Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On 6/20/05, Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Everyone > > On 20/06/05, Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: > > > Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information. > > > > > > What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI > > > interface SATA drives, any clue? > > > > Well most drives have never hit the speed limits of the interface they > > use, so in terms of raw throughput you generally won't see a difference. > ... > > We intend to use 2 SCSI disks in RAID1 for the system and the others in > RAID10 for the DB. > > There is (obviously) a lot of debate about SATA vs SCSI on the > Postgresql list. The general opinion is that 7200 rpm SATA disks just > aren't fast/smart enough to cut it for serious database use, 10K Raptors > being a possible exception. Since SCSI drives are designed "to do > physical I/O scheduling, because the CPU can issue multiple commands > before the drive has to report completion of the first one. IDE isn't > designed to do that..." [Tom Lane], we're going for that. IDE wasn't designed for that, but indications are that there are plans for SATA to be able to support tagged command queueing. It hasn't been supported with early SATA hardware, which is a pretty thin veneer of SATA interfacing atop otherwise IDE hardware. But command queuing should be starting to be supported... -- http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." -- Samuel Johnson, lexicographer (1709-1784)
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 11:46:36PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > We intend to use 2 SCSI disks in RAID1 for the system and the others in > RAID10 for the DB. > > There is (obviously) a lot of debate about SATA vs SCSI on the > Postgresql list. The general opinion is that 7200 rpm SATA disks just > aren't fast/smart enough to cut it for serious database use, 10K Raptors > being a possible exception. Since SCSI drives are designed "to do > physical I/O scheduling, because the CPU can issue multiple commands > before the drive has to report completion of the first one. IDE isn't > designed to do that..." [Tom Lane], we're going for that. IDE isn't but SATA is designed for that. The drives that are native SATA appear to all support native command queueing. The new SATA controllers are starting to support it too. The nforce4 does, but not yet under linux. The AHCI(I think that's the arconym) SATA controllers will support it too. I think it is only a 32 or so level command queue rather than the 255 level supported by some scsi controllers and devices, but much better than one command at a time. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian When you will compile postgresql don't forget add configuration option to use timestamp as integer64. :-) In debian package this already configured. One possible configuration we are looking for is as below: Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, On-board RAID : S-ATA Raid (Raid 0, 1, 10, 4 drives) Silicon Image 3114 I had problems with SATA Silicon Image on S2875. Now all ok, may be after update bios to new version. -- Olleg Samoylov smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: >> I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have >> to consider making a choice about. SCSI channels can take one heck of a >> beating, besides, your point is irrelevant since you can have the same >> software raid you'd use for SATA over several SCSI channels as well. > > I would prefer a hardware SATA raid like the 3ware cards if doing more > than 2 drives. Actualy using the onboard SATA on the Hypertransport gives you more speed than a normal PCI Bus. Not sure if PCI-X can compete speed wise. Also software raid with many drives will be faster on the cpu then the card. But it will cost you cpu time. For a fileserver that needs fast I/O and has nothing else to do software raid will be faster. For e.g. a database that also needs to compute stuff hardware can distribute the load better. So it all depends. >> Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways >> before they go to the SATA channel. > > No quite a few new SATA drives are native SATA and are not IDE or SCSI > internally. A lot of drives have identical drives and just different motherboards stuck onto them for the pata/sata/scsi driver. > The scsi cable shared by all scsi drives in a system is fairly fragile, > and loosing it looses all drives, and in some cases a drive failure > takes out the bus too. With a cable per drive that problem at least > goes away. It doesn't solve the issue of what happens if the controller > dies, but scsi has that issue too unless running multiple controllers on > the bus (which is an advantage of scsi very few people take advantage > off. Maybe SAS will change that). A dying drive might electrocute the controler. Lets go fiberchannel. :) > I used to be a scsi fan, and built machines that used scsi instead of > ide, but not anymore. SAS I can see a point in, plain scsi I can't. Scsi is still