Re: forcedeth wierdness
Dean Hamstead wrote: > thanks for that, it was hiding up in eth5 for some reason > *shrug* and dmesg didnt bother to tell me > > i will have to set it to a more reasonable eth number > > Dean Hi Dean This could be a udev persistent-net issue: When I upgraded my firewall box with three NICs from Sarge to Etch, one of them apparently changed hardware address and thus suddenly appeared as eth3 instead of eth0. Perhaps your /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules contains wrong or outdated entries too? Cheers, Jonas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: forcedeth wierdness
thanks for that, it was hiding up in eth5 for some reason *shrug* and dmesg didnt bother to tell me i will have to set it to a more reasonable eth number Dean Jonas Bardino wrote: Dean Hamstead wrote: any thoughts why a forcedeth (nvidia) onboard nic would be detected, but not presented as a usable card? i also have an onboard sky2 card which seems to work fine. i have tried disabling things in the bios but to no avail. im using a winbond motherboard. i can give more detailed outputs if needed. forcedeth has worked fine for me on other mboards *shrug* Dean Hi Dean I'm not sure this is the same problem, but I remember having problems with asus nforce boards and forcedeth until I disabled firewire (IEEE1394) in the BIOS. If that doesn't help you may need to provide some more information like log output from the card initialization and the output of ifconfig -a . Cheers, Jonas -- http://fragfest.com.au -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:22:35PM -0400, Zaq Rizer wrote: > and increase the tickrate, and enable preemption. None of which, afaik, > can I do with any Debian packaged kernels. Why is it that debian doesn't do pre-emption in the kernel? Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:16:14AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Well if you need something to do floating point, then x86 isn't > generally where you want to be. And yes if performance matters gcc is > not what you want to use either. > Is there a free alternative to GCC? Where would you go for floating point? Last time I looked, Cray used Opterons as nodes in its supercomputers. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:45:42AM -0400, Zaq Rizer wrote: Thank you both for the advice. I am compiling a new preempt/cfs kernel with Intel/core2-specific instructions, and will stick with my -amd64 installation. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, right? Regards, Zaq Why would you bother compiling your own kernel? The AMD64 instruction set is pretty much the same on all the CPUs and debian's kernel works and you get security fixes without having to do all the work and research yourself. You are very unlikely to gain any performance by compiling your own kernel. -- Len Sorensen First, apologies for sending in HTML only ... My current kernel is custom so I can try out the new scheduler (CFS), and increase the tickrate, and enable preemption. None of which, afaik, can I do with any Debian packaged kernels. So since I was doing all that, I figured I'd go ahead and re-config it for Intel c2d. It's purely a desktop machine ... ~Zaq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:51:34PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > Let's assume I have large examples of both IA64 and AMD64. Plus further > benchmark data we collected ourselves. > > IA64 is fast, for floating point code. On paper, it offers the same > per-core-per-Hz FLOP count as Core (twice that of AMD64). And in > practise, Altix scales, whilst the competition, well, doesn't. In our > benchmarks, IA64 was not only faster per-GHz than POWER5 or AMD64, but > faster in absolute terms too, with an 8-way test absolutely dominated by > a 1.6-GHz-Montecito-based Altix, whilst AMD64 didn't even register a > pulse. > > However, for IA64, compiler choice is key - using GCC to compile test > code isn't just crippling the system, it's throwing away hundreds of > thousands (if not more) of investment > > They've got SMP machines that don't choke at >4 cores. For some > applications, that's of great interest. Well if you need something to do floating point, then x86 isn't generally where you want to be. And yes if performance matters gcc is not what you want to use either. For normal servers running databases and serving files, floating point isn't really that interesting. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:41 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:08:48PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > > Or more? Buy an Altix! ;) > > Ehm, well the Altix uses either the itanium (why would anyone want that > crap) or a dual socket core 2 based cpu. That hardly matches a 4 or > more cpu opteron server. Let's assume I have large examples of both IA64 and AMD64. Plus further benchmark data we collected ourselves. IA64 is fast, for floating point code. On paper, it offers the same per-core-per-Hz FLOP count as Core (twice that of AMD64). And in practise, Altix scales, whilst the competition, well, doesn't. In our benchmarks, IA64 was not only faster per-GHz than POWER5 or AMD64, but faster in absolute terms too, with an 8-way test absolutely dominated by a 1.6-GHz-Montecito-based Altix, whilst AMD64 didn't even register a pulse. However, for IA64, compiler choice is key - using GCC to compile test code isn't just crippling the system, it's throwing away hundreds of thousands (if not more) of investment > SGI has nothing of any real interest. No wonder they went under not > that long ago. :) They've got SMP machines that don't choke at >4 cores. For some applications, that's of great interest. -- __ / Jo Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ | Systems Manager, | \ Oxford Supercomputing Centre / --- \ ,__, \ (oo)___ (__))\ ||--|| * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:45:42AM -0400, Zaq Rizer wrote: > > > Thank you both for the advice. I am compiling a new preempt/cfs kernel > with Intel/core2-specific instructions, and will stick with my -amd64 > installation. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, right? > > Regards, > Zaq > > Why would you bother compiling your own kernel? The AMD64 instruction set is pretty much the same on all the CPUs and debian's kernel works and you get security fixes without having to do all the work and research yourself. You are very unlikely to gain any performance by compiling your own kernel. