Linux-Hardware Digest #687, Volume #10 Tue, 6 Jul 99 23:13:24 EDT
Contents:
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Andrzej Popowski)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Burns MacDonald")
Re: To RAID or not to RAID? -that is the question... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: dual processor setup? (wizard)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ("Burns MacDonald")
Re: dual processor setup? (wizard)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (kls)
Re: @home schitzophrenia with RH ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To RAID or not to RAID? -that is the question... (Salem Lee Ganzhorn)
Re: Promise Ultra 33 ("Stan King")
eth0 problems: RH6.0 PC/NET32 card (Gideon Caplovitz)
HELP : HP-LJ 5si with Slackware 4.0 (Dinh Ton)
Re: Promise Ultra 33 ("TURBO1010")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Stephen M. Caplan)
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (Stephen M. Caplan)
ZIP 100 and Slackware 3.6 (Roberto Mosheim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrzej Popowski)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:23:19 GMT
Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:31:02 +0200, Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> CPU time in seconds
>AMD K6-2 300 ~360 <giggle> (can you send me the .config you used?)
I have lost it. This was 2.2.5, time included make dep clean bzImage.
Andrzej Popowski
------------------------------
From: "Burns MacDonald" <[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 23:26:16 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Come on people, begin to snip the quoted stuff :-)
> You quote around 40 lines and write only two.
> That's crappy.
>
We don't know who you are talking about, you snipped it all. (The other
extreme perhaps?)
Otherwise I agree.
--
Burns
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.informix,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: To RAID or not to RAID? -that is the question...
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:20:42 GMT
Thanks y'all for your comments/suggestions. I guess
I must be missing something cause I did not get what
a lot of people talked about using RAID5. RAID5 will
no doubt be faster but then there is no redundancy.
Maybe two RAID5 channels and then database mirroring
across the two controllers?
Will someone please comment on this: Suppose I have
a choice of having one single RAID1/0 (or even just
RAID1) controller OR having two Ultra2 SCSI channels
and then use Informix mirroring across the two cont-
rollers. Which one makes more sense?
Here is my configuration: Dual PII 400/1GB, RedHat
6.0, Informix IDS 7.3. Thanks again...
Sandeep
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now here's a guy I'll have to hunt down!
>
> Art S. Kagel
>
> highend wrote:
> >
> > In article <7lmaat$gs3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > >
> > >Hello all,
> > >
> > >I am trying to set up an Informix database (7.3) on
> > >Linux (Redhat 6.0) on an Intel box (dual PII 400).
> > >Since this is going to be a production machine, I
> > >will be using mirroring of database chunks. I want
> > >to get some advice from people who have setup or
> > >have considered setting up such a configuration as
> > >regards to disk storage: Will I be better off using
> > >RAID or should I use dual SCSI controllers and just
> > >mirror the database chunks. Does it make sense to
> > >mirror the database chunks on a RAID?
> > >
> > >Lets assume that cost is a not a factor in the decision
> > >-I just want to get the best possible setup. I have been
> > >considering the Mylex 960 DAC for the RAID and Adaptec
> > >2940U2W for the SCSI controllers. Thanks in advance for
> > >your time.
> > >
> > >Sandeep
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > host independant RAID 5 may turn out to be a better option
> > "mirroring" is not always the best RAID option
> >
> > and RAID 5 is just as secure AND sometimes faster
> > (certainly cheaper) than RAID 1 (mirroring)
> >
> > check out the cmd (www.cmd.com) &
> > chapparral (www.chaparraltech.com) sites
> >
> > _____ . .
> > ' \\ . . |>>
> > O// . . |
> > \_\ . . |
> > | | . mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . |
> > / | . (800)324-6711 / (800)720-7618 fax . . . |
> > / .| http://sweb.srmc.com/andys/index.html . . |
> > / | http://kalypso.cybercom.net/scsiper/andys.html ...o |
> >
======================================================================
> > Authorized - DIRECT VAR/VAD/Distributor for new SCSI/FC-AL
peripherals
> > from: IBM, Seagate, Quantum, Adaptec, Sony, Yamaha, ATTO, JNI, ect
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dual processor setup?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 19:35:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gunther Huygens wrote:
> >
> > All that being said in the future I intend to go the dual Celeron route.
> This
> > seems to balance many performance and cost issues. Of course if Intel
> > modifies the Celerons as the're talking, I may end up just getting a K7 or
> > Alpha. Intel would loose a customer for life
>
> I surely second that!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > if they follow through with
> > locking out dual processor capablity on the Celerons, it really is no way
> to
> > jerk your customers around. To me this is far worst than there
> attempts at
> > limiting overclocking but I'm not happy about that either.
