firewall for protection. And don't run sendmail unless
> you *really* know how to configure it, because spammers *love* to find
> Linux boxes running sendmail so that they can relay their spam using
> *your* box. Guess what your cable modem company's reaction will be?
>
> And they can find new Linux boxes fast, because they use auto-probing
> methods. One of our local cable modem users reported that a hacker
> found a new Linux box of his within 6 hours after he first started it.
>
> You can use Samba to network with your Win 9x machines.
>
> I have links to networking and Samba information at
> http://www.scrounge.org/linux/docs.html#networking
>
> Using Linux with a cable modem:
> http://www.scrounge.org/linux/cablemodem.html
>
> Also, check out http://www.cablemodemhelp.com/
>
> Wayne Larmon
> http://www.scrounge.org/
> http://www.scrounge.org/linux/linuxtips.html
>
> > anthonymelillo wrote:
> >
> > > I am trying to install Mandrake 6, and if I can get it to go past the
> > > network card detection, I was wondering if anyone tell me how to setup Linux
> > > to work with my cable modem ?
> > >
> > > I have an extra IP for this machine and all the specs, such as IP, gateway,
> > > ect but I do not know how to setup Linux so I can access the FTP, and web
> > > servers from other machines ?
> > >
> > > Also, can I setup linux so I can access the hard disk from my Win98 machine
> > > through my home network and copy files, ect ?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Anthony Melillo
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Whiplash)
Subject: Re: IDE CDR Writer with RedHat 6.0
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:58:25 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Steven Webb wrote:
>
> > I've got a CD-ROM and a Philips 3610 writer in my PC which works fine with
> > Windows for writing CD's but I would like to use them with linux (redhat
> > 6.0). With the normal installation I can use the CD-ROM but I need to use
> > scsi emulation for writing the CD's. I've tried rebuilding the kernal with
> > scsi emulation but when I did I couldn't figure out how to mount my cd's. I
> > tried using scd0 ..... but got know where. What do I need to put in the
> > /etc/fstab file and are there any other things I have to do.
> >
> > Any help would be gratefully received.
>
> I use an IDE CD-ROM and an IDE CDR. I use the SCSI emulation for both. You
> should have two pseudo-SCSI devices : /dev/scd0 and /dev/scd1
> Just mount it the way you did before (eg mount -t iso9660 /dev/scd1 /cdrom)
> To enable writing, use the general SCSI driver, /dev/sg0 (or is it /dev/sr0 ?
> I don't remember and I do not have access to my machine ...)
>
For my setup I use sr0 and sr1 for both mounting and writing. I typed
'dmesg | more' at the command line and read the logs to find out exactly
where the drives were being mounted. Then change your fstab to match. You
may also have to change your symbolic links (if you have any) in /dev to
point to the new devices.
Dana
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Ripton)
Subject: Re: a quality 3 button mouse
Date: 6 Jul 1999 16:13:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffery Cann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can someone recommend a quality 3 button mouse? I currently have a
>Logitech (mouse man?) which I bought about 1 year ago. Needless to say,
>the movement on this thing sucks (the ball snags constantly providing a
>herky-jerky x windows experience) and I CANT TAKE IT ANY MORE. I have
>scoped out my local CompU$A store and find the selection and quality of
>3 button mice is weak at best.
The Logitech Mouseman is excellent. Clean it, and get a 3M
Precise Mousing Surface, and your problems will go away.
If you can't be bothered to clean a mouse, then you need to get
something like a Trackman Marble or a 100% optical mouse.
--
David Ripton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
spamgard(tm): To email me, put "geek" in your Subject line.
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dual processor setup?
Date: 06 Jul 1999 12:59:47 -0400
"Andrew J. Norman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> First off I'm actually still stuck back in the stone-age with the
> 2.0.37 SMP kernel....so 2.2.x should be more efficient etc....(in my
> case there are legacy reason to stick with 2.0.x owing to some
> analysis code that is not glibc2.1 friendly)
not that it seems to really matter to your number crunching
application, kernel and libc version are largely orthogonal. you can
run either of linux 2.0.* or linux-2.2.* with any of libc-5, 6.0 or
6.1.
