Re:
Dear Colleague, SAWN 2005 submission is now closed. For further details on the workshop program please see http://dna.engr.uconn.edu/SAWN2005/ SAWN 2005 Organizers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
Alexandru Cardaniuc wrote: I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I have this one, running Lenny currently. I had some trouble getting the sound card to work initially, but has been working fine for months now (since before etch was released). Other than that, no problems and no complaints. Haven't had any of the USB issues either. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upgrade-dist to lenny vs. reinstall
Hello, apt-get upgrade-dist has always been deprecated for amd64, due (at least indirectly) to the fact that amd64 was not a mainstream arch prior to etch. Now that etch is mainstream, is upgrade-dist from etch to lenny asking for trouble, or is it still best to do a fresh install? If it is OK, are there any particular gotchas to watch out for? Thanks, Don -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrade-dist to lenny vs. reinstall
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 13:40 -0500, Don Montgomery wrote: Hello, apt-get upgrade-dist has always been deprecated for amd64, due (at least indirectly) to the fact that amd64 was not a mainstream arch prior to etch. Now that etch is mainstream, is upgrade-dist from etch to lenny asking for trouble, or is it still best to do a fresh install? If it is OK, are there any particular gotchas to watch out for? Thanks, Don Biggest one I know is making sure you use dist-upgrade rather than upgrade-dist ... ;-) Kenward -- The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.--Ferdinand Magellan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrade-dist to lenny vs. reinstall
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:40:46PM -0500, Don Montgomery wrote: apt-get upgrade-dist has always been deprecated for amd64, due (at least indirectly) to the fact that amd64 was not a mainstream arch prior to etch. Now that etch is mainstream, is upgrade-dist from etch to lenny asking for trouble, or is it still best to do a fresh install? If it is OK, are there any particular gotchas to watch out for? Since for the most part the unofficial sarge was built from the same sources as official sarge, I believe almost all cases could upgrade with a simple apt-get dist-upgrade (is there an upgrade-dist option?). Certainly from etch to lenny amd64 is no different than any other debian architecture and of course a dist-upgrade should work. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 03:00:01PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:37:41PM -0500, Neil Gunton wrote: Are we talking about desktop workstations here? Forgive my ignorance, but what on earth requires that much RAM? Video processing? I have 1 GB in my desktop at the moment, and that's useful for when I'm running VMWare, but that's about it. Most of the time, it's just being used for disk cache. Ram is cheap, firefox leaks memory (or wastes it) like crazy. KDE doesn't seem much better. Until people start taking code quality seriously, it is simpler to throw more ram at it. I think I must have gone to sleep for a couple of years. When I was last looking at Intel vs AMD, they were saying that AMD's architecture was much better than Intel's, because (I think this is right) for communication between cores, the AMD doesn't have to go off-chip, but Intel's architecture requires use of the external bus, and AMD's design just plain scaled better. Or something. Then fast forward to today, where apparently Intel's Core 2 Duo is apparently kicking the pants off AMD... how did this happen? Is Intel really all that much better? The Core 2 Duo has an internal connection between the two cores (they are a single die) just as the Athlon 64 X2 does. The Core 2 Quad has two Core 2 Duo dies attached together using the front side bus. So for a quad design, the Core 2 is similar to the dual core design intel did with the Pentium 4 (aka Pentium D). The Core 2 is based on the Pentium-M core which goes back to the PPro (it is derived from the P6 core). The pipeline is in the low to mid teens, unlike the netburst which managed to go past 30 stages (great for clock frequency, bad for dealing with conditional branches). So in terms of design, the Core 2 has a lot more similarity with the Athlon than the Pentium 4, except it is a bit more modern and has some clever tricks, which makes it able to run faster than the Athlon 64 at the same clock speed. Hopefully those improvements AMD is promising in the next version of the Athlon 64 will in fact give them the same or hopefully better performance per clock than the Core 2 Duo. Also, I only really hear comparisons between the Core 2 Duo and Athlon. How about Opteron? Is the Opteron still a good choice for servers? Or has Xeon leapt ahead there too? The Opteron is an Athlon 64, except it (usually) uses registered memory (allows more banks of memory in the server, at a slight speed penalty). Current Xeon's are Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quads, with a different bus speed (I believe they tend to run 1333MHz effective bus rather than the 1066MHz of the Core 2 desktop chips). Xeon's also usually have more cache. Of course the opteron has the fast hypertransport link between cpus, and per cpu memory controllers, so the memory bandwidth is better on the opteron with lower latency, which is why the opteron still scales better than the xeon. For single or dual cpu the xeon is usually fastest, but for 4 or more cpus the opteron is better off since the xeon still has to share a single bus to the chipset for all the cpus while the opteron has the hypertransport links between cpus instead for memory accesses and only has to use the link to the chipset for accessing devices. Adding opterons and memory gives more overall memory bandwidth. Adding cpus to a xeon system doesn't add bandwidth, just processing power. Until intel some day gets an on chip memory controller. Sorry for the ignorance. I don't pay much attention to hardware stuff in between computer purchases. Last time I really looked was in 2005 or so. Lots has happened. It is nice to have some competition between AMD and intel to keep them both going, although I like to root for AMD being the underdog. I think it is very much horse for courses, I have seen intel dual quad cores perform really well with some applications and I have seen AMD x2 outperform intel quad cores. The one that really stick to my mind is some testing done by a rendering house, the amd x2 outperformed the intel single, dual and quad core chips. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: upgrade-dist to lenny vs. reinstall
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:40:46PM -0500, Don Montgomery wrote: Now that etch is mainstream, is upgrade-dist from etch to lenny asking for trouble, or is it still best to do a fresh install? If it is OK, are there any particular gotchas to watch out for? Reinstall of Debian is never required and rarely useful. The only exception being changes to storage layout which can be difficult to enact later eg root on RAID and/or LVM, which the installer can configure for you nowadays. Or filesystem attributes which can't be added to existing volumes. I used to have machines that had been upgraded from buzz (1.1) all the way to at least woody (3.0). Although they could still be upgraded they're in landfill now. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
