Linux-Hardware Digest #760, Volume #10 Wed, 14 Jul 99 12:13:23 EDT
Contents:
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NCR 53C710 Fast SCSI-2 Controller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Headless Multia? (Tom Mulder)
Re: Compact Flash vs. SSFDC Smart Media (Alfred Molon)
FWD- Socket Eight to S370 convertors coming (Alex Lam)
xf86config+i740 ("basic")
Re: Celeron, what's the catch? (David T. Wang)
Re: RH 6.0 & 3C905C TXM Problems (DM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 14 Jul 1999 14:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>In article <7mfilk$s0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (kls) writes:
>>>Coming back from a hiatus from the computer, i c the lil' fud gremlins have
>>>been busy:)
>>>
>>>In article <7m8p8t$1a8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>>>Can't say I've ever heard of damaged hard drives from overclocking
>>>>
>>>>This happens. This happened already to me, and this can
>>>>happen to anyone trying to risk their drives, for example, 83MHz. File
>>>>system damage is already a common known fact for overclocking hard
>>>>drives. You can reduce damage by turning off UDMA and going down to PIO
>>>>2, but that will take performance off your hard drive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Reducing the ide mode reduces the speed from overclocked back to normal.
>>>
>>
>>It reduces PERFORMANCE you thick head!
>
>Yes, it reduces performance. What happens to the performance when you
>overclock the bus?:)
Timing gets off.
Do you know what happens when you arrive to the train station only to
discover the train left early?
Bingo.
>
>>Not even the overclocking newgroup recommend any form of 83MHz use against
>>the hard disk.
>
>
>I havn't made any recommendation to use 83MHz bus.
But you almost did.
Overclocking with any other means other than a 100Mhz bus is risky.
>
>
>>><response: snip, snip, blah, abit bad, blah, very bad, snip, boo, snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, there's more motherboard manf. than just abit. Fixation?:)
>>>
>>
>>I prefer other brands, thank you.
>
>
>AGAIN, fine. If that's your preference, great. There's other manf. to
>choose from besides abit. Your the one who keeps harping about abit even
>after repeated responses saying great use someone else.
>
>
>>>>>No. For most of them, just no. Look at those ARSTechnica benchmarks
>>>>>>again. Note that these are recent ZDNet benchmarks, which often run
>>>>>>multiple processes simultaneously, and these benchmarks are well known
>>>>>>to have evolved to this manner from earlier, single processing ZDNet
>>>>>>benches, primarily suspected aimed to give an advantage for PII caches.
>>>>>>What advantage does SMP have there? ZDNet benches are supposed to
>>>>>>represent the average Windows enviroment with its most commonly used
>>>>>>applications.
>>>>>
>>>>>1st single threaded bus. winstone 99: no speed gain, no suprise.
>>>>>2nd, multi threaded winstone 99: 29.5%
>>>>>3rd, single threaded high end: no gain.
>>>>>4th, list of individual apps performance: 3 multithreaded, 4 single.
>guess.
>>>>> vc mp: 39.8%
>>>>> sound forge: minute
>>>>> premiere: minute
>>>>> photoshop mp: 35.5%
>>>>> microstation se mp: 22%
>>>>> frontpage 98: minute
>>>>> avs/express: minute
>>>>>5th, cpumark: not benching 2nd cpu.
>>>>>6th, fpumark: not benching 2nd cpu.
>>>>>7th, disk, slight gain.
>>>>>8th, graphics, no gain.
>>>>>9th, photoshop 30mb file, multi threaded: 30%
>>>>>10th, || 100mb file, ||: 3%
>>>>>11th, || 30mb lighting effect: none
>>>>>12th, || 100mb ||: 2%
>>>>>13th, linux compile: 71%
>>>>>14th, quake 2 8x6: none
>>>>>15th, || 10x7: none
>>>>>
>>>>>Four out of seven is pretty thin ratio to try to pull off a comment like
>>>"No.