more robust but one can just buy more disks and do better raid with ide for the same price to counteract the crappiness of the individual disk. > Len Sorensen MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Hi Everyone On 20/06/05, Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: > > Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information. > > > > What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI > > interface SATA drives, any clue? > > Well most drives have never hit the speed limits of the interface they > use, so in terms of raw throughput you generally won't see a difference. ... We intend to use 2 SCSI disks in RAID1 for the system and the others in RAID10 for the DB. There is (obviously) a lot of debate about SATA vs SCSI on the Postgresql list. The general opinion is that 7200 rpm SATA disks just aren't fast/smart enough to cut it for serious database use, 10K Raptors being a possible exception. Since SCSI drives are designed "to do physical I/O scheduling, because the CPU can issue multiple commands before the drive has to report completion of the first one. IDE isn't designed to do that..." [Tom Lane], we're going for that. Cheers Rory -- Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:39:37PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote: > Ah, but SAS was mostly non-conflicting in the storage world. Remember that > SSA is both the architecture: Serial Storage Architecture (IBM SSA*) and a > brand acronym for the Sparc Storage Array. Well yes SSA would have been worse in the storage area. I forgot about those ones. > When it comes to the SATA vs SCSI argument, the question is if you are > seek-limited in your load. If you are, you want more RPMs on your drive, > which leads to SCSI. Also, SCSI parts usually less troublesome. But then, > if you have many drives, you have to plan for failure anyway. Well hopefully NCQ on SATA which is starting to become normal now will help with the seek issue, although not as much as a very high speed drive. Too bad you can't get high speed and high capacity at the same time. :) > Note that due to the workings of linux io scheduling, multiple (how many > depends on tuning) pure-bandwidth streams turn into a seek-limited io > load. Maybe someone will fix that some day. > If you need huge ammounts of storage or only a few simultaneous > high-performance streams, SATA is the way to go. I certainly don't understand personally, why people put 15k rpm drives in a SAN and then connect a dozen machines to it using 1Gbit fibre channel. I suspect the software in the FC switch, and the SAN probably take longer to figure out where to seek to than the drive does to make the seek, making me wonder if the 15k rpm drive really makes it much faster, and if using SATA wouldn't have given 10 times the storage for less than half the cost with about the same performance in the SAN. > Btw, SCA has been a standard connector for many years now. It's the > standard for scsi hotswap slots. Sure. It also looks like all SATA drives have the same connector placement so they can be hotplugged as well. Certainly SATA was designed with hotplug in mind even if most controllers don't support it. > *) Btw, ftp.se.debian.org would enjoy a donation of IBM SSA, if anyone > happens to have some 18G+ drives around. Say a couple of racks or so? :) Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: SAS the statistics company? SAS the Scandinavian Airlines? SAS the School of Advanced Study? http://www.sas.ac.uk/ SAS the Surfers Against Sewage? http://www.sas.org.uk/ SAS the Special Air Service? SAS the Society for Applied Spectroscopy? SAS the Society for Applied Sociology? SAS the Society for Amateur Scientists? http://www.sas.org/ SAS the Singapore American School? http://www.sas.edu.sg/ SAS the Static Analysis Symposium? Ah ha!!! About the 40th Google hit is "Serial Attached SCSI". Talk about an ambiguous TLA!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS has an even longer list... I think they should have put their acronym into google before accepting it. :) Even SSA (serial scsi attach) might have had less conflict, although certainly not none. Too late now, they already have standards and nice logos and such done. Ah, but SAS was mostly non-conflicting in the storage world. Remember that SSA is both the architecture: Serial Storage Architecture (IBM SSA*) and a brand acronym for the Sparc Storage Array. When it comes to the SATA vs SCSI argument, the question is if you are seek-limited in your load. If you are, you want more RPMs on your drive, which leads to SCSI. Also, SCSI parts usually less troublesome. But then, if you have many drives, you have to plan for failure anyway. Note that due to the workings of linux io scheduling, multiple (how many depends on tuning) pure-bandwidth streams turn into a seek-limited io load. If you need huge ammounts of storage or only a few simultaneous high-performance streams, SATA is the way to go. Btw, SCA has been a standard connector for many years now. It's the standard for scsi hotswap slots. *) Btw, ftp.se.debian.org