Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... x86_64, not x86-64 ... > http://kerneltrap.org/node/2466 > I give up. But I still like x86_64 better. They're synonymous. The underscore variant exists because some software likes that better, as you noted. The same idea exists in plenty of places. For example, in a popular Linux distribution, although the company was named "Red Hat Software", the directory on the CD was "RedHat". ;-) Although I do like the idea of calling it "70"... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On Jul 9, 2007, at 17:44, Jarod Wilson wrote: > There are good reasons for _ instead of -, from a programming > standpoint. Heh, that's funny, I hadn't thought of that. We could just call the architecture '70' and be obtuse about it. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in debian/ubuntu/derivatives... > well, dumb and confusing for end-users who don't know any better (as > evidenced by the existence of this thread). Blame Intel. Intel *insisted*, *at length*, *loudly*, that Itanium, dubbed "IA-64", was the wave of the future, and that IA-32 was a dead end. Given the "IA-64" moniker being so similar to "x86-64", and given that AMD was supposedly the only one doing that stuff, I think using "AMD64" to differentiate from "IA-64" is very reasonable. So that's what Debian did. When Intel changed their tune, Debian decided they weren't about to rename an entire target architecture in their build tree just because Intel had its corporate head up its corporate ass, and I don't blame them. (Ubuntu follows suit because it's derived from Debian.) I almost (*almost*) wish Intel had made good on their threats to kill x86. They've done little but confuse this whole situation considerably, while stealing credit from AMD. Intel also killed the DEC Alpha in the process, which is just a damn shame. It would have been nice to have Intel get their comeuppance. But that would just replace Intel-dominance with AMD-dominance, and that would be just as unhealthy in the long run. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I seem to recall amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation
> was then announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went
> with amd64 to differentiate more.
Yah, I believe AMD started out calling it x86-64. AMD says x86-64
is the generic name, while AMD64 is AMD's "implementation" of x86-64.
Doubtless more importantly to AMD, AMD64 can be trademarked. It's
like "tissue" vs "Kleenex"; "tissue" and "x86" are generic; "Kleenex"
and "AMD64" are trademarks.
DEC did the same thing when they invented the "Alpha" chip. "Alpha"
is too generic a name to be trademarked. "AXP" could be trademarked,
so DEC renamed the "Alpha" to "AXP". But that was such a crappy name,
and "Alpha" was uber-cool, so *nobody* used "AXP" except DEC marketing
weenies. Eventually DEC gave in and went back to calling it "Alpha"
(preferably with a trademarkable BiCapitalization, like
"AlphaServer"). The present situation is a bit different in that
"AMD64" actually sounds cooler than "x86-64" IMO, but otherwise, I
believe it's the same idea.
Anyway, for a long time (years), Intel kept saying that x86 was
dead, and IA-64 (Itanium) was a wonderful new set of clothes for an
emperor to wear. They insisted AMD's x86-64 design was the Wrong
Thing. A lot of people took Intel at their word (or at least decided
Intel deserved to be believed), and so took to calling it "AMD64".
Nobody wanted IA-64. Everyone wanted Yet Another extension to x86.
AMD was giving that to people, and Intel was not. Intel was in
serious danger of loosing the entire mainstream microprocessor market
-- which would likely have gone down as the biggest corporate blunder
in human history. This was surprising to a lot of people (myself
included), since Intel's very market dominance was built on extending
x86 over and over again. You'd think they'd recognize a good thing
when they had it.
Eventually Intel gave in, and added x86-64 extensions to their
chips, calling it "EM64T" ("Extended Memory 64-bit Technology" or some
such horsesh*it). They were still hoping IA-64 would take off at that
point. Instead, IA-64 went the other direction, and the EM64T sold
like crazy. Intel finally stole their bandwagon back from AMD, and
started to push x86 as the future again. They re-re-re-named the
extensions "Intel 64". (Which everyone agrees is way too similar to
IA-64.)
Finally, the contraction "x64" seems to be getting quite popular,
especially in enthusiast circles.
In summary:
x86 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 8086 (circa 1979)
i386 = Generic term for anything compatible with Intel 80386
x86-32 = Generic term synonymous with "i386"
x86-64 = Generic term for 64-bit extensions (first by AMD) to i386
x64 = Generic term synonymous with "x86-64"
IA-32 = Intel semi-generic term, synonymous with "i386"
IA-64 = Intel semi-generic term; Itanium; dead end
AMD64 = AMD trademark for their 64-bit extensions to i386
EM64T = Old Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64
Intel 64 = New Intel trademark for their clone of AMD64
Are we sufficiently confused yet?