>>>>>For most of them, just no." don't ya think?:) Doesn't matter, as these
>are
>>>NOT
>>>>
>>>>And out of all 15, only six has benefit, five at 20-30% and only one has
>>>>71%. 9 has no practical difference at all. The five 20-30% does not
>>>>justify the cost and complexity of SMP either, since you might as well
>>>>buy a single faster processor.
>>>
>>>
>>>Your tally is a joke Chris:
>>>14/15quake in two resolutions, ha!, 5/6 cpu/fpumark synthetic tests, 9
>benches
>>>the hd, cpu has minimal impact, 10 benches video, functions long since moved
>>>onto video cards, 9-12 breakdown of photoshops average score, 1&3 averaged
>>>score of single threaed apps from 4. Sheesh, who'd you think you where
>going
>>>to fool?
>>
>>
>>Who are you trying to fool?
>>
>>The bottom line is that dual SMP (and the vast majority of users do
>>agree) does not benefit for majority of situations NO MATTER WHAT THE
>>REASON IS.
>
>You tried to add up things where it was already counted(the averaged scores of
>the singles) or where the cpu has little or no impact(hd & video benchmarks)
>or the best one of all, quake in different resolutions:) To avoid having to
>respond to this we've moved onto 'the bottom line':) OK. Vast majority of
>users use w95/98, play games, & surf the web, with some money management &
>word usage on the side. If were going to talk about the better system for
All of which dual Celerons are darn useless.
>them it'll be a single celeron over a k63 because of games(and the vast
>majority of users do agree:). & ignoring the performance issues, there's
>the little issue of cost.
How can a single Celeron be better? The only thing it's better are for
games and the K6-III is just about better for anything else. More over,
with each passing day, more and more 3DNow applications are hitting the
market, reducing the Intel advantage even further.
Let's see what has been released recently in a matter of few weeks:
New TNT2 drivers, already with 3DNow and improving greatly their
stability with Super 7 systems.
New ATI Rage 128 drivers, with 3DNow and Athlon optimizations
Matrox G400, a new card with 3DNow
Descent 3, a game with 3DNow support
Aliens vs. Predator, another game with 3DNow support
Requiem, still another game with 3DNow support
Viper Racing, and yes another game with 3DNow support
A new version of Winampm, an MP3 player with 3DNow support
>
>
>>>>So tell me how dual Celeron 333s and 366s can be consistently faster
>>>>than a single K6-III 450 again with an estimated integer performance
>>>>better than a Cel 500?
>>>
>>>
>>>duals, oc'ing, multithreaded, multiprocess, multitasking.
>>
>>You're really dim about all these do you? SMP is useless if
>>multithreading, multiprocessing and multitasking is I/O, user input
>>bound, and synchronization/locking dependent---and the majority of
>>applications are written like this.
>
>
>smp is not useless if there isn't multithreading. make isn't multithreaded.
>It intiates mutiple processes. Single process apps can still benefit from
>smp: you start more than one instance or run more than one program at a time:
>multitasking. If an apps performance isn't cpu bound then why would you
>agrue any cpu is better for such cases?
>
You're so thick in your head. Multiple processes don't mean shit if
they're I/O, input and synchronization-semaphore bound. Because so
many applications hog the interface if their main process is busy, the
main interface can't even respond to your commands until the main
process is finished. You can avoid that with Linux and Unix because
you can switch to a new terminal window, but Windows has a more
synchronization-semaphore dependent user interface, which makes it more
difficult for the rest of users out there.
Single processor performance on dual CPU systems also suffer because
each processor suffers a near half loss of their bandwidth. Each
processor has to contend on the same bus to the chipset (unlike the K7
EV6, where each processor has independent buses to the chipset).
>
><snip, snip, attempts to flaim, snip, snip> note: flaim definition below.