> In general I can squeeze almost a full factor of 2 out of my own
> code (in reality about 1.88-1.98, and I'm not joking) Some caveats
> on that statement: I fully thread my code using standard pthread
> calls. I run primiarly simulations (high energy particle physics
> sims) and I have rewritten parts of the our libs to take advantage
> of the multi-processor systems.
if you are doing 99% user-land crunching, then the kernel is hardly
being engaged at all. whether the kernel is SMP when handling
requests is irrelevent unless it gets hung on some i/o.
i am doing number crunching on my SMP box. i noticed no difference in
performance between kernels 2.0.* and 2.2.* [1]. the programs do
virtually zero i/o. the older kernels are quite capable in scheduling
several processors in order to keep them busy.
> For standard applications (meaning everyday use and things I haven't
> rewritten) the big advantage is the ability to run more than one
> computationally intensive task at a time (say a small simulation,
> and analysis job that does a lot of i/o) without noticeable slow
> down (e.g. my emacs sessions respond normally)
on the other hand, it is nearly always better to get one CPU at twice
the speed than two slower CPUs. *everything* will be twice the
speed. no recoding/rethinking needed. since one CPU is simpler and
unix and C were originally designed with one CPU in mind, things are
just plain easier to set up with one CPU (eg batch up 100 jobs - on a
UP just use bash for loop. it's a bit more complicated keeping 2 or
more CPUs hot.)
other than coolness factor and SMP development/testing, whether SMP
makes sense depends on the price. if the one fast one is not more
than the dual system, get the single processor.
> In addition most Xwindows programs will see a speed up owing to the
> way that most programs spawn new windows (normally they are either
> threaded or forked and due to the design of the SMP kernel they will
> normally split across processors to even the load)
> For the record though my workstation not a bare bones system. The
> basic specs follow:
>
> Motherboard: Epox KP6-BS (dual slot 1)
> CPUs: dual celeron @464 (ppga on MSI slockets)
> Memory: 384Mb sdram dimms
> I/O Controller: Adaptec 2940UW
> Disks: 3x Seagate 4.3gig "hawk" series (wide scsi)
> The key point is the amount of memory. Under 128Mb I was having
> problems and noticing swapping, at 256 things were much better, at
> and above 384 things run smoothly regardless of the app.
agreed. getting a lot memory is key!
> Also of note is the disk array. There are three (3) wide scsi
> drives on the machine. The point of doing this was so that there
> really would be non-blocking i/o (meaning I thread off my i/o calls,
> and since scsi can detach it does so and things run smoothly)
> Basically the jist of all this is, that two really is better than
> one especially on a multi user system, and for applications which
> are threaded or which fork, you will notice an immediate factor of
> almost 2 in the execution time (assuming that the programmer put the
> code together well).
> My recommendation is that for serious programs a dual platform is a
> must. And given the price difference (which is finally negligible)
> there is not excuse to do otherwise.
also, dual (and quad) platforms are a lot of fun.
[1] older 2.0.x kernels (i think x <= 34 or so) would deadlock my quad
box. i switched to 2.1.124 and have used 2.[12].x ever since.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
From: "Felger Carbon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Date: 6 Jul 1999 21:16:23 -0700
> I have not see any benchmark or website that suggests a .55 ratio for
> the P2 FPU vs. K6. You made this up. Back it up.
>
> On the contrary, there is plenty that suggests otherwise. Read the
> K6-III review of http://www.combatsim.com. According to them, a K6-III
> 450 is barely equivalent to a PII 400 on non 3DNow games.
I am terribly confused. If a P2/400 is very roughly the same speed as a
K63/450, _this_ is a .55 ratio? Really? My calculator sez 400/450 =
~.889. What am I doing wrong?
(Ahem!) What about on 3DNOW-aware games?