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:08:48PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > Or more? Buy an Altix! ;) Ehm, well the Altix uses either the itanium (why would anyone want that crap) or a dual socket core 2 based cpu. That hardly matches a 4 or more cpu opteron server. SGI has nothing of any real interest. No wonder they went under not that long ago. :) -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 09:29 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:34PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > > My experimental sudoku solving program is 3x faster on > > a 1.8GHz 64-bit opteron, than on a 2.4GHz 32-bit pentium. In this case, > > a slow 64-bit processor beats a faster 32-bit processor 3x. > > And an athlon64 3500+ (2.2GHz) runs bzip2 5x faster than a 2.8GHz > Pentium 4. The pentium 4 HATES branch heavy code when the branch > prediction fails to work (which essentially by definition it has to on > compression and other optimizing/solving problems). It might have been > a good design for multimedia streaming operations, but it really sucks > at many general purpose tasks. I never did like the pentium 4 even from > day 1. And in case anyone's not keeping up at the back: Pentium 4 and Core 2 have nothing whatsoever in common, other than the ability to run x86 code. Core 2 is a screamingly fast chip, Pentium 4 wasn't -- __ / Jo Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ | Systems Manager, | \ Oxford Supercomputing Centre / --- \ ,__, \ (oo)___ (__))\ ||--|| * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:07 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:35:30PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > > And in case anyone's not keeping up at the back: Pentium 4 and Core 2 > > have nothing whatsoever in common, other than the ability to run x86 > > code. Core 2 is a screamingly fast chip, Pentium 4 wasn't > > Absolutely. My current cpu of choice is the Core 2. It is just better > than the AMD at this time (somewhat unfortunate as I like AMD beating > intel). Well unless you want a 4 or more socket server, in which case > the opteron is still much better. Or more? Buy an Altix! ;) -- __ / Jo Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \ | Systems Manager, | \ Oxford Supercomputing Centre / --- \ ,__, \ (oo)___ (__))\ ||--|| * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:35:30PM +0100, Jo Shields wrote: > And in case anyone's not keeping up at the back: Pentium 4 and Core 2 > have nothing whatsoever in common, other than the ability to run x86 > code. Core 2 is a screamingly fast chip, Pentium 4 wasn't Absolutely. My current cpu of choice is the Core 2. It is just better than the AMD at this time (somewhat unfortunate as I like AMD beating intel). Well unless you want a 4 or more socket server, in which case the opteron is still much better. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:34PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: My experimental sudoku solving program is 3x faster on a 1.8GHz 64-bit opteron, than on a 2.4GHz 32-bit pentium. In this case, a slow 64-bit processor beats a faster 32-bit processor 3x. And an athlon64 3500+ (2.2GHz) runs bzip2 5x faster than a 2.8GHz Pentium 4. The pentium 4 HATES branch heavy code when the branch prediction fails to work (which essentially by definition it has to on compression and other optimizing/solving problems). It might have been a good design for multimedia streaming operations, but it really sucks at many general purpose tasks. I never did like the pentium 4 even from day 1. -- Len Sorensen Thank you both for the advice. I am compiling a new preempt/cfs kernel with Intel/core2-specific instructions, and will stick with my -amd64 installation. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, right? Regards, Zaq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and latest xorg dependencies
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 09:44:03AM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and > nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it is > not really a bug. > > Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both packages should be > corrected. As I do not know, which is the correct package, I could not send a > bugreport using reportbug. Actually I think the nvidia-glx is in fact not fully compatible with the new xorg version (at least from reading the bug reports that is what I get from it). Something about input api version 1 versus input api version 2. Hopefully a fix will arive soon. For now I am simply not upgrading anything to do with X. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
2007/9/18, Jim Crilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 09/18/07 08:21:23AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > I only ever use my chroot to run mplayer occasionally now. (Especially > > > with nspluginwrapper allowing Flash to be used from a 64-bit browser.) > > > My two main desktops (home and work) are both 64-bit. > > > > > > > Which leads me to the question: which video formats needs w32plugins > > yet? Since some time libavcodec can play wmv9 videos, and I'm not sure > > if I still need by 32bit mplayer or if its one less thing in the chroot > > (since openoffice.org is not necessary in a chroot anymore.) > > > > None that I know of, I haven't used 32-bit mplayer since I installed my > 64-bit system. On a rare occasion some videos don't play well but I haven't > taken the time to figure out if it's the video itself or some problem with > the 64-bit build. > > Jim. > Here, no chroot at all. I am using nspluginwrapper for flash and konqueror and Java for applets. I installed the IEview extension for Firefox, so I can readily open any page with Java applets on Konqueror (konqueror does not need the plugin, but the java machine itself but I am not sure how safe it is). Even IE4linux runs on wine-amd64 (debian lenny). All others 32 bits applications such as Skype run with the multilib approach. -- Thadeu Penna Prof.Associado - Instituto de Física Universidade Federal Fluminense http://profs.if.uff.br/tjpp/blog