>
>
>>>>>btw, cpureview got around to putting up a dual celeron linux compile time:
>>>>>http://cpureview.com/art_smp_f.html. 77.4%(183% utilization) vs k63's
>>>23.5%:)
>>>>>The test is compiling the linux kernal but the performance is indicative
>of
>>>>>everything that's compiled or assembled using a makefile. & his system
>only
>>>>>had 64MB of memory!(I seem to recall an argument that one would have to
>>>spend
>>>>>extra $ on a larger amount of memory than a k63 would need in order to
>>>attain
>>>>>such performance(acutally, I also seem to recall it was argued such
>>>performance
>>>>
>>>>>wasn't realistic or obtainable:) moot point regardless with such low
>memory
>>>>>prices. btw did everyone notice 128MB pc100 dimms just jumped +$10
>>>>>recently!?).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Plus there is no 100% guarantee that a dual Celeron will work reliably
>>>>>>>>everytime and without problems, so again, that's a crap shot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, but by user reports, they're good odds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You cannot deny a K6-III 450 working on its rated
>>>>>>speed and delivering its vaunted performance is practically a guaranteed
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't think anyone ever has. That is, no one's argued 'a k63 is not as
>>>>>fast as a k63!':)
>>>>>
>>>>>>and much better odds than dual Celerons,
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there's overclocking odds & odds that there's multithreaded &/or
>>>>>multiprocess enhancements for the type of apps you want to use or will be
>>>>>helped out in general from the os being smp aware. That a k63 is as fast
>as
>>>a
>>>>
>>>>Don't expect to see such applications except for expensive, workstation
>>>>class types that work on NT,
>>>
>>>
>>>We've gone over what apps & none of them were 'expensive workstation class
>>>types'. Those are a bonus:)<snicker>:)
>>
>>Sure, sure, sure.
>>
>>Give me some prices.
>
>
Cat bite your tongue?
>
>>>>and nobody would take the chance of working
>>>>such applications on unproven unsupported platforms like dual Celerons.
>>>
>>>
>>>I beg to differ about nobody chance taking & unproven. So would motherboard
>>>manf., slot 1 converter manf., hardware vendors, system vendors, & end
>users.
>>>
>>It's unproven enough.
>
>From my first reply, obviously not.
>
>>No business would attempt to use it for serious work.
>
>I havn't been arguing business users would use overclocked parts & systems.
>But we could always email vendors from the above mentioned groups & ask if any
>businesses use their products.
>
A lame answer.
>>>>Other than this, the best utilization for SMP right now is being a LAN
>>>>party game server using LInux and Linux compiles.
>>>>
>>>>There is plenty of heavy kinds of Windows applications out there, and
>>>>most of them are basically single process.
>>>
>>>
>>><new windows slogan>:P
>>>'where do you want to <multi-task> today?':)
>>
>>Not with unproven crap like this.
>>
>>By the way, where is your machine?
>
>
>What's that supposed to mean? If it means what I think it does, that's weak,
>really weak. What, all the results from url's not good enough anymore?
>
The results from the URLs were not even good enough for your case to
begin with. Only one out of 15 examples cited showed enough
improvement to make it worthwhile.
>
>>>>>k63 one would regard as a baseline. Odds come into play with betting
>you'll
>>>>>get astoundingly better performance(dual oc'd), much better
>>>performance(dual),
>>>>>roughly the same(oc'd), or 23.5% less than(can't oc, doesn't take
>advantage
>>>of
>>>>>duals) with inbetween gradients of performance where duals come into play
>>>>>depending on how well dual support is implemented.
>>>>
>>>>Overclocking and using the processors beyond their specification is
>>>>unacceptable on a workplace enviroment.
>>>
>>>
>>>For the business user & the timid, they can opt not to overclock & choose
>just
>>>the much better performance instead of the astoundingly better performance
>>>category:)
>>>
>>
>>They can opt for something that works reliably day by day.
>
>
>duals are unreliable eh?
>
I have been surveying about dual overclock Celerons, and there is enough
cases of reported problems that I would consider its reliability to be
of an experimental nature.
In short, fun to dabble with, but not to rely it for important work or
data.