> >
>
> Can you help me wiht following:
>
> epox kp6-bs or abit BP6 (or have you got an other suggestion ?)
>
> epox : slot 1 => upgradable to PIII 650
> if new fsb 133 PIII will have socket 370 , than you can use them via msi
> 6905 1.1 ????
> Am I correct????
> epox : no 1/4 clockdivider for 133fsb
> What do you know about intel giving new PIII 133fsb other socket to than 370
> ???
> (if true=> new pIII not possible on epox)
>
> abit
> does have 1/4 divider
> socket 370 => new PIII fsb 133 can be used if socket 370 (I guess)
>
> k7 => slot A
> if slot1 -> slot A convertor => k7 possible ?
> but busarchitecture too different , something about VE6 ???
>
> epox : up to 4 x 256 RAM
> abit up to 3 x 256 RAM
> abit : ATA 66
>
> price +/- same
>
> What is your opinion about these matters?
>
> thanks in advance
> gunther
> greetings from flanders
Actuallly I can't comment on thoose boards. The only hardware I've had
consistant good luck with is ASUS in the AT - ATX motherboard market. Right
now, as i see it, the problem is that we are in a transition again with form
factors.
The problem with form factors is that I'm not convinced that Intel is
completely sure of its direction. At this point in time I think any thing
you ppurchase is going to have limited upgrade potential, so I would buy for
best price performance now. This may all change in a couple of months when
the K7 hits the market along with some sort of response from Intel.
Personally I would look at an ASUS P2B series board along with thier Celeron
adapter, maybe going Dual processor route. This would seem to give you the
most immediate capability along with the hoped for 650 Mhz class processor.
Thanks
Dave
------------------------------
From: "Burns MacDonald" <[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 23:41:31 GMT
Marc Mutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Andrzej Popowski wrote:
> >
> > These are times for compiling Linux kernel with different CPU set:
> >
> > CPU time in seconds
> AMD K6-2 300 ~360 <giggle> (can you send me the .config you used?)
> > P2 350 416
Sorry, missed the little giggle line snuck in there amongst the block of
quote. I am used to people separating their comments from quotes by a blank
line. However, same comment applies as before. It was a lot of quote for the
simple question you posed - according to your own *rules*. :o)
Burns
------------------------------
From: wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: dual processor setup?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 19:49:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vincent Fox wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >All that being said in the future I intend to go the dual Celeron route.This
> >seems to balance many performance and cost issues. Of course if Intel
> >modifies the Celerons as the're talking, I may end up just getting a K7 or
> >Alpha. Intel would loose a customer for life if they follow through with
> >locking out dual processor capablity on the Celerons, it really is no way to
> >jerk your customers around. To me this is far worst than there attempts at
> >limiting overclocking but I'm not happy about that either.
>
> I just got an Abit BP6. Had a couple of Socket 370 Celeron 300A's sitting
> on the shelf waiting for the motherboard, but from calling around a few
> places like Micro Source to find more for a friend, you can still buy them.
> At around $125 for the board, and $60 each for CPU's, this is SO DAMN CHEAP
> it's impossible to resist. I replaced my BH6 with it, booted up the SMP
> kernel, and it flies. Purely on a user subjective level, I used to have
> to wait a bit after clicking for a kterm, now it's blink there. As someone
> else in this thread said, depending on what you are doing you may not see
> any big difference, but then again when it is this damn cheap, why not?
***** Exactly this is the point many can't seem to grasp. Its so cheap to
put another 400 MHz processor on a mother board its almost funny. The only time
that I could psossibly see this as bad is if you have a specific problem set that
could see the money applied else where to get better results.
An example would be an application that truely benefits from a RAID type disk
controller or one that could use massive amounts of real RAM. But even here
the dual processor is so cheap that is should only be eliminated if the system
performance should happen togo down.
Dave
>
> You do see some performance diffs in some things. We have kind of a hotrod
> thing going around here to see who can crack the most RC5 keys on one box,
> and my dual Celerons at 2x450 are doing a pretty notable > 2.40 Mkeys/sec at
> a darn site cheaper price than most other unixen around here.
>
> As to the future of Celerons, who cares? I got my duals now, the future
> will probably hold some new motherboard with chipsets newer than BX anyhow.
>
> --
> "Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft"?
> -- Christine Comaford, PC Week, 27/9/95
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 23:51:29 GMT
In article <72wg3.269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>on my dual cel system it was closer to 90% faster.
>
>the kernel build is quite parallel - others aren't quite as good. fyi.