------------------------------
From: "jya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Voodoo Banshee
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:30:11 +0100
Reply-To: "jya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi;
I'm having some trouble w/ my graphic card on SuSE 6.0 & Redhat 5.2. The
problem is that the screen size is to big to use & would like to knock it
down to a 800x600 or even better 1024x768 res. Is there any drivers that
support this or tips.
Spec.
Phoenix Voodoo Banshee, from Guillemot uses a 'PCI' slot.
Thx for any responses.
--
'Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up.'
___________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: athanasius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.answer,comp.os.linux.misc,dc.org.linux-users,linux.dev.newbie,linux.redhat.install,linux.dev.laptop,linux.dev.sound
Subject: Re: Newbie problems!
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 11:42:45 -0600
I have a Toshiba laptop with the same soundcard. Here is how I fixed this:
1) Run the sndconfig program. This will walk you through the install. Select
your sound card type. When it runs the sound test, you will not here the wave
sounds but say yes when it asks.
2) Edit the module.conf file to mach the settings in your bios. For some
reason, Linux does not set the wave property correctly.
3) Reboot and everything should be working.
Note: Wave files on my laptop play extremely quietly so you may have to turn up
the sound.
Jim and Joan wrote:
> Jose, what you need to do is log in under root and find /usr/bin folder once
> there find kppp file and right click on it and open its properties. goto
> permission and click on SET UID then click OK.
>
> Then goto /usr/sbin and find pppd file and do the same . Log out of root
> then in under user name and Kppp should work for you.
>
> Sorry but i can't help you with the sound card.
>
> Jose A. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi, I'm a newbie and had few questions/problems.
> >
> > 1. I created a regular account so that I didn't had to log in as
> > root. The problem is that when I try to use the dial up (kpp) it gives
> > me this error. "pppd not properly installed. The ppd binary must be
> > installed witht he SUID bit set. Contact your system administrator" It
> > works fine under root, but not this regular user. I it as part of the
> > "root" group.
> > 2. My sound card doesn't work. I have an IBM Thinkpad 310ED laptop
> > with an OPL-3 SAx sound card, I tried all of the settings with no joy.
> > Can anyone help me out here please. You can send me responses to
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Thanks in advance for all of your help.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > Linux rules, windoze blows!
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Vicente)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux
Subject: Re: How powerful a system do you need to run Linux as a server?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 18:15:26 GMT
The power would depend on how much service you want to provide. If you
want a million people ot be on there all day long then you need to
have a machine with the corresponding power. As far as OS, Linux
doesn't have a problem with providing all the power of the underlying
machine has to give.
As far as distribution take your pick with what they have to offer
with your goals for the machine. For example, I heard that Debian has
good administration tools, Suse has cool applications bundled( or is
that the most?),Redhat for a great all around distribution( at least
for my purposes and great support) and on and on. Choose wisely.
Enjoy,
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello, I'm new to Linux. I would like to know how powerful of a
>machine you would need to run Linux as a server? Let's say you had a
>DSL connection, would you be able to use Linux as a webserver?
>What would be the best release for me to start with? Red Hat?
>thanks for your time,
>D.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Garry Wright)
Subject: uniprint < M$ drivers????
Date: 6 Jul 1999 20:41:08 GMT
I am using gimp on RH6 to print to an Epson color stylus 640. Two problems
emerge.
1. The quality of the printing is inferior to that produced under M$
using the drivers Epson wrote. It is grainier but otherwise about equal.
In any event, any amatuer can say clearly that the M$ output is superior
nowwithstanding the assertions that the quality under linux is perfect.
I have tried many variations, including direct command line using
gs @stc600ih.upp -q -sOutputFile=file.out file.ps -c quit &
then lpr -Plp1 file.out where lp1 is configured to the right port.
Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
2. RH6 seems to foul up the lpr/gs combo. When I config the printer as
a ps printer using printtool, I get the output going to the correct queue
but the data file produced is not cp'd over the original and the empty ascii
file is not deleted. Result is an attempt by lprd to send the orignal ps file
to the printer which of course cannot handle that. Any comments on why this
is happening would also be appreciated.
Cheers
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.hardware) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Hardware Digest
******************************