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:34PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > My experimental sudoku solving program is 3x faster on > a 1.8GHz 64-bit opteron, than on a 2.4GHz 32-bit pentium. In this case, > a slow 64-bit processor beats a faster 32-bit processor 3x. And an athlon64 3500+ (2.2GHz) runs bzip2 5x faster than a 2.8GHz Pentium 4. The pentium 4 HATES branch heavy code when the branch prediction fails to work (which essentially by definition it has to on compression and other optimizing/solving problems). It might have been a good design for multimedia streaming operations, but it really sucks at many general purpose tasks. I never did like the pentium 4 even from day 1. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
On 09/18/07 08:21:23AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > I only ever use my chroot to run mplayer occasionally now. (Especially > > with nspluginwrapper allowing Flash to be used from a 64-bit browser.) > > My two main desktops (home and work) are both 64-bit. > > > > Which leads me to the question: which video formats needs w32plugins > yet? Since some time libavcodec can play wmv9 videos, and I'm not sure > if I still need by 32bit mplayer or if its one less thing in the chroot > (since openoffice.org is not necessary in a chroot anymore.) > None that I know of, I haven't used 32-bit mplayer since I installed my 64-bit system. On a rare occasion some videos don't play well but I haven't taken the time to figure out if it's the video itself or some problem with the 64-bit build. Jim. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
Zaq Rizer wrote: I have an Intel Core2 Duo arriving in the mail in a couple of days, and I read online that these processors can run in either 32bit or 64bit mode (just like Athlons can). Thing is, the 32bit chroot and ia32-compatibility libraries, are, imo, a total mess and a real pain in the rear to deal with on a daily basis. But usually, no need to deal with it. Almost all software is available 64-bit. The main problems seems to be some netscape plugins and wine. (Java works 64-bit in konqueror, adobe acrobat has good 64-bit alternatives, so I don't count those.) I do run a 32-bit program in 32-bit wine - but that was a "set up hassle once and then it just works forever" case. I'm looking for people's opinions on whether I should stick with debian-amd64, or do a reinstall of debian from the main branch (32bit)? What, truly, are the real performance differences? Simply support for 4+G of ram, or something else? The processor also uses 16 registers in 64-bit modes, opposed to only 8 in 32-bit mode. (Working with registers is _much_ faster than accessing memory, but as you see, there aren't many of them.) If the inner loop of some time-consuming operation need more than 8 registers but less than 16, then you get a nice noticeable speedup from using 64-bit mode. Of course, any usage that actually do integer math on quantities bigger than 32 bit also speeds up noticeably. Graphichs operations not done by the graphichs adapter itself will also be in this category. My experimental sudoku solving program is 3x faster on a 1.8GHz 64-bit opteron, than on a 2.4GHz 32-bit pentium. In this case, a slow 64-bit processor beats a faster 32-bit processor 3x. Helge Hafting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Opinion question (Core2 Duo)
Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I only ever use my chroot to run mplayer occasionally now. (Especially > with nspluginwrapper allowing Flash to be used from a 64-bit browser.) > My two main desktops (home and work) are both 64-bit. > Which leads me to the question: which video formats needs w32plugins yet? Since some time libavcodec can play wmv9 videos, and I'm not sure if I still need by 32bit mplayer or if its one less thing in the chroot (since openoffice.org is not necessary in a chroot anymore.) -- FORTUNE'S RULES TO LIVE BY: #23 Don't cut off a police car when making an illegal U-turn. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://move.to/hpkb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and latest xorg dependencies
Am Dienstag 18 September 2007 schrieb Jan De Luyck: > On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > > Dear maintainers, > > > > there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core > > and nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., > > IMO it is not really a bug. > > > > Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both packages should be > > corrected. As I do not know, which is the correct package, I could not > > send a bugreport using reportbug. > > > > So I send it here. > > > > Thanks for your help ! > > > > Regards > > > > Hans > > Hello, > > Please check the debian BTS first before filing a bug: bug #442846 and > #442959 already exist about this issue. > > Kind regards > > Jan > > -- > Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change. Hi Jan, I checked before, but somehow I did not discover it. So I did not know, it is already known. Sorry for the noise. Kind regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: nvidia-glx and latest xorg dependencies
On Tuesday 18 September 2007, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and > nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it > is not really a bug. > > Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both packages should be > corrected. As I do not know, which is the correct package, I could not send > a bugreport using reportbug. > > So I send it here. > > Thanks for your help ! > > Regards > > Hans Hello, Please check the debian BTS first before filing a bug: bug #442846 and #442959 already exist about this issue. Kind regards Jan -- Show respect for age. Drink good Scotch for a change. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
nvidia-glx and latest xorg dependencies
Dear maintainers, there is a dependency problem with the latest package xserver-xorg-core and nvidia-glx. As both packages seem (as installed alone) to be o.k., IMO it is not really a bug. Both packages exclude each other, so one of the both packages should be corrected. As I do not know, which is the correct package, I could not send a bugreport using reportbug. So I send it here. Thanks for your help ! Regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