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On Monday 09 July 2007 14:46:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- Original message -- > From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is > > > still used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-) > > > > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall > > amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then > > announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with > > amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes > > a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both > > Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. > > It only seems incorrect if you *AREN'T* AMD :-) They can't license > something called x86-64 because it's too generic, and, oh yeah, Intel owns > "x86" The official explaination from AMD is here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2003/08/msg00031.html Hey now, just because its from an @amd.com email address doesn't necessarily make it official or correct. :) Granted, this guy's title appears to be "Open Source Relations Manager", but I still recall things differently -- that AMD64 was originally dubbed x86_64, not x86-64, then Intel came to market with their version, which they dubbed x86-64. I swear I'm not crazy, but of course, I'm having trouble finding data to back up this claim... May have just been that in the kernel that it was decided to call it x86_64 first... http://kerneltrap.org/node/2466 I give up. But I still like x86_64 better. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On Monday 09 July 2007 14:56:51 Chip Marshall wrote: > On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall > > amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then > > announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with > > amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes > > a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both > > Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. > > To make matters worse, according to Wikipedia[1], Intel now wants us to > call their implementation Intel 64 rather than EM64T or x86-64. To me, this > just seem to be a bad move, Intel 64 is too close to IA64. Ew. Yeah, that's el stupido. > x86_64 or x86-64 (_ vs - be damned) seems like the best choice for a > manufacturer independant designation to me. There are good reasons for _ instead of -, from a programming standpoint. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
-- Original message -- From: Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I just found these: > > $ apt-cache search em64 > > kernel-image-2.6-em64t-p4 - Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on \ > Intel EM64T systems - transition package > kernel-image-2.6-em64t-p4-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.6\ > on Intel EM64T SMP systems - transition package Yes. That is correct. They are just transitional packages, though. They are not full kernel packages. The point to linux-image-2.6-amd64-latest C-Ya, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall amd64 > being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then announced as > x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with amd64 to > differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes a lot more > sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both Intel and AMD > 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. To make matters worse, according to Wikipedia[1], Intel now wants us to call their implementation Intel 64 rather than EM64T or x86-64. To me, this just seem to be a bad move, Intel 64 is too close to IA64. x86_64 or x86-64 (_ vs - be damned) seems like the best choice for a manufacturer independant designation to me. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Intel_64 -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
-- Original message -- From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is still > > used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-) > > ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall amd64 > being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then announced as > x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with amd64 to > differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes a lot more > sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both Intel and AMD > 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. It only seems incorrect if you *AREN'T* AMD :-) They can't license something called x86-64 because it's too generic, and, oh yeah, Intel owns "x86" The official explaination from AMD is here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2003/08/msg00031.html C-Ya, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On Monday 09 July 2007 14:22:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -- Original message -- > From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in > > debian/ubuntu/derivatives... well, dumb and confusing for end-users who > > don't know any better (as evidenced by the existence of this thread). > > > > I presume Debian jumped on building 64-bit packages for the AMD64 > > architecture before Intel announced their 64-bit x86-compatible chips, > > and decided to call the packages amd64. The lack of planning and > > foresight there is amusing. Unless of course its an intentional F-U to > > Intel... In which case, its amusing in a different way, but still stupid > > if you care about end-users. > > > > (Nb: Red Hat and SUSE generally use x86_64 as the arch for AMD64 and > > EM64T alike) > > Debian has this to say on the matter: > https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html# >id250846 > > The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is still > used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-) ...only that seems in correct, from my recollection. I seem to recall amd64 being called x86_64 originally. Intel's implementation was then announced as x86-64. (note the _ vs. the - ). After that, AMD went with amd64 to differentiate more. But in any case, I still think x86_64 makes a lot more sense than amd64 for the arch tag on stuff that runs on both Intel and AMD 64-bit x86-compatible architectures. -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > It may be unified with options in the kernel config. I was looking > through the package archives, and I'm not seeing any kernels listed > as em64. I see plenty that are amd64, though. I'm downloading the > kernel source now to see what the configuration options are. I just found these: $ apt-cache search em64 kernel-image-2.6-em64t-p4 - Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on \ Intel EM64T systems - transition package kernel-image-2.6-em64t-p4-smp - Linux kernel image for version 2.6\ on Intel EM64T SMP systems - transition package -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