would enjoy a donation of IBM SSA, if anyone happens to have some 18G+ drives around. Say a couple of racks or so? :) /Mattias Wadenstein - responding to half the thread in one mail -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > SAS the statistics company? > SAS the Scandinavian Airlines? > SAS the School of Advanced Study? http://www.sas.ac.uk/ > SAS the Surfers Against Sewage? http://www.sas.org.uk/ > SAS the Special Air Service? > SAS the Society for Applied Spectroscopy? > SAS the Society for Applied Sociology? > SAS the Society for Amateur Scientists? http://www.sas.org/ > SAS the Singapore American School? http://www.sas.edu.sg/ > SAS the Static Analysis Symposium? > > Ah ha!!! > > About the 40th Google hit is "Serial Attached SCSI". > > Talk about an ambiguous TLA!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS > has an even longer list... I think they should have put their acronym into google before accepting it. :) Even SSA (serial scsi attach) might have had less conflict, although certainly not none. Too late now, they already have standards and nice logos and such done. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 04:01:20PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: > So, why not get SCSI that supports the same thing? SATA drives are much bigger, often have higher transfer rates (although slower seeks too in general compared to 15k drives), have nicer cables that don't block airflow, cost much less as does the controller, and a nice scsi raid card also costs much more than an SATA hardware raid card. With SATA hardware raid you get much more space and usually more speed for a lot less money. > Ah, didn't know about that one actually, havn't researched SATA drives > being manufactured in a while. Up until the last 6 months or so they were all using IDE to SATA converter chips instead, but now they are doing native SATA instead. > Thats what SCA is for. Easy to adapt into any SCSI system even if it > does not defaultly support SCA with a $5 adapter. I've never had a bad > drive ever take down the channel. Well if that works, that's good. It wasn't part of the scsi spec itself. Anyone putting two drives on an ide connector are also asking for trouble of course while one per cable is fine. > So you've got my interests in SAS. What kind of system is it exactly? > Targeted market? Compatibility? Expected release? I'm thinking a search > on google for 'SAS' would give me a lot of what I'm not looking for. lol SAS = Serial Attached SCSI. nice features are: Dual ported drives: Makes it easy to connect a drive to redundant controllers Bus expanders: Essentially switches for drives. Connect a bus expander to a SAS port and then connect drives or more bus expanders to the ports of the bus expander. Way more than 7 or 15 drives per connector that way. Two bus expanders connected to the dual ports of a pile of drives and to two controllers could make a rather robust setup with many drives. I believe the number of drives within a single domain is in the thousands. Might have a throughput problem though if you have too many drives going into a single controller port, but then again, sometimes throughput isn't what is required. SATA drive support: A single SATA drive can be connected to any SAS controller port. Can not be connected through bus expander though. SATA to SAS converters are however likely to exist to assign an id to an SATA drive so it can be connected to a bus expander. SATA drives do not get dual ports though, so no increased reliability with SATA drives. Initial speed is 3Gb/s (same as SATA version 2). Later 6 and 12 are going to be released. Of course like SATA the connector is designed for hotplug operation. There are also external connector versions of the port, unlike SATA. I expect prices to be just as scary as for parallel scsi. Devices are expected to ship this year. http://www.serialattachedscsi.com/ Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 15:28 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: [snip] > off. Maybe SAS will change that). > > I used to be a scsi fan, and built machines that used scsi instead of > ide, but not anymore. SAS I can see a point in, plain scsi I can't. SAS the statistics company? SAS the Scandinavian Airlines? SAS the School of Advanced Study? http://www.sas.ac.uk/ SAS the Surfers Against Sewage? http://www.sas.org.uk/ SAS the Special Air Service? SAS the Society for Applied Spectroscopy? SAS the Society for Applied Sociology? SAS the Society for Amateur Scientists? http://www.sas.org/ SAS the Singapore American School? http://www.sas.edu.sg/ SAS the Static Analysis Symposium? Ah ha!!! About the 40th Google hit is "Serial Attached SCSI". Talk about an ambiguous TLA!