>
>In comp.os.linux.hardware kls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Even better/recent! Linux compilation on two different dual systems: 1
>: celeron
>: based, the other p3 based:
>: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/3q99/smp/smp-9.html
>
>: Dual celeron 71% faster than single! Stick that in your pipe & smoke it:)
Other builds? Are you editing the makefile's to include -j 4 or so?
Otherwise there's only one job(process).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: @home schitzophrenia with RH
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 00:34:54 GMT
In article <Pine.LNX.4.04.9907052354250.7317-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The best way to deal with @Home is to bypass dhcp altogether. @home
> asignes you a static ip so you can configure it as a simple network
> connection.
>
> kill all you network setup and try this script
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> #! /bin/sh
> #temp network init
> /sbin/insmod 3c59x
> /sbin/ifconfig eth0 24.x.x.x broadcast 24.x.x.255 netmask
255.255.255.0
> /sbin/route add -net 24.x.x.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
> /sbin/route add default gw 24.x.x.1
>
> #just change x to your ip or part of your ip
> #there is a redundant line for kernels 2.2.x but it does not hurt
anything
> #and the same script will work with 2.0.x kernels as well
> -------------------------------------------------
where do i put/run this script? I also had loads of trouble getting my
Linux machine with @home on-line, then used vs 1.3 of dhcpcd and it
worked fine with kernel 2.2.0. Just installed kernel 2.2.10 and lost
the connection.
any help would be appreciated...
--
Keith
pantry at home dot com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Salem Lee Ganzhorn)
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.informix,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: To RAID or not to RAID? -that is the question...
Date: 7 Jul 1999 00:44:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Thanks y'all for your comments/suggestions. I guess
: I must be missing something cause I did not get what
: a lot of people talked about using RAID5. RAID5 will
: no doubt be faster but then there is no redundancy.
: Maybe two RAID5 channels and then database mirroring
: across the two controllers?
:
: Will someone please comment on this: Suppose I have
: a choice of having one single RAID1/0 (or even just
: RAID1) controller OR having two Ultra2 SCSI channels
: and then use Informix mirroring across the two cont-
: rollers. Which one makes more sense?
Raid 5 is mirrored. There is enough data mirrored on the disks so if any
one drive goes down you can rebuild the drive completely from the remaining
drives. You get the speed of striping plus the fault tolerance of mirroring.
Of course you only get 1/2 of the space the drives have to offer.
The only downside is you have to have at least 3 drives.
Regards,
Salem
------------------------------
From: "Stan King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Promise Ultra 33
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 17:45:34 -0700
Reply-To: "Stan King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Turbo1010, I am using a Promise Ultra 33 with Linux. I had the same
problem you are having when I tried to install Caldera's Linux 2.2. I
bought SuSE 6.1 and it recognized the card and hard drives with on problems.
When you L: appears on the screen did you try to pass your parameters to LI.
If you have a boot disk, see if you can get in and look at /etc/lilo.conf.
Good Luck.
Stan
TURBO1010 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7ltv7s$rmu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Has anyone out there had any luck with the Promise Ultra 33? I'm having a
> hell of a time getting this card to work. The kernel recognizes the card
at
> boot up, I can see it there, but the install program doesn't see it. If I
> pass parameters to the kernel, ide0=0x67c0,0x6706 then it can see the hard
> drives. On reboot, lilo just gives me LI and that's it, I can't boot
back
> in. I'm thinking of installing first on my sci drive, and then mount the
> ide drives separately? Anyone have any ideas? Also, is it bad for the
> controller and the nic card to share the same irq? Seems that ever since
I
> put this controller in, that I can't route anymore. Any suggestions are
> appreciated, thanks.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Gideon Caplovitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,redhat.networking.general
Subject: eth0 problems: RH6.0 PC/NET32 card
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 01:30:56 GMT
Here's the story:
Recently installed RedHat 6 on an old machine which had previously been
running redhat 5.2 successfully on our LAN. The Machine has a AMD PC/NET
32 card in it, which was detected during the RH6.0 install. As far as I
can tell I have the IP addresses and netmask all set as well as
/etc/hosts.
All LAN wires are OK. Computer is not accessing the network. it can ping
itself but not any other machines. Ifconfig indicates "interruptions" on
eth0, and in the console at boot time I get "eth0: transmit timeout
status03f3" error messages. I'd be happy if anyone could help out. Thanks!