>
>>>>Keep the hobbies to yourself; they have no place on business.
>>>
>>>
>>>Keep the flaim bait to yourself; they have no place on newsgroups:)
>>>
>>
>>What is "flaim"?
>
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/ajbower/MVDictFL.html
>
>To maim someone emotionally with a flame. Though I did err in that I should
>have used flame or reworded the sentence.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Anything thats recommended for a business enviroment makes a much more
>>>>valid ground for recommendation that your opinion about taking chances
>>>>on warranty and doing things out of spec. A business enviroment
>>>>recommendation will cover far more users out there, than one for a
>>>>fringe geek group.
>>>
>>>
>>>Keep the flaim bait to yourself; they have no place on newsgroups:)
>>>
>>
>>You're really out of intelligent answers do you.
>>
>>You're nailed on the hole, I can see.
>
>We've been going at it for awhile now under more than one thread(ha! the
>irony:) I feel we've put enough out there for anyone reading to decide
>what's what. Just do a deja.com search, ya'll:)
>
The market has pretty decided that for the vast majority, SMP is a
dubious feature.
Rgds,
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 14 Jul 1999 14:16:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hsieh) writes:
>In article <7lkidn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> I am a Ph.D. student at Lehigh and recently assembled myself a Celeron
>> machine running at 488 Mhz (overclocked from 433). I was very curious about
>> its performance compared to regular Pentium IIs in scientific computing. I
>> ran a mathematical optimization package called CPLEX on my machine and on a
>> regular Pentium 400. The result is that the regular Pentium II outperforms
>> my machine (celeron 488) by about 10%. Extrapolating from here I conclude
>> that the Pentium performs about 25% faster than an equally clocked Celeron
>> in intensive computing tasks. Therefore for fractals and chess expect a
>> similar behaviour.
>
>You data point does not lead to the conclusion you have made. The
>primary difference between the Celeron and the P-II is that the P-II has
>a *larger* L2 cache and is based on a 100Mhz BUS. A Celeron is based on
>a 66 Mhz bus (or in your case a 75Mhz bus, I suppose.)
>
>The FPUs in these CPU are identical, and thus their performance is
>related entire on clock rate. Most fractals use very little data to
>generate, and thus will rely entirely on the FPU performance. I would
>thus expect that fractals would be entirely clock rate dependent.
>
>Chess programs vary from implementation to implementation, however Rebel,
>which is a very strong PC program, apparently is highly dependent on
>Cache size (according to the author. See http://www.rebel.nl/bench.htm)
>I have a hard time believing that a chess program would use floating
>point over fixed point. Thus you would expect that this chess program,
>at least, to do somewhat better on P-II than a Celeron at the same clock
>rate (but its probably pretty close).
According to those Rebel benchmarks, it would be a damned surprise if th
benchmark is even cache dependent, considering the numbers they got
there even has K6-2's faster than Xeons of the same clock speed (K6-2
450 vs Xeon 450).
Rgds,
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: NCR 53C710 Fast SCSI-2 Controller
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:33:43 GMT
There was some traffic a few months ago about this controller. I have
one on my Compaq 486 and use an adaptec controller to boot linux. As
near as I can tell this controller IS NOT SUPPORTED! Period.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
cheers,
db
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:49:44 -0400, "Mike Coakley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Johan,
>
>Thanks for the response. I have gone through expert mode and made sure that
>the 53c7,8xx.o module is the one loading. (Using ALT-F3 and ALT-F4 give you
>a wealth of information during installation.) Is there some generic SCSI
>module that I can try. (I think I have tried all of the available modules
>though.)
>
>What I would also like to know is if any know who or how I can find out who
>wrote this module and how to contact them. The author is the authoritative
>knowledge and I figure if he/she can't figure it out no one can.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tom Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Headless Multia?