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS has an even longer list... -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that." Bill Clinton signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: > Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information. > > What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI > interface SATA drives, any clue? Well most drives have never hit the speed limits of the interface they use, so in terms of raw throughput you generally won't see a difference. Many of the native SATA drives have NCQ similar to what scsi has had for a long time, which should help performance on multiuser systems and other systems with many simultanious random accesses. I suppose the limit of an older scsi bus could have been hit if multiple drives were accessed at once, although on many systems the system bus might be a limit before that happens. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Lennart Sorensen wrote: I would prefer a hardware SATA raid like the 3ware cards if doing more than 2 drives. So, why not get SCSI that supports the same thing? Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways before they go to the SATA channel. No quite a few new SATA drives are native SATA and are not IDE or SCSI internally. Ah, didn't know about that one actually, havn't researched SATA drives being manufactured in a while. The scsi cable shared by all scsi drives in a system is fairly fragile, and loosing it looses all drives, and in some cases a drive failure takes out the bus too. With a cable per drive that problem at least goes away. Thats what SCA is for. Easy to adapt into any SCSI system even if it does not defaultly support SCA with a $5 adapter. I've never had a bad drive ever take down the channel. It doesn't solve the issue of what happens if the controller dies, but scsi has that issue too unless running multiple controllers on the bus (which is an advantage of scsi very few people take advantage off. Maybe SAS will change that). I used to be a scsi fan, and built machines that used scsi instead of ide, but not anymore. SAS I can see a point in, plain scsi I can't. So you've got my interests in SAS. What kind of system is it exactly? Targeted market? Compatibility? Expected release? I'm thinking a search on google for 'SAS' would give me a lot of what I'm not looking for. lol Nathan Code is poetry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathan Dragun wrote: > Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways > before they go to the SATA channel. Seagate have had native SATA for some time now. /Jacob -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCtxmTiAWIAI3xXVYRAjfWAJ4oSkPy47BZNhxuvIpjbANmkrc0cQCcDJ6y rL9qDxlLy5evGgvUdDtFBMc= =FT1c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Jacob Larsen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathan Dragun wrote: Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways before they go to the SATA channel. Seagate have had native SATA for some time now. Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information. What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI interface SATA drives, any clue? Nathan Code is poetry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote: > I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have > to consider making a choice about. SCSI channels can take one heck of a > beating, besides, your point is irrelevant since you can have the same > software raid you'd use for SATA over several SCSI channels as well. I would prefer a hardware SATA raid like the 3ware cards if doing more than 2 drives. > Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways > before they go to the SATA channel. No quite a few new SATA drives are native SATA and are not IDE or SCSI internally. The scsi cable shared by all scsi drives in a system is fairly fragile, and loosing it looses all drives, and in some cases a drive failure takes out the bus too. With a cable per drive that problem at least goes away. It doesn't solve the issue of what happens if the controller dies, but scsi has that issue too unless running multiple controllers on the bus (which is an advantage of scsi very few people take advantage off. Maybe SAS will change that). I used to be a scsi fan, and built machines that used scsi instead of ide, but not anymore. SAS I can see a point in, plain scsi I can't. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Lennart Sorensen wrote: True, but that may just be a flaw of the built in controller, not of SATA. You can't connect scsi at all to many machines, which doesn't make scsi broken. You can get SATA controllers that run 24 drives if you want, and unlike scsi, they don't even share the connector but instead use one cable per drive. Len Sorensen I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have to consider making a choice about. SCSI channels can take one heck of a beating, besides, your point is irrelevant since you can have the same software raid you'd use for SATA over several SCSI channels as well. Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways before they go to the SATA channel. Nathan Code is poetry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:54:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The high prices > > and lousy performance I got from IBMs 15k rpm scsi drives and raid > > controller a few years ago while spending a ton of money just makes me > > not interested anymore. SATA makes much more sense to me. > > You can't connect 6 SATA drives to the built-in SATA controller. True, but that may just be a flaw of the built in controller, not of SATA. You can't connect scsi at all to many machines, which doesn't make scsi broken. You can get SATA controllers that run 24 drives if you want, and unlike scsi, they don't even share the connector but instead use one cable per drive. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 10:17 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > How hard is it to use Debian AMD64? [snip] > > > SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 > > Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The high prices > and lousy performance I got from IBMs 15k rpm scsi drives and raid > controller a few years ago while spending a ton of money just makes me > not interested anymore. SATA makes much more sense to me. You can't connect 6 SATA drives to the built-in SATA controller. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "They ginned up a war with an empty gun." Chris Matthews, regarding Saddam Hussein & Iraq signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Lennart Sorensen wrote: Last I checked the 3114 was not very well supported, although that hashopefully improved by now. It is of course software raid only so you are better of pretending it is just a SATA controller and using MD software raid if you want raid at all. I wish I could say how well this driver has worked for me or not, but I strictly use SCSI on this machine anyways, so I'm not sure how good/efficient the driver is. On-board LAN : 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet Are those the tg3 ones? Is there still an issue with firmware in driver without source for those or am I confusing them with something else? Yep this is the TG3, but once again its always worked for me fine. SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The high prices and lousy performance I got from IBMs 15k rpm scsi drives and raid controller a few years ago while spending a ton of money just makes me not interested anymore. SATA makes much more sense to me. IBM drives have always been unreliable with nicknames such as 'deathstar' for the deskstar series. IBM sold their hard drive division to Hitachi who is now trying to create a new type of storage with deeper platters so that data can be stored vetrically on the disk instead of horizontally end to end. (So from a side view the data looks like ||| instead of --- ) Anyways, its too bad you didn't really see a performance difference for the money you paid, because I'd go SCSI any day. Nathan Code is poetry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > How hard is it to use Debian AMD64? > > I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit > machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple > ibooks too. All of our machines run stable + a few things from testing + > occasionally something from unstable. > > We are getting ready to purchase a machine for a web application > prototype. I won't go into the nitty gritty of what the machine is to be > used for, but suffice it to say that we want good Postgresql 8.x read > and write performance and enquiries on the postgres list brought us > here. The postgresql-8.0 packages conflict with postgresql < 7.5 probably due to some new layout they added in 7.5 to support running both 7.x and 8.x at the same time. You might have to update to 7.5 to make installing 8.x simple, but then again it might work ok even without doing that with a bit of fiddling. I have no idea what is new in 8.0. > Basically, I'm keen not to make a lot of work for our team by supporting > unusual hardware. However, we are keen to experience the benefits of > using 64bit! Does Debian AMD64 have installers, eg netinstallers? Does > AMD64 have stable, testing and unstable package trees? Yes for installers, netinstallers, stable, testing and unstable. > Thanks for any comments, > Rory > > p.s. > Our standard environment includes: > > Apache 1.3x/Apache 2.x > PHP4 > Python 2.3/2.4 including all standard modules > Perl including all standard modules > Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian > source packages myself) > Exim4 > screen > netfilter/iptables > etc. > > One possible configuration we are looking for is as below: > > Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, > Up to 3x PCI-X,S-ATA Raid,2x Gigabit LAN > Chipset: AMD-8131 > Info : 5 x PCI (Total); 1x PCI-X for 1U and 3x PCI-X for > 2U; > Graphics Slot = None > Ports : 2xUSB V2.0 [Rear],PS/2 Kb, Mouse,Serial,Parallel > Maximum: RAM 16GB using 8 x 2GB > On-board Graphics : Integrated ATI 8MB Rage XL > Std HDD Controller : IDE UDMA 100 (Primary & Secondary > On-board SCSI : None > On-board RAID : S-ATA Raid (Raid 0, 1, 10, 4 drives) Silicon Image > 3114 Last I checked the 3114 was not very well supported, although that has hopefully improved by now. It is of course software raid only so you are better of pretending it is just a SATA controller and using