-Gideon Caplovitz
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Dinh Ton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: HELP : HP-LJ 5si with Slackware 4.0
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 01:31:02 GMT
OK, at work we have a network HP-LaserJet 5si. I recently installed
Slackware 4.0 onto my box and I am trying to configure this printer
to work with Linux. I have read through the HOWTO-PRINTING
documents and followed the example in there for the LJ-5Si
(Section 11.6 - Running an "if" for remote printer)
(here is the link
http://howto.linuxberg.com/LDP/HOWTO/Printing-HOWTO-11.html )
Here is what it said : **********************
One oddity of lpd is that the "if" is not run for remote printers. If you
find that you need to run an "if", you can do so by setting up a double
queue and requeueing the job. As an example, consider this printcap:
lj-5:\
:lp=/dev/null:sh:\
:sd=/var/spool/lpd/lj-5:\
:if=/usr/lib/lpd/filter-lj-5:
lj-5-remote:lp=/dev/null:sh:rm=printer.name.com:\
:rp=raw:sd=/var/spool/lpd/lj-5-raw:
in light of this filter-lj-5 script:
#!/bin/sh
gs <options> -q -dSAFER -sOutputFile=- - | \
lpr -Plj-5-remote -U$5
********************************************************
But I got nothing out the other end when I printed with "lj-5".
However, when I printed with "lj-5-remote", the output had "staircasing"
pattern (as expected). Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
DT
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "TURBO1010" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Promise Ultra 33
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 18:32:46 -0700
I think that's what I'm going to do. Seems they don't have support for
anything else other than hda - hdd.
Stan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7lu8ge$9qq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Turbo1010, I am using a Promise Ultra 33 with Linux. I had the same
> problem you are having when I tried to install Caldera's Linux 2.2. I
> bought SuSE 6.1 and it recognized the card and hard drives with on
problems.
>
> When you L: appears on the screen did you try to pass your parameters to
LI.
> If you have a boot disk, see if you can get in and look at /etc/lilo.conf.
> Good Luck.
>
> Stan
>
> TURBO1010 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7ltv7s$rmu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Has anyone out there had any luck with the Promise Ultra 33? I'm having
a
> > hell of a time getting this card to work. The kernel recognizes the
card
> at
> > boot up, I can see it there, but the install program doesn't see it. If
I
> > pass parameters to the kernel, ide0=0x67c0,0x6706 then it can see the
hard
> > drives. On reboot, lilo just gives me LI and that's it, I can't boot
> back
> > in. I'm thinking of installing first on my sci drive, and then mount
the
> > ide drives separately? Anyone have any ideas? Also, is it bad for the
> > controller and the nic card to share the same irq? Seems that ever
since
> I
> > put this controller in, that I can't route anymore. Any suggestions are
> > appreciated, thanks.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen M. Caplan)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 02:04:35 GMT
Salem Lee Ganzhorn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Robato Yao ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : its time, while the CPU is idle. Spreadsheets and compiling won't be
> : taking advantage of duals since most of them aren't designed for it, but
> gmake.. you will see huge gains in compiling with multiple processors.
> Compiling of modules is completely independent and parallel processing is the
> way to g.
Actually, the way to go is distributed processing amongst multiple networked
nodes with a cached network filesystem. In terms of scalability intel
platforms are pretty much maxed out at 8 CPUs, and the prices for such a setup
(Xeon only) is absurd -- more than 8 high powered single CPU workstations, for
sure. Now picture your typical corporate office with a couple hundred
highpowered "desktop" machines sitting idle 99% of the time.
I don't know if gmake can take advantage of this, but clearmake can (and so
can rc5 ..)
--
Steve ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen M. Caplan)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 7 Jul 1999 02:08:08 GMT
Andrzej Popowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> These are times for compiling Linux kernel with different CPU set:
> CPU time in seconds
> Celeron 450 + P2 350 273
> Cel. 450 + Cel. 550 233
> Celeron 550 + P2 350 223
Okay, I'm a little perplexed by these; not the benchmarks, but the platforms
being tested. Are you saying you have dual CPU setups with asynchronous CPUs?
How was this accomplished?
--
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Mosheim)
Subject: ZIP 100 and Slackware 3.6
Date: 7 Jul 1999 01:37:22 GMT
I have a parallel port ZIP 100 drive connected to an old IBM Thinkpad 720.
I have not been able to get Slackware 3.6 to find it.
These are the last few lines of the boot process in my system:
ppa: Version 1.42
ppa: Probing port 03bc
ppa: SPP port present
ppa: EPP not supported at this address
ppa: Probing port 0378
ppa: Probing port 0278
scsi: 0 hosts
scsi: detected total
partition check
VFS: Cannot open root device 08:04
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:04.
I have tried changing the partition on the zip drive to:
/dev/sda1
/dev/sda2
/dev/sda3
/dev/sdb1
/dev/sdb2
/dev/sdb3
/dev/sdb4
The booting process always stops at the same line.
Please advise. I would appreciate any help.
Thanks in advance.
Roberto Mosheim
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