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:46:42 +0200
It's running with only a power, ethernet and a serial cable
and i have NO problems at all
--
---
Tom Mulder
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website: http://www.darkseed.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred Molon)
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.arch.embedded
Subject: Re: Compact Flash vs. SSFDC Smart Media
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:59:37 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Ok, getting a card-based camera sounds like the best option. Now I'm
> wondering whether I should target CF or SSFDC formats? I looked at the
> SSFDC website (http://www.ssfdc.or.jp) and it implies that SSFDC is only
> available up to 8mb.
32 MB Smartmedia cards are available.
--
Alfred Molon
===================
Replace NOSPAM with csi to reply
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: FWD- Socket Eight to S370 convertors coming
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:59:19 -0700
==============FWD====================
Posted 14/07/99 12:06pm by Mike Magee
Socket Eight to S370 convertors coming
Several Japanese sites are billing an adaptor which allows the
conversion of Pentium Pro's Socket Eight to a Socket 370
configuration.
The systems are set to arrive in early August, and will allow single
and dual Socket Eight motherboards to take Celeron S370 processors at
multiple speeds, again in single and dual combos.
The Pentium Pro came in speeds of 100, 150 and 200MHz, so the upgrade
may give old systems a boost.
No prices are yet available, but Intel said that it did not support
such third party adaptors.
At one time, Intel used to get additional money for its old
processors by offering so-called Overdrive upgrades. But that business
no longer exists.
Intel did create an Overdrive for the Pentium Pro, allowing systems
to be upgraded to a Pentium II/333 with full speed on-die cache, our
Mr Sherriff points out. ®
SOURCE- http://theregister.co.uk/990714-000010.html
=======================================================
--
*remove all the Xs (upper case X) if reply by e mail.
** no more M$ Windoze.
------------------------------
From: "basic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xf86config+i740
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:54:27 -0700
Hi, I have been trying to set up my system for my i740 (Diamond StealthII)
card. I install the XBF - i740 glibc and the xf86config to help set it up.
The video section is set up beautifully but the new xf86config screws up my
MS intellimouse. I have absolutely no mouse control, but beautiful video. As
soon as I touch the mouse it move to a high corner and quits responding. In
the xf86config....mouse setup section, I have tried virtually all the
options.
Does anyone have any suggestion?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Wang)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Celeron, what's the catch?
Date: 14 Jul 1999 14:52:17 GMT
Colin Andrew Percival ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: David T. Wang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : : : Did anyone tell you that you're a snoop?
: : : No, that's what the cache is ;-)
: : Wow! processors that snoop the address bus and actually checking
: : their cache states against the MESI protocol? Amazing!
: Hey, not all caches use MESI. H&P only describe an ESI cache.
Really? I was pretty sure that they describe a couple different one's,
including MESI.
: Colin Percival
--
main(){while(1){switch(rand()%7){case 0:printf("Illogical.\n");break;case 1:
printf("Balderdash.\n");break;case 2:printf("Non sequitur.\n");break;case 3:
printf("Incorrect.\n");break;case 4: printf("See what I mean\?\n");break;
case 5:printf("Irrelevant.\n");break;case 6:printf("Poppycock\n");break;}}}
------------------------------
From: DM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: RH 6.0 & 3C905C TXM Problems
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:26:19 -0700
That's why you either build your own machine, or buy one designed for
Linux!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We just purchased some Dell Dimension machines and they come with the
> 3Com 3C905C TXM NIC cards. RedHat claims that these cards are not
> supported and neither are the Netgear FX310 TX nor the 3C905B TX. They
> claim that the best card to buy is the 3Com 3c595. Unfortunately, I
> can't find this card at our local computer stores.
>
> I tried the Boomerang drivers from
> http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/vortex.html
> and those don't seem to work either.
>
> This is getting frustrating. After spending $78.00 for "support", I
> don't feel that I'm getting my money's worth.
>
> Any ideas for getting the 3Com 3C905C TXM cards working? When I try to
> do an insmod 3c59x, I get an error message that the "device or resource
> is busy." When I try to specify 3c59x during the install of RH6.0, I
> get an error message that it can't find the card.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