MD software raid if you want raid at all. > On-board LAN : 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet Are those the tg3 ones? Is there still an issue with firmware in driver without source for those or am I confusing them with something else? > On-board Audio : None > CPU: 2 x AMD Opteron 242 1.6GHz (2-way) - 1MB Cache > RAM: 2,048 MB Total using 4 x 512MB PC3200 DDR Registered > ECC > (Use Only In Pairs) > Chassis: 2U C215S, 8x H-Swap SCSI Bays, Slim CD and FD bays, > 660mm, 2x 64bit PCI, 510W (Black) > Rail Kit : Telescopic Rail Kit included with case > RAID Controller: LSI MegaRaid 320-1, 64 Bit PCI, Ultra320, 64mb, > Single channel, Raid levels 0,1,3,5,10 I think the LSI cards are supported, although I have never worked with them. > SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The high prices and lousy performance I got from IBMs 15k rpm scsi drives and raid controller a few years ago while spending a ton of money just makes me not interested anymore. SATA makes much more sense to me. > Ethernet : 1 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet > on-board motherboard Repeat of above I assume. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Hi Nathan On 19/06/05, Nathan Dragun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > Everything on your list is available as far as I'm aware, don't know > about the postgresql though. You have to realize that its much easier > than most to bring the standard x86 packages over since they use the > same execution structure. (I think I worded that right, my brain feels > fried right now.) Many thanks for your comments here. Makes it seem simple! ... > > Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, > >Up to 3x PCI-X,S-ATA Raid,2x Gigabit LAN > Actually, I run the S2882UG3NR and have run it almost since day 1 of the > x86_64 debian days; works flawlessly. Tyan makes a great motherboard > too. Unlike most companies who will put out a motherboard and put out > random fixes for flaws, these guys actually go back and meticulously > update their supported hardware so that you really do get the most for > your money. Yes, I've heard great things about the Tyan boards. Many thanks for your comments, they are much appreciated. Many thanks Rory -- Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
El lun, 20-06-2005 a las 00:30 +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange escribió: > How hard is it to use Debian AMD64? > > I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit > machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple > ibooks too. All of our machines run stable + a few things from testing + > occasionally something from unstable. > > We are getting ready to purchase a machine for a web application > prototype. I won't go into the nitty gritty of what the machine is to be > used for, but suffice it to say that we want good Postgresql 8.x read > and write performance and enquiries on the postgres list brought us > here. > > Basically, I'm keen not to make a lot of work for our team by supporting > unusual hardware. However, we are keen to experience the benefits of > using 64bit! Does Debian AMD64 have installers, eg netinstallers? Does > AMD64 have stable, testing and unstable package trees? > I'm using a server (opteron) with a batch java app and postgresql The perfomance is optimal, better than Xeon and P IV I'm using sarge and it's very stable (no problem reported for the last 4 months) and the developers of the app are very satisfied I'd installed at first time postgres 7.4 and later I'd compiled a 8.0 whitout problem I hope this help you > Thanks for any comments, you'r wellcome > Rory > > p.s. > Our standard environment includes: > > Apache 1.3x/Apache 2.x > PHP4 > Python 2.3/2.4 including all standard modules > Perl including all standard modules > Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian > source packages myself) > Exim4 > screen > netfilter/iptables > etc. > > One possible configuration we are looking for is as below: > > Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, > Up to 3x PCI-X,S-ATA Raid,2x Gigabit LAN > Chipset: AMD-8131 > Info : 5 x PCI (Total); 1x PCI-X for 1U and 3x PCI-X for > 2U; > Graphics Slot = None > Ports : 2xUSB V2.0 [Rear],PS/2 Kb, Mouse,Serial,Parallel > Maximum: RAM 16GB using 8 x 2GB > On-board Graphics : Integrated ATI 8MB Rage XL > Std HDD Controller : IDE UDMA 100 (Primary & Secondary > On-board SCSI : None > On-board RAID : S-ATA Raid (Raid 0, 1, 10, 4 drives) Silicon Image > 3114 > On-board LAN : 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet > On-board Audio : None > CPU: 2 x AMD Opteron 242 1.6GHz (2-way) - 1MB Cache > RAM: 2,048 MB Total using 4 x 512MB PC3200 DDR Registered > ECC > (Use Only In Pairs) > Chassis: 2U C215S, 8x H-Swap SCSI Bays, Slim CD and FD bays, > 660mm, 2x 64bit PCI, 510W (Black) > Rail Kit : Telescopic Rail Kit included with case > RAID Controller: LSI MegaRaid 320-1, 64 Bit PCI, Ultra320, 64mb, > Single channel, Raid levels 0,1,3,5,10 > SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 > Ethernet : 1 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet > on-board motherboard > > -- > Rory Campbell-Lange > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- Angel Claudio Alvarez Usuario Linux Registrado 143466 GPG Public Key en http://pgp.mit.edu key fingerprint = 3AED D95B 7E2D E954 61C8 F505 1884 473C FC8C 8AC4 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Advice sought on moving to AMD64