-- Original message -- From: Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > amd64 = em64 = x86-64[1], I believe it's generally referred to as amd64 > > because AMD beat Intel to market with a widely used x86 compatible 64-bit > > CPU. > > > > [1] for certain values of "=" > > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in debian/ubuntu/derivatives... > well, dumb and confusing for end-users who don't know any better (as > evidenced by the existence of this thread). > > I presume Debian jumped on building 64-bit packages for the AMD64 > architecture > before Intel announced their 64-bit x86-compatible chips, and decided to call > the packages amd64. The lack of planning and foresight there is amusing. > Unless of course its an intentional F-U to Intel... In which case, its > amusing in a different way, but still stupid if you care about end-users. > > (Nb: Red Hat and SUSE generally use x86_64 as the arch for AMD64 and EM64T > alike) Debian has this to say on the matter: https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id250846 The jist is, it used to be x86-64, then it was amd64, but x86_64 is still used. Now doesn't that just clear everything up? :-) C-Ya, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in debian/ubuntu/derivatives... > well, dumb and confusing for end-users who don't know any better (as > evidenced by the existence of this thread). And evidently even for those (like me :) who *should*! Oy... -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in debian/ubuntu/derivatives... > well, dumb and confusing for end-users who don't know any better (as > evidenced by the existence of this thread). > I presume Debian jumped on building 64-bit packages for the AMD64 architecture > before Intel announced their 64-bit x86-compatible chips, and decided to call > the packages amd64. The lack of planning and foresight there is amusing. > Unless of course its an intentional F-U to Intel... In which case, its > amusing in a different way, but still stupid if you care about end-users. > (Nb: Red Hat and SUSE generally use x86_64 as the arch for AMD64 and EM64T > alike) amd64 was the original name of the kernel arch for AMD chips, which is why others inherited this naming convention. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On Monday 09 July 2007 13:08:10 Chip Marshall wrote: > On 7/9/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? > > > > Well, who makes the Xeon? I'd go with the kernel for that chipset. > > > > Hint: AMD does not make the Xeon ;) > >iaXX stands for Intel Architecture where the XX is number of > > bits... > > As I understand it, the Intel Xeon 64 bit CPUs are EM64T, not IA64. The > only IA64 CPU I know of is the Itanium. An AMD64 kernel should be > appropriate on an EM64 machine. To the best of my knowledge, an IA64 kernel > won't work at all. Correct. Not even close. > amd64 = em64 = x86-64[1], I believe it's generally referred to as amd64 > because AMD beat Intel to market with a widely used x86 compatible 64-bit > CPU. > > [1] for certain values of "=" I find the use of 'amd64' for package arch in debian/ubuntu/derivatives... well, dumb and confusing for end-users who don't know any better (as evidenced by the existence of this thread). I presume Debian jumped on building 64-bit packages for the AMD64 architecture before Intel announced their 64-bit x86-compatible chips, and decided to call the packages amd64. The lack of planning and foresight there is amusing. Unless of course its an intentional F-U to Intel... In which case, its amusing in a different way, but still stupid if you care about end-users. (Nb: Red Hat and SUSE generally use x86_64 as the arch for AMD64 and EM64T alike) -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
As I understand it, Intel was all about ditching the x86 ISA with the Itanium and IA64 ISA. However, AMD's 64-bit extension to x86 spoiled their plans and forced them to take that path. Basically, potential customers saw two paths: 1. Entirely new ISA that none of our products are ready for. 2. Extension to existing ISA that our products are already working on and can be updated as needed to support the new features. It's no surprise that AMD won that battle. :) On 7/9/07, Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/9/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? > > Well, who makes the Xeon? I'd go with the kernel for that chipset. > > Hint: AMD does not make the Xeon ;) >iaXX stands for Intel Architecture where the XX is number of bits... As I understand it, the Intel Xeon 64 bit CPUs are EM64T, not IA64. The only IA64 CPU I know of is the Itanium. An AMD64 kernel should be appropriate on an EM64 machine. To the best of my knowledge, an IA64 kernel won't work at all. amd64 = em64 = x86-64[1], I believe it's generally referred to as amd64 because AMD beat Intel to market with a widely used x86 compatible 64-bit CPU. [1] for certain values of "=" -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? > > Well, who makes the Xeon? I'd go with the kernel for that chipset. > > Hint: AMD does not make the Xeon ;) >iaXX stands for Intel Architecture where the XX is number of bits... As I understand it, the Intel Xeon 64 bit CPUs are EM64T, not IA64. The only IA64 CPU I know of is the Itanium. An AMD64 kernel should be appropriate on an EM64 machine. To the best of my knowledge, an IA64 kernel won't work at all. amd64 = em64 = x86-64[1], I believe it's generally referred to as amd64 because AMD beat Intel to market with a widely used x86 compatible 64-bit CPU. [1] for certain values of "=" -- Chip Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kyzoku.2bithacker.net/ GCM/IT d+(-) s+:++ a26>? C++ UB$ P+++$ L- E--- W++ N@ o K- w O M+ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+@ R@ tv@ b++@ DI D+(-) G++ e>++ h>++ r-- y? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I have a bunch of fairly high-end servers, all with dual dual-core > > Xeon processors. Xeon's are supposed to be 64-bit processors, but > > they are all running i386 kernels. I want to download the > > appropriate Debian distribution for these boxes to enable 64-bit > > processing. Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? > Well, who makes the Xeon? I'd go with the kernel for that chipset. > Hint: AMD does not make the Xeon ;) >iaXX stands for Intel Architecture where the XX is number of bits... And when the image won't get past post, download the amd64 and ponder how Itanium isn't x86 compatible. :-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I have a bunch of fairly high-end servers, all with dual dual-core > Xeon processors. Xeon's are supposed to be 64-bit processors, but > they are all running i386 kernels. I want to download the > appropriate Debian distribution for these boxes to enable 64-bit > processing. Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? Well, who makes the Xeon? I'd go with the kernel for that chipset. Hint: AMD does not make the Xeon ;) iaXX stands for Intel Architecture where the XX is number of bits... -- Seeya, Paul ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Thomas Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > They unified the em64 and amd64 *kernel*? > > Last I'd checked, they use the amd64 distributions, but there where > > different kernel optimizations between amd64 and em64 kernel options. > It may be unified with options in the kernel config. I was looking through > the package > archives, and I'm not seeing any kernels listed as em64. I see plenty that > are amd64, > though. I'm downloading the kernel source now to see what the configuration > options are. The old package was kernel-image-2.6-em64t-p4. It is now listed as a transitional package, so I assume they did merge the two kernels together at some point. Need to go look at my machines and see what they're using for a kernel now. lol -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 07/09/2007 12:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is good to know! I'm not concerned about the updating, since anything > that is 32-bit will be packages that we build ourselves. It will make the > conversion from 32-bit to 64-bit a bit easier if we run the existing 32-bit > apps that we wrote on a 64-bit system while the updating to 64-bit apps goes > on in the backround. > There's a bunch of standard libraries that come with ia32-libs that you should install first. That will probably take care of most of your compatibility issues. I had a few other libraries that I needed and I could install those using the dpkg hack mentioned earlier. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
-- Original message -- From: Mark Komarinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > As others have said, you want the amd64 version. The kernels are > unified now, so the same kernel will work on an amd64 or em64t system. > Same as all other applications. > > If you have a need for running 32-bit apps, I *highly* recommend you get > the 32-bit library package and install it under /emul/ia32-linux (dpkg > -X foo.deb /emul/ia32-linux ; ldconfig) as you'll be able to then run > 32-bit apps without requiring a chroot environment. It makes updating a > bit harder, but I think it's worth it. This is good to know! I'm not concerned about the updating, since anything that is 32-bit will be packages that we build ourselves. It will make the conversion from 32-bit to 64-bit a bit easier if we run the existing 32-bit apps that we wrote on a 64-bit system while the updating to 64-bit apps goes on in the backround. Thanks, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
-- Original message -- From: "Thomas Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 7/9/07, Mark Komarinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As others have said, you want the amd64 version. The kernels are > > unified now, so the same kernel will work on an amd64 or em64t system. > > Same as all other applications. > > They unified the em64 and amd64 *kernel*? > > Last I'd checked, they use the amd64 distributions, but there where > different kernel optimizations between amd64 and em64 kernel options. It may be unified with options in the kernel config. I was looking through the package archives, and I'm not seeing any kernels listed as em64. I see plenty that are amd64, though. I'm downloading the kernel source now to see what the configuration options are. Thanks, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 07/09/2007 11:52 AM, Thomas Charron wrote: > On 7/9/07, Mark Komarinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As others have said, you want the amd64 version. The kernels are >> unified now, so the same kernel will work on an amd64 or em64t system. >> Same as all other applications. > > They unified the em64 and amd64 *kernel*? > > Last I'd checked, they use the amd64 distributions, but there where > different kernel optimizations between amd64 and em64 kernel options. > This happened about 2.6.17 (on Debian anyway). I haven't checked, but I assume the kernel figures out which CPU you have and changes things accordingly. The differences are minor, as I did have 2.6.(<17) amd64 kernels running on em64t systems without problems. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Mark Komarinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As others have said, you want the amd64 version. The kernels are > unified now, so the same kernel will work on an amd64 or em64t system. > Same as all other applications. They unified the em64 and amd64 *kernel*? Last I'd checked, they use the amd64 distributions, but there where different kernel optimizations between amd64 and em64 kernel options. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 07/09/2007 11:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi All, > > I have a bunch of fairly high-end servers, all with dual dual-core Xeon > processors. Xeon's are supposed to be 64-bit processors, but they are all > running i386 kernels. I want to download the appropriate Debian distribution > for these boxes to enable 64-bit processing. Do I need the ia64, the amd64, > or something else? > As others have said, you want the amd64 version. The kernels are unified now, so the same kernel will work on an amd64 or em64t system. Same as all other applications. If you have a need for running 32-bit apps, I *highly* recommend you get the 32-bit library package and install it under /emul/ia32-linux (dpkg -X foo.deb /emul/ia32-linux ; ldconfig) as you'll be able to then run 32-bit apps without requiring a chroot environment. It makes updating a bit harder, but I think it's worth it. -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, Michael ODonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux Those links aren't really clear as to answer the question, tho. ;-) -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
On 7/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > I have a bunch of fairly high-end servers, all with dual dual-core Xeon > processors. Xeon's > are supposed to be 64-bit processors, but they are all running i386 kernels. > I want to > download the appropriate Debian distribution for these boxes to enable 64-bit > processing. > Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? amd64 is the correct distro to use, however, you'll want to dump the amd64 kernel and install the EM64 kernel. The EM64 kernel is optimized for the Intel x86 64 chips. ia64 is specifically for Itanium, which is a completely different architecture. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon 64-bit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Linux ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Xeon 64-bit?
Hi All, I have a bunch of fairly high-end servers, all with dual dual-core Xeon processors. Xeon's are supposed to be 64-bit processors, but they are all running i386 kernels. I want to download the appropriate Debian distribution for these boxes to enable 64-bit processing. Do I need the ia64, the amd64, or something else? TIA, Kenny ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Xeon
Kenneth E. Lussier wrote: This is a fairly dumb question, but can anyone tell me if a Xeon CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit? I am going to be doing some development work on dual xeon servers, and I don't know if I need the ia64 version of Debian, or the ia32 version. I know that the Xeon has been classified in some of the stuff that I read as "ia32e", but that doesn't do me any good as far as choosing the correct distribution... I suppose this is what I get for ignoring modern hardware :-) 64-bit Not a dumb question. I'm using one for my primary desktop system and I wasn't sure. (I thought it was, but I'd forgotten.) I never use it for other than 32-bit compatibility at present. -- Dan Jenkins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Rastech Inc., Bedford, NH, USA --- 1-603-206-9951 *** Technical Support for over a Quarter Century ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Xeon
You should probably confine yourself to IA32 processors since the vast majority of Xeons you will encounter will be strictly IA32. -Alex - Original Message - From: "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:20 PM Subject: Xeon ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Xeon
To be a bit more specific, Intel calls their extended 64 bit technology EM64T. So you need a Xeon processor with the EM64T extensions to have a 64 bit capable processor. Like the AMD 64/Opteron processors, the extended Xeon is expected to be 100% IA32 compatible. -Alex http://www.intel.com/business/bss/products/server/64-bit/index.htm?iid=hwd_64bitpage+64bit_rc2&; - Original Message - From: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:36 PM Subject: Re: Xeon > The IA64 architecture refers to the Itanium processors. The IA32 > architecture would cover most Xeon processors although there is a 64 bit > extended model that has an almost identical instruction set to the AMD-64 > family of processors. > > -Alex > > - Original Message - > From: "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:20 PM > Subject: Xeon > > > > ___ > gnhlug-discuss mailing list > gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org > http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss > ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Xeon
The IA64 architecture refers to the Itanium processors. The IA32 architecture would cover most Xeon processors although there is a 64 bit extended model that has an almost identical instruction set to the AMD-64 family of processors. -Alex - Original Message - From: "Kenneth E. Lussier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:20 PM Subject: Xeon ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Xeon
All, This is a fairly dumb question, but can anyone tell me if a Xeon CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit? I am going to be doing some development work on dual xeon servers, and I don't know if I need the ia64 version of Debian, or the ia32 version. I know that the Xeon has been classified in some of the stuff that I read as "ia32e", but that doesn't do me any good as far as choosing the correct distribution... I suppose this is what I get for ignoring modern hardware :-) TIA, Kenny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