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: How hard is it to use Debian AMD64? Hard to use? Wouldn't say hard at all, its like any other OS now. Easy to install in one shot now. Our standard environment includes: Apache 1.3x/Apache 2.x PHP4 Python 2.3/2.4 including all standard modules Perl including all standard modules Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian source packages myself) Exim4 screen netfilter/iptables etc. Everything on your list is available as far as I'm aware, don't know about the postgresql though. You have to realize that its much easier than most to bring the standard x86 packages over since they use the same execution structure. (I think I worded that right, my brain feels fried right now.) One possible configuration we are looking for is as below: Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, Up to 3x PCI-X,S-ATA Raid,2x Gigabit LAN Chipset: AMD-8131 Info : 5 x PCI (Total); 1x PCI-X for 1U and 3x PCI-X for 2U; Graphics Slot = None Ports : 2xUSB V2.0 [Rear],PS/2 Kb, Mouse,Serial,Parallel Maximum: RAM 16GB using 8 x 2GB On-board Graphics : Integrated ATI 8MB Rage XL Std HDD Controller : IDE UDMA 100 (Primary & Secondary On-board SCSI : None On-board RAID : S-ATA Raid (Raid 0, 1, 10, 4 drives) Silicon Image 3114 On-board LAN : 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet On-board Audio : None CPU: 2 x AMD Opteron 242 1.6GHz (2-way) - 1MB Cache RAM: 2,048 MB Total using 4 x 512MB PC3200 DDR Registered ECC (Use Only In Pairs) Chassis: 2U C215S, 8x H-Swap SCSI Bays, Slim CD and FD bays, 660mm, 2x 64bit PCI, 510W (Black) Rail Kit : Telescopic Rail Kit included with case RAID Controller: LSI MegaRaid 320-1, 64 Bit PCI, Ultra320, 64mb, Single channel, Raid levels 0,1,3,5,10 SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 Ethernet : 1 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet on-board motherboard Actually, I run the S2882UG3NR and have run it almost since day 1 of the x86_64 debian days; works flawlessly. Tyan makes a great motherboard too. Unlike most companies who will put out a motherboard and put out random fixes for flaws, these guys actually go back and meticulously update their supported hardware so that you really do get the most for your money. So in short its a piece of cake. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Advice sought on moving to AMD64
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64? I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple ibooks too. All of our machines run stable + a few things from testing + occasionally something from unstable. We are getting ready to purchase a machine for a web application prototype. I won't go into the nitty gritty of what the machine is to be used for, but suffice it to say that we want good Postgresql 8.x read and write performance and enquiries on the postgres list brought us here. Basically, I'm keen not to make a lot of work for our team by supporting unusual hardware. However, we are keen to experience the benefits of using 64bit! Does Debian AMD64 have installers, eg netinstallers? Does AMD64 have stable, testing and unstable package trees? Thanks for any comments, Rory p.s. Our standard environment includes: Apache 1.3x/Apache 2.x PHP4 Python 2.3/2.4 including all standard modules Perl including all standard modules Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian source packages myself) Exim4 screen netfilter/iptables etc. One possible configuration we are looking for is as below: Motherboard: Dual AMD Opteron,[X2881G2NR],AMD8131, Up to 3x PCI-X,S-ATA Raid,2x Gigabit LAN Chipset: AMD-8131 Info : 5 x PCI (Total); 1x PCI-X for 1U and 3x PCI-X for 2U; Graphics Slot = None Ports : 2xUSB V2.0 [Rear],PS/2 Kb, Mouse,Serial,Parallel Maximum: RAM 16GB using 8 x 2GB On-board Graphics : Integrated ATI 8MB Rage XL Std HDD Controller : IDE UDMA 100 (Primary & Secondary On-board SCSI : None On-board RAID : S-ATA Raid (Raid 0, 1, 10, 4 drives) Silicon Image 3114 On-board LAN : 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet On-board Audio : None CPU: 2 x AMD Opteron 242 1.6GHz (2-way) - 1MB Cache RAM: 2,048 MB Total using 4 x 512MB PC3200 DDR Registered ECC (Use Only In Pairs) Chassis: 2U C215S, 8x H-Swap SCSI Bays, Slim CD and FD bays, 660mm, 2x 64bit PCI, 510W (Black) Rail Kit : Telescopic Rail Kit included with case RAID Controller: LSI MegaRaid 320-1, 64 Bit PCI, Ultra320, 64mb, Single channel, Raid levels 0,1,3,5,10 SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320 Ethernet : 1 2 x Broadcom 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet on-board motherboard -- Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
